You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
1

[–] BlackSheepBrouhaha 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

"Good Judges" tend to die of heart attacks suddenly in their hotel room.

We need a system of law which demands consistency over this evolving legislation from the bench system.

I know you listen to TFM. He has a spat With Curt Doolittle which went over Monkey's head because he's a busy guy just trying to get consistency and incentives aligned in a functional government without overthrowing the current system, whereas Curt wants an ethnostate and legal system which could be arbitrated by a computer because it's written like a programing language. Totally different means, but the shared goal is consistency and fairness to producers over parasites and predators.

0
1

[–] 7e62ce85 [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I know you listen to TFM. He has a spat With Curt Doolittle

Kritarchy (rule by judges) which TFM criticizes is quite different from just having judges accountable to other things. Under kritarchy there is no larger nation, no national law - only local judges which has the problems TFM outline.

Same way the system of stock holders voting in a company is not the same as universal suffrage just because voting is involved.

Curt wants an ethnostate and legal system which could be arbitrated by a computer because it's written like a programing language.

A computer cannot arbitrate, or at least not in a way different to humans:

  1. Even if AI was developed to human level it would still be neural in nature making it similar to humans with potential biases and flawed logic.
  2. Rigid code could never cover enough and the one writing the rules would decide everything. I doubt people would review that and hold the true rulers accountable.

0
1

[–] BlackSheepBrouhaha 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

He doesn't specifically say that computers would judge, I meant to illustrate the strictness of his legal system and its intricate cross reference consistency. He makes the analogy that a law must be Operationally Consistent (because often laws contradict or it's impossible to comply) which reminds me of coders who can write beautiful code but it doesn't matter if it can't compile. Good law in the 21st century should be accountable to a system of checks for consistency like science. We can't know the truth, but we can check for errors. That's what a good compiler does. If there are too many errors, it doesn't run. Everything else can be fixed with a patch (tort).