Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
The point is there's always going to be some ambiguity in human relations and some of the law is to arbritrate disputes. We can't write contracts like a programming language which will alway be interpreted identically.
|
Obviously we're not looking for exact be-all and end-all dead certs, but basic similarities and principles are a necessity for rational examination of our laws. Referencing my end-point in the first thread a bit while everyone thinks about murder or armed robbery and wonders how the law should deal with murderers and robbers not everyone is kept awake at night by the vagaries of tort law.
Quote:
|
My point is that this idea of the law being identical with restrictions isn't really accurate : that might apply to criminal laws, but not to other types of law.
|
But laws are descriptions of what you can't, and can by exclusion, do.
Quote:
|
I can't see this going away any time soon - even in a society with no crime or state I can easily imagine a scenario where I trip over a bit of private pavement you own and wanting some sort of compensation because you've neglected your duty to maintain it, or something like that.
|
What were you doing on my property? Your example isn't very good dude! Perhaps I went too far though and a more limited viewpoint considering just criminal law as opposed to "social order laws", which would include things such as pollution and travler's example where a cumulative effect has the potential to exist.