The problem in law though is that the laws are supposed to be things that everyone follows which suggests the necessity of comprehension by most people. And I think it’s unarguable that we’re well past that point.

Chris, i agree there’s no ideal answer. Which is why it’s an essential tension. That said though there seems on the face of it for there to be something very Kafkaesque about being subject to laws you can’t understand.

There really aren’t any ideal tensions that can be maintained. People generally respond to change and this creates a destabilizing playing field. In social systems there are a whole host of good reasons why laws shouldn’t be static in nature or even mildly dynamic – it’s good in theory and pretty terrible in practice.

I think that the plaintiffs in all civil actions should be required to fund the other side, up to the amount they spend themselves, and that amount not be refundable except to the degree an award for damages compensates for the cost.

Wall Street bankers developed complex investment vehicles, such as mortgage backed securities (MBS) in order to help hide the fact that they were taking huge risks.

Congressional bills often are hundreds (or in the case of the health care bill, thousands) of pages long, partially to hide many of the intricate kickbacks and payoffs to their lobby constituents.

Perhaps we need to get back to the day when a contract meant two people shaking hands in agreement. Or at least where we can keep it to a few pages, with no need for lawyers to review every line to ensure nothing can be misconstrued by other lawyers or experts.

(I have nothing against lawyers. There are many that do great work for our society. I just think they have fallen into the same complexity trap that everyone else is).