Why we will need lawyers anyway

Justin Schwartz jkschw at hotmail.com
Wed Apr 10 07:43:41 PDT 2002


I wrote:

It's a
>total
> > confusion, whatever the overeducated idiots Ian cited may write in
>their
> > papers. . . . Goedel's theorem has no relevance to the question at
>hand.
> >
> > jks
> >
>=================
>
>Well I think the issue has to do with whether the law can be consistent
>and complete and so folks leap from those terms to G. which is goofy; to
>the extent that formalizing arguments exploiting modal logic etc. are
>even used in individual cases etc. G. is irrelevant.
>
>However, the issues of self-amendment and self-reference do arise in
>constitutional law and where one finds self-reference, recursiveness is
>lurking about. A simple example is 'can the House of Lords abolish
>itself'?

Yeah, you can play these games, what about unamendable provisions in constitutions, etc. But in the real worlds, lawyers use Gordian knot solutions. Think of the Reconstruction amendments. I'm a legal pragmatist, and that doesn't lend itself to idle puzzle solving. There is enough real puzzle solving to do. But G's theorem has nothing to do with whether we wil always need lawyers. And no, the law cannot be complete, and it probably can't be consistent, what did you expect?

jks

_________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list