zlacker

>>Grogna+(OP)
> The aim is not to formalise or put into code all the law, because that would make no sense, but we are interested in the law that is already executed automatically, such as the calculation of social benefits, tax or unemployment.

Can anyone explain why it's believed this "would make no sense"?

>>sublin+4h
Basically, all human knowledge is an application of either math or philosophy, and law is philosophy, so cant be modeled by math

>>samrus+Zl
> Basically, all human knowledge is an application of either math or philosophy

Philosophy is not knowledge, it's pure speculation.

> law is philosophy, so cant be modeled by math

Law is not philosophy unless it was written based on sloppy speculations. In other words, what law is, depends on how it was written, it can certainly be modeled by logic and math methods can be developed for it too.

It's nothing new, lawyers have to master logic as part of their training.

>>bigbad+7n
Modelling intent, with math, is not going to happy. Law is based around the intent of those taking actions, and understanding intent is absolutely philosophy.

>>shakna+Gn
Understanding intent is understanding interest and that's not philosophy. If it's not about interest, it's psychiatry - not philosophy either.

Besides, only a lesser part of law is about intent, the major part is about punishing and avoiding harm, finding the true facts and applying the written law to them.

Down-voting can't change the truth, we've been led by the nose for far too long.

>>bigbad+Pp
To avoid harm, you must identify intent.

To punish, you must establish intent.

Intent has been the core underiding feature of the law since the Magna Carta. To ignore or trivialise it is nothing short of advocating for the return of kings.

>>shakna+tu
> Intent has been the core underiding feature of the law since the Magna Carta.

I've already explained that intent is another word for interest - material or political, it may not be as trivial as potato chips but it's far simpler than rocket science.

> To ignore or trivialise it is nothing short of advocating for the return of kings.

Another purely speculative assertion with zero meaning or practical value.

There's no logical path from trivializing your occultist and unknowable notion if intent to the return of kings. First, you've got to start with a proof that at present there aren't any kings... but philosophy's got no proofs.

Speaking of kinks (sic), wasn't Epstein one of them? Or at least under their protection... until he wasn't, as usual.

>>bigbad+pC
If intent were so simply explained, then the High Courts across the world would serve no function - as interpreting intent is their core role.

Material interest and intent only accidentally collide. Intent cannot be defined in that manner.

Almost every person beneath a capitalist system has a material interest in wealth. That does not translate to intent to seize it.

If intent does not matter, only interest, then there is no war crime in bombing boats. There is no arguing with the government's interpretations of law, as they will have a vested interest as to how it plays out.

The "test of intent" is not a part of law to be so offhandly thrown aside.