A reader responds concerning the legal system’s complexity:
Ilya Somin makes damn good points. You do, too. I’d argue that we do NOT need, nor do we even want — and in fact, it may be wholly counter productive to have — complex laws for our complex society. I’m using the real (or Nassim Taleb, if you will) definition of complexity here: things which are too complicated to enumerate and predict in any finite way. Instead, it’s better to have simple laws which are stated with an eye towards the desired outcomes, the preferences of society. They can be nuanced, they can even be occasionally complicated — but not complex. There’s a nuanced difference in the meanings of complicated and complex. I refer the reader to this article for one place which elucidates this:https://sloanreview.mit.edu/…/the-critical-difference…/ The crux being: Complicated problems can be hard to solve, but they are addressable with rules and recipes. The solutions to complicated problems don’t work as well with complex problems, however. Complex problems involve too many unknowns and too many interrelated factors to reduce to rules and processes.
Sounds interesting. But wouldn’t this possibly lead to more litigation as lawyers argue over the proper way to extrapolate from a recipe? This, of course, is the complicated case. It’s alluring, but I have to wonder…. too sick to think about the complex case.
