Properly drafted English-language laws do read as code. It's like how you can describe formal logic in English: "All Americans wear hats. I am an American. Therefore I wear a hat."
I take it you're arguing for something like Lojban, though. I see two problems there. First, it's not the (de facto) national language, which infringes on one's fundamental right to read the laws of the land. Second, and probably more incurably, these types of languages don't remove the most important kinds of ambiguity in laws.
Most disputes over ambiguity in legal text do not arise from syntactic ambiguity. It's not usually confusion over what words the "not" modifies, or which "if" is nested within which. Rather, most problems arise from semantic ambiguity, i.e. the meaning of the individual words. What constitutes a "bank," exactly? What does it mean to do something "in a reasonable period of time?" If you're "bearing" arms, where exactly are you bearing them?
You might argue that the problem then comes down to defining your terms well. That's certainly a noble goal when drafting legal text. But one of the principle goals of legal drafting is to make the text flexible enough to apply to specific circumstances that the authors could not have foreseen. This, of course, is in constant tension with the need to be precise. The more precise you are, the easier it is to interpret the law, but the more likely it is that someone will find a loophole arising from the excessive narrowness of your language.
A language like Lojban won't alleviate these difficulties, unfortunately.
> First, it's not the (de facto) national language, which infringes on one's fundamental right to read the laws of the land...
Legaleese requires you to take years of law classes to even understand, and makes the same problem. I think it's more accessible to run something through a compiler...
> Legaleese requires you to take years of law classes to even understand
This is why I'm against EULAs. As a non-lawyer, it's an asymmetrical game--I have no idea what the legaleese I'm agreeing to actually means in a court.
I've never taken a law class, but I've read and understood many, many statutes and contracts. I'm sure you could too.
Does that mean all legal drafting is clear? No. But much of it is sufficiently clear for a literate person to understand. By way of example, I've chosen a passage from the Illinois criminal code, more or less at random:
"Theft of property not from the person and not exceeding $500 in value is a Class 4 felony if the theft was committed in a school or place of worship or if the theft was of governmental property."
This is a typical example of legalese. It bakes several conditions into one sentence: 1) not from the person, 2) value under $500, 3) in a school, 4) in a place of worship, 5) on government property. Most legal writing I've encountered is at roughly this level of complexity.
Certainly, there's a lot of logic packed into that one sentence. There's much more to parse out than there is in a typical newspaper sentence. But I'm willing to bet most people can read that law and understand what it means. (Not that you'd necessarily know what a Class 4 felony is. But you'd know some of the circumstances under which a theft qualifies as one.)
It might take years to become a lawyer, but I bet their are more than a few people here who have spotted an error (international or accidental) in a contract that has passed under the eyes if a lawyer or two. My wife and have caught several major errors in our time that could have cost us a lot of money. There is no substitute for a careful reading of a contract, legal training optional.
The problem is that legalese is specially designed to make meaning today out of decisions made a century ago based on laws written over 2 centuries ago which inherit from a common law framework that came to this continent about 3 centuries ago and dates back to precedents that predate the modern English language.
If we were to make everything be written in normal English, the same problem would eventually re-emerge.
I recently read Robert Caro's biography of Robert Moses. RM built most major highways and parks in NY state, and effectively became an absolute ruler in his domain. For 40 years he exercised near total control. It made me understand the political process completely different way.
For RM, the 'broken' differencing format was a feature, not a bug. It allowed him to slip though all kinds of law changes without people understanding what he was up to. The book has many, many examples of exactly this differencing format being put to use to gain power.
The point about the differencing format is more broadly true - prior to reading the book, I thought politics was about having the right ideas, and explaining them clearly. But the book compellingly argues that politics is really about obtaining and wielding power. The people who thrive in politics are more interested in power than ideas.
It is a book that is well worth reading, especially if you are an idealistic programmer (like I was) who cannot understand why we can't just 'clean politics up.' (Also, Caro's LBJ biography is awesome, with similar themes.)
"...politics is really about obtaining and wielding power. The people who thrive in politics are more interested in power than ideas."
This should be the preface to every history book. BTW, s/politics/business/ and it is still true.
Not to say that politics and business are not interested in ideas... they are, but not fundamentally. Ideas are only a means to power. Understand this and you will understand much about an idea you wish to see implemented.
The view that law is code is a common fallacy. In the law there is seldom a right answer, merely answers that can be argued to be more right than others in the given context.
Because law is not expressible as code. The phrase, "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" is captured in human language for good reason — it contains embedded values and cultural assumptions that cannot be written objectively.
> English, specifically whatever dialect that is, is a horrible medium for encoding laws.
Compared to what, exactly?
> Further, the diffing format used there is atrocious.
That's a really common problem.
> Law is code. Why haven't we fixed this yet?
Mostly, because there is no first party money in it, and there's considerable expense to do it as a third-party solution, because of exactly the problem that this is directed at solving.
There's quite a bit of money in third-party solutions, which are provided by several vendors to the people who have the money and motivation to pay for them (people who professionally deal with the law), as components of wider research suites that cover more than just statute law (including many copyright-protected sources).
Third-party solutions that use only the free-of-copyright public information don't have a lot of market, and would have a lot of expense to create and maintain (not the system, so much as keeping the data current.)
English is not the problem here. You can write sufficiently clear language (which is not formated with caps lock..) in English. The problem is just the custom in United States of writing complex laws instead of writing the main points and letting the courts interpret it. For example, here's[1] a reasonably sane-looking law written in English.
I bet it does get annoying trying to find ways to spin your boss's servitude to a cartel of car dealerships as somehow being for the benefit of the public.
The current arrangement came about as a means to benefit the manufacturers. The carrot was that they in turn would not attempt to circumvent the dealer system.
Hence manufactures would produce cars in volume and sell them to the dealers. The dealers who made that investment in buying those cars then sold them for a profit. Dealers are protected by these same laws usually geographically. This in some way insulated the manufacturers from market fluctuations and allowed more efficient factories.
Plus you cannot pass up the test drive. Really, would you buy a car without a test drive? Dealers took that job which does incur some risk of loss. It was a good idea at the time. Society was not as integrated as it now, you could not just look up your car in any sense of the word we do now.
Just like other franchise setups, they are entrenched and not necessarily bad. Would you rather be beholden to a large auto maker or have a small shop to talk to in the event of a problem? A sole dealership will be more likely want to create a long term relationship and would work to solve you problems, a distant manufacturer who is large could afford to blow you off.
None of your arguments tell me why this kind of relationship should be enforced by law, only why you might want to buy from a dealer and not a manufacturer directly.
Except that the prospective franchise owners, able to see the trap you've just described, wouldn't have opened any franchises without some sort of long-term guarantee, and customers would ultimately have lost out. I'm not endorsing this particular solution, mind you...
Why can't this all be enforced using contract law? I don't see McDonalds having burger dealerships codified into law, but rather franchise contracts that let them sell billions of pounds of beef, chicken, and potatoes through their "dealers."
McDonalds doesn't need any arrangement like that because nobody's interested in mail-ordering cheeseburgers from them, and if HQ wanted to put them in supermarkets and sell direct-to-consumer, it wouldn't affect the franchises anyway -- frozen burgers are not a substitute good for drive-thru fast-food meals.
Cars are different. If the manufacturers sell direct-to-consumer, then they can always undercut dealerships (no property/staff/service overhead); there will be no profit in buying new vehicles to resell on a lot. There either won't be "new car" dealerships anymore, or they'll essentially become showrooms earning a small commission referring orders to the manufacturer.
Either way, the current business model cannot persist without the dealership laws simply by "enforcing contract law". The dealers have no contracts prohibiting manufacturers from selling direct-to-consumer, and they have no leverage to get them to sign such contracts. The dealers need the manufacturers, while the manufacturers need far fewer dealers than there are for service centers.
> McDonalds doesn't need any arrangement like that because nobody's interested in mail-ordering cheeseburgers from them
Mail-order isn't the issue. McDonalds can own their own restaurants right now if they want to, instead of franchising. This is similar to how Tesla wants to operate.
> If the manufacturers sell direct-to-consumer, then they can always undercut dealerships...there will be no profit in buying new vehicles to resell on a lot. There either won't be "new car" dealerships anymore, or they'll essentially become showrooms earning a small commission referring orders to the manufacturer.
Good? If they can't add value and only exist because a law creates a cartel, then good riddance. If they actually add value, I'm sure we'll see that represented by people choosing to buy through dealers anyway.
> The dealers have no contracts prohibiting manufacturers from selling direct-to-consumer, and they have no leverage to get them to sign such contracts.
If they have no leverage, why is it acceptable to force them via the law? They could draw up fair contracts where both parties are happy and if they aren't they can walk away from it. It sounds like you are saying it's unfair because the dealers don't have to worry about the value they add to the manufacturers. You readily admit that the current arrangement is inefficient.
Apart from a few cities, the nearest service center is a state and a half away. If you don't like the staff/service there, your next option is shipping your car two states away when it needs work. There are few enough car manufacturers that none of them will build out significantly more company-owned service centers than the others; you won't be able to "vote with your dollars" on better coverage now that an expansive dealer network can't be counted on for OEM service.
Dealers, right now, make a lot of money on service. Why the hell would manufacturers, in an alternative world where dealers are no longer protected by laws, skip out on that profit? There are also lots of independent auto workshops that never had anything to do with selling brand new cars.
Manufacturers can't count on bulk sales to dealers of each year's new models, so there's higher risk of a model not ramping up production fast enough to become profitable, and of the entire company going out of business in a recession.
Well yes, theres an inherent risk in running a business. Who knew.
Dealerships will be much smaller, no longer having to stock and earning a profit from new car sales; hundreds of thousands of jobs will gradually disappear. But new cars will get cheaper.
Jobs for the sake of "jobs" are not sane economic policy and will eventually be to the loss of everyone.
Comparison shopping gets much harder -- you won't be test-driving new and used cars of different makes on the same lot anymore. You probably won't be able to test-drive a new car and drive that car home the same day anymore either.
Why the hell not? Tesla offers testdrives, and you can even buy a car right now if they happen to have an orphaned one at a service center. They are still production constrained right now so thats obviously not how they can sell cars this very moment.
Other manufacturers can offer this easily.
> I answered your question of why the status quo cannot be enforced by contract instead of by industry-specific law; the status quo only exists because of those laws.
That wasn't my question. My question was why contracts cannot enforce this kind of behavior instead of heavy handed law, not if the parties would agree to those contracts. The fact that you think the parties would not willingly enter into this kind of contract makes it obvious to me that it is heavy-handed.
> If you prefer a country where everyone operates like Tesla -- your nearest service center is a state and a half away
That's a much more cynically view of dealerships than even i portrayed. Are you suggesting dealerships offer absolutely no value to customers and wouldn't have a sustainable business without the gov't protecting them? It almost sounds like you've come across a business idea in the event of a post-dealership-apocalypse world.
McDonald's do exploit and undermine local laws and use their bottomless pockets to grind down opposition. This isn't the same as what you are talking about I know, but its on the spectrum. http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=...
I didn't see anything in that article talking about exploiting or undermining local laws. In fact the whole article talked about outrage at local politicians.
Not to say they don't, but the admirable qualities about the McDonald's corporation is that they are hyper-rational about business efficiency and public image. I don't see anything in the article illustrating that they were acting in a dirty manner.
Sorry, not the best link to illustrate the situation, it runs over many years. They were denied the right to build there, so they applied for something that would have minimal impact, got it accepted. Then applied for something else, with slightly more impact, got it accepted. Every step was careful, measured and calculated to go unnoticed by locals. Eventually they turned and said, well hey, if I can build X surely Y (McDonalds) will be fine.
There is also a history of McDonald's not abiding by their council consents (not collecting rubbish generated, opening for longer than agreed to, noise violations etc), but they can afford the fines.
Nothing illegal was done in this instance, they just managed to bypass local feeling and played a perfect game. Key takaway I guess, is that out of 872 submissions to the council regarding the plans, 860 were opposed to it. completely. http://www.theaucklander.co.nz/news/editorial-the-battle-of-...
Mostly irrelevant, as Tesla was never part of the dealer system, and in most states the laws that protect the cartel do not apply to them. Yes, I would buy certain cars without a test drive, but I admit that's unusual. If a test drive is essential then Tesla's attempt to sell directly might fail, but that doesn't justify laws to forbid them from selling.
Of course not but the crux of the argument is do you want the market to sort out the good and bad business models or do you want politicians to to do the sorting and to prohibit any deviation from their proscribed models?
Thanks. That helped me figure out what the bill was about.
So basically the status quo is that manufacturers are legally forced to go through franchised car dealers to sell their cars. And this is because Ford used independent car dealers to sell their cars initially; but as time went on and manufacturers wanted to sell directly, these laws were passed to protect existing franchised car dealerships.
I'm not seeing text in here like, "We hereby force all franchisors to sell cars through franchisees." or "Selling directly to consumers is prohibited." or anything of the sort.
I am not a lawyer, perhaps someone more familiar with how selling cars works want to explain?
Green car Report's reading of these two bills is this would make it illegal for Tesla to register cars in the state by making it impossible for the state to register any vehicle not purchased from a franchisee.
Basically dealers have codified protections via the franchise laws(even in places like Texas, North Carolina, etc), and this hinders the direct sale of autos. Not just from Tesla, but also CarsDirect, Costco, etc.
The commissioner shall not issue any certificate of registration authorized by this section to any franchisor, MANUFACTURER, DISTRIBUTOR BRANCH OR FACTORY BRANCH,
(caps are additions)
I think the way Tesla has been doing business in many states is that they have just applied for dealership licenses.
The issue is that in some states (I'm specifically aware of Texas, thanks to http://www.teslamotors.com/advocacy_texas) there are laws that essentially prohibit the manufacturer from owning a dealership.
To help answer my own question, I think I get it, maybe...
"The commissioner shall not issue any certificate of registration authorized by this section to any franchisor, MANUFACTURER, DISTRIBUTOR BRANCH OR FACTORY BRANCH..."
The rest of bill then talks all about franchisors, and mentions manufacturers very little. So perhaps there's something in here that doesn't allow New York to give registration to manufacturers, and only makes rules for franchisors.
Still, this stuff is arcane. It's like reading assembly code.
Is this the way "it's" really supposed to work? Someone everyone "knows" says something and people immediately spring into action on the social media machine. Without considering anything about the situation. Just "it's the old way, we are new, this must be bad" please help us.
Pretty soon things like this will become so commonplace they will be ignored (by people or the people being contacted) the same way 10 tornados a day would fail to get the attention of anyone but those directly impacted.
"Hi, I'm calling to defend Telsa Motors because its CEO told me to. No, I do not know anything more about the topic I am calling about"