Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!genrad!decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!trc From: trc@houti.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: lawful and just government Message-ID: <301@houti.UUCP> Date: Tue, 14-Jun-83 11:05:00 EDT Article-I.D.: houti.301 Posted: Tue Jun 14 11:05:00 1983 Date-Received: Wed, 15-Jun-83 18:37:17 EDT Lines: 33 Response to Guy Harris, on the nature of government: How many times is it necessary to re-write a law declaring the intent of a government to forbid and punish murder? Once should be enough. There is little need for further political consideration of the question. All the laws that I consider to be proper for government CAN be done once and mostly correctly. There may be some need for adjustments, but such should not be left to a small body of men, nor to a simple majority. Only unanimous agreement of the governed people should cause the creation of laws. It is true that judges are men, but there is a vast difference between a judge that serves his own whims and one that follows the law to the letter, no matter what his personal feelings. You write of interpretation as if you thought it was some sort of "trick" by which judges are able to get around a clearly written law. Do you also see interpretation of BASIC by a computer in this light? And yet, that is a fairly good analogy - a small, fixed set of rules for interpreting all circumstances and determining the appropriate action. It is not always as simple to do with the law, but people are a lot smarter than computers. It is true that a judge might be crooked and so deliberately render a misinterpretation of the law. That can be true no matter what system of laws one has. Is such a crook more likely to get away with it in a system of a few clearly stated principles, understood by all; or in a system with a tangle of vague, contradictory, and incomprehensible laws? Tom Craver houti!trc