law and philosophy

[cellio]

I sit on a board of trustees and was recently added to the bylaws committee. (Finally somebody listened to me when I said "I write precise technical specifications for a living and I'd like to help".) There are some changes we need to make this year, so the committee was charged with looking at everything. As long as we have to call a membership vote on bylaws changes anyway, the theory goes, we may as well try to address anything else that's posing problems.

I am in my element. :-) But it turns out that there are some "me against everybody else" differences in philosophy, so it's been educational all around. For example:

Me: This "examples" passage is just advice, not law. It doesn't belong.
Them: It's good advice.
Me: There should be no unnecessary words in law. This half-page doesn't accomplish anything.
Them: It's not like the difference between 15 pages and 14 is really going to matter.
Me: !!!

They explained that the intent of the actual law might not be clear; I said if not then we needed to clarify the law. They said people might still need examples; I said we were free to provide supplementary documents if anybody thought it was necessary. (Federalist papers, anybody?) Fundamentally, I believe that law should contain only what is truly necessary, with the result that it is short enough that we can expect stake-holders to read, comprehend, and remember it, and so that we leave to policy what should be covered by policy.

In the end they conceded the specific point of discussion, but I don't think we have achieved understanding. My point wasn't just to win this particular argument but to bring them around to a different way of thinking. So there is more work to be done here.

Some may remember that back when the principality of AEthelmearc was forming, I was one of the ones on the law committee arguing that our laws ought to fit on on 8.5 x 11" piece of paper in a reasonable font size, too. (For the kingdom I was willing to grant a second sheet of paper.) We lost that one, alas.

Comments

[baron-steffan.livejournal.com]

Enabling legislation: The State Board of Expectoration Abatement shall hereby be empowered to control public spitting by appropriate regulation, and shall establish such means of enforcement as they shall deem necessary.

Good Law: Whosoever shall spit into the wind on a Thursday shall be fined not less than 3 farthings of silver and 11 peppercorns.

Bad Law: No one should spit into the wind on a Thursday.

Redundant Law: The Podunksville Town Council, in agreement with the State Board, rules that people shouldn't spit into the wind on Thursdays in Podunksville.

Non-law: People should think about spitting, which is sometimes rather rude.

In the SCA, the amount of redundant law, bad law, and non-law, and the lack of understanding of the utility of enabling legislation, is all pretty amazing. I can't imagine we're unique in that.

[cellio]

Agreed, particularly about the value and under-utilization of enabling legislation. If there are sufficient checks on the system (or if the matter is unimportant enough), this is sufficient.

(Love your examples, by the way. :-) )