Legal Issues Not Directed at Anyone in Particular

[Ian Plätschisch]

What Talossa needs - if we ever at all about law, the concept of good government, and the administration of both - is a total and utter rewriting of both documents, in sync and without compromise.

I am exploring the possibility to form a collaborative committee

The only way both of these can be true at once is if your "collaborative committee" is in fact not collaborative but is in fact a group of secretaries taking orders from you. Whenever multiple people are working on something there must be some degree of not getting exactly what you want.

I am also not sure I trust you to be at the helm of rewriting all of our laws given that a lot of the problems you are complaining about were introduced by legislation you wrote.

[Ian Plätschisch]

The 2017 "Still Into This" version of the OrgLaw was the result of a thousand compromises. It comes from the right place, but its authors' desire to keep the peace (and their collective lack of time to commit a thousand professional hours into it) has produced a broken OrgLaw.

Wrong.

I actually formatted the entire thing myself and only made some minor changes at the end based on other's feedback. I also assure you that if a problem exists now, it almost certainly existed in the previous version too, so we did not "break" anything. I can upload my annotated version of the pre-2019 Organic Law I used to make the new one, if you would like. You will see that all I did was to reorganize and take out things that weren't important enough. By no means is it perfect, but if anything the problems that exist are now a lot easier to even notice in the first place, and these problems can be fixed.

Also, I'm not sure if you were around for this, but we tried completely rewritting the Organic Law a few years ago and it did not turn out well.

Finally, to produce an Organic Law and statute laws that are up to your standards, are you willing/able to commit "a thousand professional hours?"

[Açafat del Val]

The only way both of these can be true at once is if your "collaborative committee" is in fact not collaborative but is in fact a group of secretaries taking orders from you. Whenever multiple people are working on something there must be some degree of not getting exactly what you want.

The same can be said of you, sir.

I am also not sure I trust you to be at the helm of rewriting all of our laws given that a lot of the problems you are complaining about were introduced by legislation you wrote.

Legislation that I wrote in order to make you and others happy. What I wanted and what I wrote are two different things. If you hate the Uniform Seneschal amendment so much, put up or shut up. I have zero loyalty to the thing. Let us know how we can effectively elect a Seneschal while keeping a Monarchy, and then let's put it to a referendum.

I actually formatted the entire thing myself...

Wait, so is it okay to write a new OrgLaw by myself or not? If you did it... then surely I can, too, right? Wait a minute.

...and only made some minor changes at the end based on other's feedback. I also assure you that if a problem exists now, it almost certainly existed in the previous version too, so we did not "break" anything. I can upload my annotated version of the pre-2019 Organic Law I used to make the new one, if you would like. You will see that all I did was to reorganize and take out things that weren't important enough. By no means is it perfect, but if anything the problems that exist are now a lot easier to even notice in the first place, and these problems can be fixed.

The context is appreciated, but the fact stands: the OrgLaw is bad law.

Also, I'm not sure if you were around for this, but we tried completely rewritting the Organic Law a few years ago and it did not turn out well.

I was not. And so what? Are you saying that one failure precludes any future efforts?

If so, I will gladly use your logic to dethrone the king!

Finally, to produce an Organic Law and statute laws that are up to your standards, are you willing/able to commit "a thousand professional hours?"

Sure! Let's get to work. Do you want to work with me and others to rewrite both the OrgLaw and El Lexhatx?

[Açafat del Val]

The same thing applies to AD, by the way, who started this thread in the first place: put up or shut up.

I am going to beat that drum until my dying breath. If you want change, get involved or be quiet.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

The OrgLaw was rewritten last year, and three articles have been entirely rewritten since then already.  Speaking personally, I certainly have no wish to see the whole thing get rewritten again.  El Lexhatx been modified a lot, but that's because people keep passing laws to suit their preferences or a changing country.  Do you envision... like, a perfect statutory law that will have no need of amendment?  That's happened before in our history, although it didn't last long.

And of course, as before, I reject the idea that citizens are not allowed to comment upon or criticize the law or their elected officials unless they run for office and start fixing it themselves.  There needs to be room in our nation for vocal citizens, not just the politicians in charge and their grateful, compliant subjects.

[Ian Plätschisch]

The same can be said of you, sir.

No it cannot. I was not saying whether it is preferable for reforms to be written by a single person or a group of people; only that it cannot be both, which is what you want.

I am also not sure I trust you to be at the helm of rewriting all of our laws given that a lot of the problems you are complaining about were introduced by legislation you wrote.

Legislation that I wrote in order to make you and others happy. What I wanted and what I wrote are two different things. If you hate the Uniform Seneschal amendment so much, put up or shut up. I have zero loyalty to the thing. Let us know how we can effectively elect a Seneschal while keeping a Monarchy, and then let's put it to a referendum.

No, I'm not talking about the substance of the bill, I'm talking about the technical deficiencies. I'm not upset that you made them (they can be fixed and I wouldn't expect perfection from anyone here), but you are claiming to be able to write a technically perfect set of laws. That appears not to be the case.

I actually formatted the entire thing myself...

Wait, so is it okay to write a new OrgLaw by myself or not? If you did it... then surely I can, too, right? Wait a minute.

You are the one who wants a "collaborative committee," so you are the one contradicting yourself if you now want to write it yourself.

Also, I'm not sure if you were around for this, but we tried completely rewritting the Organic Law a few years ago and it did not turn out well.

I was not. And so what? Are you saying that one failure precludes any future efforts?

If so, I will gladly use your logic to dethrone the king!

I am simply alerting you to the fact that someone else has tried the exact same thing for the exact same reason and it did not work. If you proceed, please explain what you will do differently this time.

Finally, to produce an Organic Law and statute laws that are up to your standards, are you willing/able to commit "a thousand professional hours?"

Sure! Let's get to work. Do you want to work with me and others to rewrite both the OrgLaw and El Lexhatx?

No, because I have already been involved in four efforts to do that, with varying degrees of success, and experience tells me that fixing individual errors is the best way to go. Still Into This worked as a package deal IMO because it focused less on fixing every possible issue at once and more about simply ridding the OrgLaw of everything that didn't need to be in it and making the organization more logical.

[Éovart Andrinescù]

The same thing applies to AD, by the way, who started this thread in the first place: put up or shut up.

I am going to beat that drum until my dying breath. If you want change, get involved or be quiet.

Careful what you wish for…

[Ián Tamorán S.H.]

Gentlemen, let us not shout.

Einstein had numerous extra-marital sexual relationships. Isaac Newton was a jealous liar. Beethoven was unspeakably rude. None of those facts have any relevance to Relativity or Gravity or The Ninth Symphony. When we discuss the equations of General Relativity the moral status of their first proponent is utterly irrelevant, and scientists know this.

Similarly with laws. The persons suggesting those laws, the other actions of those persons, their rudeness or politeness or lust or sloth are in no way relevant: all that is relevant is the wording of the laws themselves. Even the intent of those laws is irrelevant - unless that intent is explicitly mentioned in those (or other) laws as part of the law itself, and not its preamble.

Debate like "You did this" "No I didn't - you got in the way" "You don't know what you're talking about" "Oh yeah? Look at such-and-such - you're incompetent" "Yah, boo, sucks" "I'm not playing your game"....  This, fellow citizens, is not worthy of us.

I would like to make the following suggestion. When we discuss past or future legislation let us be neutral - alway neutral - about who framed those laws. Let us not, in any way, comment upon those persons - even more especially if they are party to the discussion itself.  Let us remove personality from our formal discussions. Let us not say, for example, "you got this wrong in the past - you fool!", but rather "I believe that we should, in this instance, take such-and-such an action".

Well-framed laws are rather dull reading - intentionally so. Have you ever read, in full, one of those long, long software licence agreements? These do not say "if you do such-and-such you are evil and will be tortured in Hell for eternity", rather they say "such-and-such is part of this agreement between us: if this is breached then thus-and-thus will be instigated, without prejudice, governed by the laws of <national state> within whose area this contract shall be deemed to be issued"  - much more dull, but much more precise. And well-framed laws are rather dull to write, too - and need to be phrased with the same kind of precision as a computer program. (I have often thought that Legal Latin and Legislative English were precursors to Cobol, Java and HTML!).

Good parliamentary debate (certainly here, in the UK) consists of stating what the consequence of this or that clause might be, or has been, and whether this or that is consistent with such-and-such. Yes, we do, in our "Mother of Parliaments" shout at each other - but we are explicitly forbidden to make personal comments about other members of the legislature. You can say "X is mistaken about Y", but you can not say "X is lying" (and especially not "you are lying") - even though that might be what you are thinking.

I am, as I think I have said before, a scientist, and I try to use scientific reasoning at all times - tempered with an unswerving acceptance of Human Rights and Justice (both of which stand above our laws - and all other laws, too). I would urge the rest of us to do likewise.

And let us remember that many words are not always useful words. What is truly worth saying can be said succinctly.