|
Dropped in on a friend last night and they were watching Eastenders. Phil Mitchell is Batman. 
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 16:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 02:55 |
|
|
We'll be able to have adobe houses when all of Europe is an arid desert.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 16:58
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:We'll be able to have adobe houses when all of Europe is an arid desert. This except they'll be Adobe houses and you'll have to update them every week
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 16:59
|
|
|
As long as they're the type that I can  rather than the type where you have to pay a yearly fee and never own it, because we've already tried that one with land and housing and it's p. bad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 17:01
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Are you saying that's not a sensible thing to do (insofar as you can do it without significantly damaging the usefulness of the law)? I feel like the guiding rules of your society are the last things you should be getting elitist about, and it's a long-standing movement in lawmaking. It's not about being elitest for no reason, if you're making laws to govern a specialist activity it's going to have to couched in the terminology of that activity to make sense. Medicine is a really good example of that where you're inevitably going to have laws which apply to medical professionals which interact with how they do their job, its hard to phrase those in such a way as non=medical professionals can understand them reasonably.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 17:01
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Are you saying that's not a sensible thing to do (insofar as you can do it without significantly damaging the usefulness of the law)? I feel like the guiding rules of your society are the last things you should be getting elitist about, and it's a long-standing movement in lawmaking. Simplifying language is one thing, but I think what most posters have taken against is Miftan's assertion that the laws themselves should be simplified. Laws are complex because they need to be precise, and where they are not precise they are, inevitably, unfair. A poll tax is simple. It's also hugely regressive. As an example, "children's clothes do not attract VAT" is simple. However, you then need to define what children's clothes are, and the guidance on that runs to over 3,000 (fairly clearly written) words.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 17:02
|
|
|
I know a couple of small adult daughters who get away with hardly ever paying VAT on clothing because of loopholes in that. I'm sure some journalist somewhere is furious.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 17:07
|
|
|
Dead Goon posted:Dropped in on a friend last night and they were watching Eastenders. I think Eastenders should do a Brexit special. On the 31st Oct/1st Nov, everyone on the street is HAPPY There is no drama, just everyone hugging and laughing with each other. To show what true Brexit is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 17:12
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:See also: "3D printed housing", the other big "solution" to the "problem". At best, Orlit/LPS* which have a lot of flaws but if you want to build a lot of houses fast are pretty hard to beat (just look forward to the maintenance bills), at worst literal houses made out of thermoplastic for some reason. goddamnedtwisto posted:* There's about a dozen different variations on the same basic theme of "Make reinforced concrete walls offsite, put them together onsite", with the variations mostly being how they're put together. If the joints are well-designed and properly maintained there's no reason at all why they can't last a hundred years or more, but of course they rarely are and there's no sexiness in improving that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 17:13
|
|
|
Aramoro posted:It's not about being elitest for no reason, if you're making laws to govern a specialist activity it's going to have to couched in the terminology of that activity to make sense. Medicine is a really good example of that where you're inevitably going to have laws which apply to medical professionals which interact with how they do their job, its hard to phrase those in such a way as non=medical professionals can understand them reasonably. Which again is rooted in the fact that the practice of medicine is based on the physiology of the human body which is not going to be mutable for the forseeable future, and while this incurs an inevitable divide between practicioners of it and everyone else, the only alternative is that you just don't have healthcare any more. This is not true of many things we have laws about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 17:15
|
|
|
FWIW on the "laws in simple language" thing I'm literally researching a bit of comparative law this afternoon and having a sensible chuckle to myself at how absurdly oversimplistic it is. Turns out that when you try and write something that's actually pretty complicated (by necessity) as simply as possible, people might think they understand it, but they'll be sadly disappointed when they sink a bunch of money into court fees & realise they'd accidentally put it through a wishful thinking translater (which non-lawyers literally always do btw). The French have a single sentence for what I literally wrote my thesis on. Except theirs is broader, so would probably take a couple more theses to expand on. Oh and theirs comes with an extra century or 2 of baggage on the subject that our law doesn't have. Plain language is great, but simplifying things that shouldn't be simplified is dumb. Some poo poo's complicated.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 17:16
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I know a couple of small adult daughters who get away with hardly ever paying VAT on clothing because of loopholes in that. I'll inform the Mail about this most heinous of loopholes forthwith. Also I understand the impetus for simple laws that can be understood by the average person, and I certainly think it should be a consideration, but a lot of laws are complicated for good reasons. Another reason we need experts is arguably less the laws themselves, and more that there's inevitably going to be a lot of laws in a modern society, because we need laws governing an incredible array of circumstances; this means that even if the laws are written plainly enough for someone to understand, you need a high degree of specialism and knowledge before you can actually know which laws apply in a given circumstance. Like, is making a potentially harmful or threatening communication to an airport covered by terrorism laws, regular crime laws, or communication laws? And whichever one it is, what's the most recent Act that actually covers it, or does the law from an earlier Act still apply in this case? Regrettably, we live in a society.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 17:17
|
|
|
Really can't we just prosecute any tax advisors involved? Anyone stupid enough to do it themselves would be out if luck, but advising (or hinting or whatever) things like this should abolutely be strictly illegal. I bet if the advisors were personally liable there would be a whole lot less tax evasion too. Of course doing so would hurt a lot of rich people and we can't have that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 17:21
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Which again is rooted in the fact that the practice of medicine is based on the physiology of the human body which is not going to be mutable for the forseeable future, and while this incurs an inevitable divide between practicioners of it and everyone else, the only alternative is that you just don't have healthcare any more. It quickly becomes true if you think about even simple things for even a moment though. Like with the example someone gave about VAT free children's clothing. The legislation about importing alcohol for example is all written fairly simply but it's incredibly complicated in reality when trying to work out who has to pay duty to who and when etc etc. That's why you have people who advise you on that kind of thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 17:22
|
|
|
Borrovan posted:FWIW on the "laws in simple language" thing I'm literally researching a bit of comparative law this afternoon and having a sensible chuckle to myself at how absurdly oversimplistic it is. Turns out that when you try and write something that's actually pretty complicated (by necessity) as simply as possible, people might think they understand it, but they'll be sadly disappointed when they sink a bunch of money into court fees & realise they'd accidentally put it through a wishful thinking translater (which non-lawyers literally always do btw). Yeah so that's the whole thing with the law and precedent, right? Like laws can be written simply or in a complicated fashion but you also have to look at how the law has been actually applied before in order to enforce the law consistently. And while this is a good thing to do (making sure there is consistency in how the law is enforced/interpreted) you can't expect the average Joe to be up on that kind of thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 17:22
|
|
|
Aramoro posted:It quickly becomes true if you think about even simple things for even a moment though. Like with the example someone gave about VAT free children's clothing. The legislation about importing alcohol for example is all written fairly simply but it's incredibly complicated in reality when trying to work out who has to pay duty to who and when etc etc. That's why you have people who advise you on that kind of thing. And those are an argument against the existence of a global economy under nation states. If you're going to have a society that you don't have the ability to govern fairly then maybe don't have that society.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 17:24
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:And those are an argument against the existence of a global economy under nation states. I'm still not clear what you think is unfair about laws being complicated through. I would argue that laws are as complex as they need to be and that government resources should be made available, in the form of legal aid but more so to cover all areas of law, to private individuals to help them with them. This already happens with varying quality for business related laws, your local council enterprise service will tell you whats up etc. Lots of things are complicated, not just laws, and people specialise in doing them. Aramoro fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Aug 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 17:26
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:Really can't we just prosecute any tax advisors involved? Anyone stupid enough to do it themselves would be out if luck, but advising (or hinting or whatever) things like this should abolutely be strictly illegal. IIRC it's already illegal for them to tell you how much salary to pay yourself. They all do, though, possibly sidestepping this through it being phrased as a suggestion, I dunno.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 17:28
|
|
|
I am saying that the division of society into specialities is not, in a lot of cases, a result of immutable realities of nature, and is a result of how society itself is structured to the benefit of some of those divisions and not others, and that having those divisions is inherently at odds with the existence of an equal, participatory society, and where possible you should want to restructure society to get rid of the divisions. Or more specifically: simplify tax law by getting rid of the bourgeoisie who, with their methods of wealth acquisition, are the reason most of it exists. The whole specialists to help you with other specialists bollocks is fundamentally flawed, and while in some cases it might be the only option, I think people get far too caught up in the idea that it's just the natural state of things when in fact most of it is socially constructed, not actually based in immutable material reality.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 17:30
|
|
|
WhatEvil posted:Yeah so that's the whole thing with the law and precedent, right? Like laws can be written simply or in a complicated fashion but you also have to look at how the law has been actually applied before in order to enforce the law consistently.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 17:33
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:And those are an argument against the existence of a global economy under nation states. Aramoro posted:I'm still not clear what you think is unfair about laws being complicated through. I would argue that laws are as complex as they need to be and that government resources should be made available, in the form of legal aid but more so to cover all areas of law, to private individuals to help them with them. This already happens with varying quality for business related laws, your local council enterprise service will tell you whats up etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 17:33
|
|
|
*taps head* Can't have income tax disputes if the concepts of "income" and "tax" have been rendered obsolete by implementing a global socialist state.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 17:33
|
|
|
Aramoro posted:It quickly becomes true if you think about even simple things for even a moment though. Like with the example someone gave about VAT free children's clothing. The legislation about importing alcohol for example is all written fairly simply but it's incredibly complicated in reality when trying to work out who has to pay duty to who and when etc etc. That's why you have people who advise you on that kind of thing. Everyone involved in distillation knows what distillation is, it's the process of separating the components or substances from a liquid mixture by using selective boiling and condensation. But you define it as that, and you get a bunch of smartasses going "well actually I'm freezing the mash and extracting the alcohol", "technically I'm lowering the pressure, not raising the temperature, so this isn't boiling as would be commonly understood in law", "I'm actually using a three step process involving castor oil so...". So it got rewritten as "Are you making something more alcoholic than it was before? If yes, are you doing so by any other means than the natural action of yeast on sugar? Yeah, you're doing something similar enough to distillation that you should pay spirit duty." Aramoro posted:I would argue that laws are as complex as they need to be and that government resources should be made available, in the form of legal aid but more so to cover all areas of law, to private individuals to help them with them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 17:36
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:You could govern it fairly by having the state provide guidance on the law, cooperating with the citizenry to achieve outcomes that are positive for both the individual and the collective. No I want a society where specialization is understood to be a trade off between social equality and mutuality and where it is understood that a completely atomized society where everyone is off in their own perfectly specialized, divided world is one which would be woefully unjust and incapable of acting in the common good, because there would be no concept of the common good. That these two ideals are in inherent conflict with one another, you can not have a society with the benefits without the consequences, you have to choose which whether you want both or neither. And I am skeptical also that you can solve it with "the state" because it's very clear that the state as it exists is a prime example of specialist knowledge utterly disconnecting people from each other. The people who run the state have zero loving interest or understanding of the people who live in it for that exact reason. Understanding that it's both or neither is important because believing otherwise is very much like the idea that you can make capitalism work if you just regulate it enough. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Aug 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I am saying that the division of society into specialities is not, in a lot of cases, a result of immutable realities of nature, and is a result of how society itself is structured to the benefit of some of those divisions and not others, and that having those divisions is inherently at odds with the existence of an equal, participatory society, and where possible you should want to restructure society to get rid of the divisions. This is a really poor foundation for an argument because surely being a plumber or brickie or doctor are all specialists. Everything people do that other people cannot or will not do makes you a specialist. That's the foundation of any society of any political construction surely? How do you restructure society to get rid of plumbing? I'll give you that property law is specific to our current society. But even the law surrounding murder for example is significantly complex to need specialists to understand and make the arguments for.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 17:42
|
|
|
I would suggest that being a brickie or a plumber is a form of specialization that does not sufficiently disconnect you from wider society, and also does not confer sufficient power on you, that it's something you need to be excessively worried about. Though I might suggest that getting ripped off by cowboy traders would be the equivalent here. On the one hand the knowledge produces a working shitter, on the other hand it makes it harder to know whether or not your shitter is gonna explode or collapse because the person who built it didn't care. Not the end of the world but a nice microcosm of the argument. Extend that to "being a government minister" and your shitter to "the national economy" and you get closer to my point. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Aug 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
Aramoro posted:I keep forgetting that this thread simply cannot understand the Fixed Term Parliaments Act no matter how may times it's explained, despite it being one of the simplest bit of legislation we have. That's something to consider when thinking 'Laws should be understandable', understandable by who. That's "by whom", Dr. Johnson.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 17:45
|
|
|
"Let's simplify tax law" is normally a pretty standard right wing talking point too. Normally code for "lets reduce the tax burden on rich people, by reducing the amount of tax brackets", when in reality in we should have many more of them, that extend far higher (and cover different types of income)
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 17:51
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:That's "by whom", Dr. Johnson. A system where the enforcers understand the rules but the followers don't is ripe for selective enforcement, a system where neither the enforcers nor the followers understand them is useless, and one where the only people who fully understand them are people in circles powerful enough to selectively ignore them is perverse. Midnight- posted:"Let's simplify tax law" is normally a pretty standard right wing talking point too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Extend that to "being a government minister" and your shitter to "the national economy" and you get closer to my point. This of course being in contrast to october where a government minister is going to put the national economy in your shitter ayy lmao.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 17:54
|
|
|
Aramoro posted:This is a really poor foundation for an argument because surely being a plumber or brickie or doctor are all specialists. Everything people do that other people cannot or will not do makes you a specialist. That's the foundation of any society of any political construction surely? OwlFancier posted:I would suggest that being a brickie or a plumber is a form of specialization that does not sufficiently disconnect you from wider society, and also does not confer sufficient power on you, that it's something you need to be excessively worried about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 17:55
|
|
|
I like the idea of a world where if something is written in very simple terms that only a complete drooling idiot could fail to understand, everyone would agree on what it meant. What actually exists as far as I can tell is one interpretation per reader, clustered in a semi-random pattern around the original meaning, with at least a few people who think it means the literal opposite. Cf “Thou shalt not kill,” which continues to attract surprisingly ingenious interpretations from devout Christians to this day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 17:56
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I would suggest that being a brickie or a plumber is a form of specialization that does not sufficiently disconnect you from wider society, and also does not confer sufficient power on you, that it's something you need to be excessively worried about. That's interesting because that is the opposite experience of a lot of people dealing with tradesmen. If a sparky tells you that your wiring isn't up to it and instead of rewiring the socket you need to rewire your whole house who are you to argue? If you're not sufficiently knowledgeable about building codes and or wiring. Most of our society is based on specialists trading honestly, be it your plumber or dentist etc. The laws exist to cover the situations where they do not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:OK. Your problem seems to be specifically bureaucracy (and how it's used to maintain a hierarchy), but that's really not how it comes across. I mean I'd say bureaucracy is the attempt to construct a system of nested specializations to communicate between wildly different strata of a society, and I would certainly characterise it as a pretty poor and labour intensive solution to the problem, so you should definitely look at removing the stratification where possible rather than trusting in bureaucratic solutions. Aramoro posted:That's interesting because that is the opposite experience of a lot of people dealing with tradesmen. If a sparky tells you that your wiring isn't up to it and instead of rewiring the socket you need to rewire your whole house who are you to argue? If you're not sufficiently knowledgeable about building codes and or wiring. But that's exactly my point and what I was saying earlier about medical practice, it runs on trust. And trust is fine, but the law can't make up for a lack of trust, trust is something that can only take place between proximate equals. You don't trust your boss, do you? You don't trust the government, do you? You're not, I hope, OK with trusting someone who trusts someone else who trusts someone else all the way up the chain between you and the prime minister, are you? Sure you might be give no other option but you don't want to live like that, do you? Can you afford to live like that when somewhere up that chain your trust that people care about what happens to you gets morphed into "I dunno lol cut off their medicine to win an election that's fine and burn down the planet for money while you're at it"? Society, if anything clearly does not run very well on trust, and that is in some ways the core of its dysfunction. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Aug 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 17:59
|
|
|
Tax law would be much simpler if private property was abolished. E: the problem with bureaucracy is that it creates a need for specialists outside of it to “make it simpler” which just parasite off the system and end up extracting wealth in bad ways. Abolish the private practice of tax agents etc, widely expand hmrc to cover tax advice for individual businesses directly, ensuring that you’ve got a not for profit, correctly operating labour force that isn’t beholden to reducing the tax that can be paid by businesses because they’re not in a competitive field where the “best” advisors are the ones that’ll save you the most money. Choice is antithetical to taxes. Sanitary Naptime fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Aug 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 18:01
|
|
|
Beefeater1980 posted:I like the idea of a world where if something is written in very simple terms that only a complete drooling idiot could fail to understand, everyone would agree on what it meant. Primary legislation is "Thou shalt not kill", precedent is the entire rest of the book with people killing and getting either punished or rewarded depending on what mood God's in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 18:01
|
|
|
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/21/jeremy-corbyn-divisive-broken-politics-labour-leader Good piece on Corbyn from the Guardian of all places.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 18:03
|
|
|
Party Boat posted:As an example, "children's clothes do not attract VAT" is simple. However, you then need to define what children's clothes are, and the guidance on that runs to over 3,000 (fairly clearly written) words.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 18:06
|
|
|
Mr Phillby posted:https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/21/jeremy-corbyn-divisive-broken-politics-labour-leader Phil McDuff is uniformly awesome. He's a pro twitter follow also: https://twitter.com/Mc_Heckin_Duff/status/1164221443019804678?s=20
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 18:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 02:55 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean I'd say bureaucracy is the attempt to construct a system of nested specializations to communicate between wildly different strata of a society, and I would certainly characterise it as a pretty poor and labour intensive solution to the problem, so you should definitely look at removing the stratification where possible rather than trusting in bureaucratic solutions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 18:07
|
|