zlacker

>>gruseo+(OP)
As a person with essentially libertarian views, this is a very interesting article. I may be too quick to applaud this article because it supports my own views, but I think it raises a number of legitimate concerns. In particular, I was struck by this point: In many criminal cases, the common-law requirement that a defendant must have a mens rea (ie, he must or should know that he is doing wrong) has been weakened or erased. This is a slope that we have been sliding down for some time. While ignorance of the law has generally been excluded as a defense in criminal cases, our system of laws is becoming so convoluted that it is almost impossible to know and understand the applicable law. Thus we are all at risk. It feels like we keep inching closer to a society where everyone is either a dependent of the state, or at risk of becoming one through regulation and/or prosecution.

>>Alex63+46
Yea, I would generally agree with you. The problems of the law is that it's largely made and enforced in a arbitrary and over-complicated way.

On a startup side, there is actually is a big difference between common law (e.g. Anglo) and civil law (e.g. Franco) systems - with common law being more advantageous to entrepreneurship because of the reduced risk of arbitrary laws - unlike precedence in common law systems.

PDF: http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/eblj/issues/volume1/number2/Smith.p...

>>nickpi+S6
Are you saying you think common law is more advantageous than civil law, or vice versa? You said "common law" on both sides of your sentence.

I would agree that common law is more advantageous, because stare decisis ensures that the continuity of existing law is maintained, and that even new statute law must be interpreted in a way consistent with the existing system of law. Civil law, which relies entirely on statutes, allows legislatures much more leeway to make sweeping, arbitrary changes.