[PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.

J.A. Henshaw jeff at jhenshaw.com
Fri Mar 29 09:10:28 UTC 2002


Dylan Reinhardt wrote:

>>At any rate, it should not be this hard to answer a
>>simple question.  Laws should be in black and white.
>>The courts have taken power that they should not have
>>in my opinion.
>>
> 
> Several times in the arcane legal discussion of the last few days the assertion
> has been made that laws should, by their very nature, be simple and easy
> to read.  A corrollary opinion seems to be that laws which are insufficiently
> simple are invalid.
> 
> As far as advocating for simpler laws goes, I'm all for it.  My philosophy
> of law could be expressed most simply as "fewer laws, clearer laws, stricter
> enforcement" but I don't get where the case can be made that complexity
> or obscurity actually invalidates a law.  Am I reading in here?


No,  you're reading it right.


> 
> I'd like, for example, to see us move to a tax code that was simple enough
> that any person could calculate their tax burden with a calculator.  But
> we, the people have demanded a system that acts to prod, push, and punish
> certain forms of behavior, so that's what we've got.  It sucks, but is anyone
> seriously arguing that this somehow isn't the law?


No one is arguing that it isn't the law,  but there are many 
who can show you why the income tax does not apply to the 
average American.

It is jut another example of peoples internalized truths 
being incorrect;  and exposing them to the truth usually is 
more of a study in human nature than a study of law.

Many wil balk and laugh, question your sanity and seek 
comfort from others whose belief system agrees with their 
long held "truths" rather than go learn the facts at the 
risk of shaking the walls of their intellectual 
prison/paradigm down.


> 
> The fact that the law is complex and arcane may reveal little besides the
> fact that the subject matter or domain of influence is complex and intricately
> nuanced.  Indeed, Linux users should find this point particularly easy to
> appreciate.
> 
> Many people crave operating systems with cartoon-driven, knowledge-optional
> user interfaces.  Most people I encounter have little interest in the subtler
> points of mail transport, httpd tuning, ethernet configuration, kernel optimization
> or journaling filesystems.  For the layperson, computers should simply *work*
> and not demand so much of the user.
> 
> Those of us who feel otherwise see tremendous benefit to actually understanding
> the intricate details.  After all, knowledge is power.  Being able to recognize
> the difference between the requirements of a decent word processing system
> and a high-availability web server may be obvious to us... but the fact
> that it is not obvious to the lay person does not suggest that we have simply
> *made up* terminology to lock all the non-believers out of our nifty secular
> priesthood.
> 
> I realize that OS design has no bearing on the law.  But as we shake our
> fists at a legal system too complex to describe in simple terms, isn't it
> possible that we're really reacting to the natural result of a system that
> deals with a large number of diverse and complecated interests and goals?
> 
> Federal law encompasses matters ranging from forestry to fuel economy, labor
> relations to drug manufacturing.  We can certainly have opinions about when
> and how Federal law should be applied... but there are bound to be serious
> complexities in even the most stripped-down and modest attempt at governance.
> 
> Dylan
> 
The complexities arise when the lawmakers overstep their bounds.


The constitution IS a stripped-down attempt.



-- 
Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on what they 
will have for lunch.





More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list