In an entirely different qualitative sense, this post reminded me of the short story by Kafka, Before the Law. I won’t paste the whole thing here, but it’s a really short read: https://homepage.univie.ac.at/st.mueller/kafka_english.html An article on the story: https://courses.cit.cornell.edu/hd11/BeforeTheLaw.html
Thanks for the interesting read. But, I have to say, I didn't understand it at all.
Why Law Is Law-Shaped
31–40 of 73 posts
Re: Why Law Is Law-Shaped
#32In an entirely different qualitative sense, this post reminded me of the short story by Kafka, Before the Law. I won’t paste the whole thing here, but it’s a really short read: https://homepage.univie.ac.at/st.mueller/kafka_english.html An article on the story: https://courses.cit.cornell.edu/hd11/BeforeTheLaw.html
Thanks for the interesting read. But, I have to say, I didn't understand it at all.
Re: Why Law Is Law-Shaped
#33Interesting synchronicity: I've written a patent-drafting DSL which exactly parallels this – and which is now shaping up into an "IDE" for patent drafting... Patent texts read as prose, but are actually precisely structured legal documents. The latest developments in this domain involve LLMs to create and modify patent documents, but even though the legal profession seems to have fallen all in on it, it's essentially…
> Patent texts read as prose, but are actually precisely structured legal documents. at that point why not just use something precise like a programming language? have there been efforts in that direction? genuine questions
The name is "law as code".
(My impression: various approaches; mostly academic; some small companies in the space; judging from a loose assessment wrt my career choices as a freelancer: no real business opportunity yet)
Re: Why Law Is Law-Shaped
#34>Retroactive amendments change the legal effect of provisions for a past period — an amendment published today can declare that it applies from last year. This retroactively alters the legal state at historical points in time. I don't (personally) agree with this. Laws should be seen as applying in cases where parties and actions have certain qualities. A retroactive law does not state, "This actually applied to past…
Laws come in multiple flavor.
One flavor is for stating something already very consensual in the concerned community. That gives credits to law corpus as a source of justice, so people can somehow be accustomed that law is there to foster social justice through clarified terms visible by all. As opposed to unpredictable judgment of any random citizen along their mindset of the moment.
Then they are laws to throw made up arcana on how laws work. Citizen are still supposed to believe that laws in the end are balanced systems taking many things into account, so mere citizen won't have time, interest, skill and talent to call law by themselves. While they need specialists as middle man, they can still be pretended to be grounded on accumulated wisdom of common sense and consensual underlying basis.
There are also laws, there are their for serving a specific small class in the population, and favor their interest agaisnt all others. As they are well enshrined in the larger boilerplate corpus, there is no way to distinguish them from the others. Well, sometime of course they can be downright clear about establishing de facto inequalities to serve these interests. But they can just as well be thrown in a more diffuse way. Not all law maker are equally subtle of course.
This is not a closed set, many other flavors can be identified, like, "put my name of the glorious me in the title of this law everyone and its dog will have to deal with on daily basis".
Ah, and I almost forgot the flavor that make the most sense to talk about here. Make sure you have enough laws on every matter and the rest to be able to jugulate any layman who is annoying for the dominant class. Capital sentence is not indispensable, it's enough to have enough laws so basically anyone is de facto unable to not be guilty of many things, or at least can be prosecuted until they bind to the "morale order", or suicide.
Re: Why Law Is Law-Shaped
#35> Parliament cannot restate the entire legal corpus each session. IMHO the biggest mistake. It should be like that. Because right now for mere mortal it's impossible to find out if some law or paragraph is still in effect.
The approach I take is that every law should expire after a standard, unchangeable time - probably several terms of Congress, say 6 years to account for one full Senate turnover.
Congress can just repass verbatim old laws if they wish - its already written and can be a simple, fast vote. Or we can have debate over outdated provisions like we should have.
Re: Why Law Is Law-Shaped
#36> Parliament cannot restate the entire legal corpus each session. IMHO the biggest mistake. It should be like that. Because right now for mere mortal it's impossible to find out if some law or paragraph is still in effect.
Let’s say you have tax law and the particular law is thousands of paragraphs long. You have multiple changes to the law going on at the same time (totally unrelated stuff in different parts of the law). It’s going to be really hard now because each of the 15 changes need to update its own texts as soon as any other of the proposals get changed and it’s going to affect exactly which order they are voted on etc.
Much easier to just say propasal A changes paragaraph 33 and proposal B changes paragraph 475
Re: Why Law Is Law-Shaped
#37https://www.theverge.com/podcast/917029/software-brain-ai-ba...
(fwiw I didn't think that piece hit the nail on the head even though it was generally swinging a hammer in the direction of a nail)
Re: Why Law Is Law-Shaped
#38Re: Why Law Is Law-Shaped
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes I thought at the start it was about how our expectations of how the law works are at odds with the reality So the gatekeeper is the system keeping us from Justice - mostly money, but also other less tangible barriers. In theory, everyone gets a lawyer, in practice some people can afford expensive ones. Then the end twist got me confused.
The end twist makes me think it's about an individual attempt to learn and understand the law, but I'm not sure what the inner gatekeepers would represent there. Something about how we want to understand The Law, capital letters, but then there's only systems we make ourselves and understand ourselves would feel properly Kafka, I suppose. But you think that would be mapped to journeying towards some kind of Law?
Re: Why Law Is Law-Shaped
#40> Parliament cannot restate the entire legal corpus each session. IMHO the biggest mistake. It should be like that. Because right now for mere mortal it's impossible to find out if some law or paragraph is still in effect.
Where and how? Pretty sure our Federal and State Governments here in Australia publish the current in-force law (original Act amended with all amendments) - I assumed that was normal, do they not do that elsewhere?
See for example the Telecommunications Act (1997) [1] but current version amended to October 2025 (the most recent amendment). Then you click ‘All Versions’ and you can read any of the 116 or so versions back to the original in 1997.
1. https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A05145/latest/text 2. https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A05145/latest/versions