The Law | Founders' Review Editorial

The first time I started writing was in 2019, was when I was working for Amazon Web Services. My core reason was to make the world better for my children. I also worked a lot before and after. I realized that I rather post my thinking as a call for research. I will probably have better return on investment than doing anything else. I try to put proofs on most of my issues herein. I am an MBA and MSc Engineer interested more in reliable decisions. I am not a PhD researcher of the entire field, so it should be considered call for research. If I can collect interesting downstream topics for the next hundred years, I think I can be satisfied.

Law is an interesting matter that I met a lot as an engineer working on privacy and confidentiality matters throughout my career at Big Tech. I also have family ties by my brother being a Professor of Law, PhD LLM teaching law to law enforcement and defense professionals.

Link of the day.
Behavioral and statistical economic research from MIT. Do not get afraid by the title, it is actually very informative. Here.

Link of the day.
Your source of oil and gas exploration data. Here.

I try to be very simple here. It will sound childish to attract a bigger reader base.

The reasons are the most important topic when explaining law. Imagine Alice and Bob, two farmers in a village 1500 years ago in Greece. They dispute a case of Bob eating an apple from a branch of a tree growing on Alice's lot but branching out to Bob's property. Eventually they agree on an arbitrator, who gets the power to enforce the decision. Arbitrators start judging in murder cases as well in the village. We know, killing is a monopolistic industry. There are no two killers who can stay in the same cave for a long time. The profession of arbitrage becomes a hierarchy with a king on the top.

The issue is that the king does not judge consistently and with integrity all the time. Priests solved this long time ago by letting princes live next to advisors from different geographic regions and ethnicity for a while. They learn their culture and expectations. The king also cannot be made accountable easily. Bad decisions will eventually repeat due to the impact of bad decisions. The village choses a forum of people to discuss rules. They are elected by the inhabitants. The king remains a judge but just for the most complex and unique cases.

There are issues still. The majority tends to collect taxes starving the minorities and ignoring the law. Dictatorship builds. Eventually the village separates the power of the legislation. Legislation makes laws for the future in advance slowly according to the desire of the citizens. The court judges past cases of each individual regardless of minority status comparing but not changing the law. The president makes sure that the present budget of the system stays in balance and nobody falls out of essential services.

This is how history made a democratic society. Rule of law requires that the rules are made democratically with no friction to align well. The strongest states reflect the will of most citizens accurately as a result. The best are the laws that everybody could figure out themselves without reading. The judiciary branch judges events in the past. The executive branch enforces the decisions well thought through in the present. It makes sure that the system is cash flow positive meaning the state does not shrink to negligence.

Rules are also just enough. Most Americans have just one court case on average in a lifetime. Dispute is an exception, not the rule.

Laws are also hierarchical reflecting the needs of states with different climate and population. Democratic societies have a constitution with basic rights explicitly written. The foremost part is usually the list of human rights. These are the things that are ensured to every individual. Furthermore human rights must be respected, so that citizens retain their ability to vote. A government cannot just drug or starve their citizens to vote for them.

Laws then describe the details of the state and behavioral requirements. Taxes are set to provide citizens their essential services so that they can keep their ability to vote. The rate of taxes will highly correlate to the level of essential services agreed in laws. Should the tax be lower, the service becomes not universal and not essential by design. Taxes too high will favor the non-essential demand of a small group compared to individual consumption decisions. Elections are about future directions, not about who gets the money without demand fulfilled.

Laws describe cases that have civil liability, usually related to meeting or failing on contractual requirements. Nowadays all contracts that are written or implied require a payment for each term listed. Imbalanced contracts are oftentimes ignored or questioned at courts.

Laws describe criminal cases and penal code. These are usually related to something with physical harm. It may also be related to lies which are psychological harm. Human nature involving emotions are religious rules. Laws go further. They ensure that cases are properly and publicly handled for education and common good. The author is also surprised that not all cases reach the press all the time. There are so many cases. Just a few have the educational value that will attract readers.

The jury selected from citizens eventually gives an input. This ensures that decisions do not diverge from the democratic rules. You exercise law by assessing your own decisions or life events acting as your own jury.

The state and law is expensive. The hierarchy of appeal courts ensures that only the cases with importance and educational value reach the most experienced professionals. The size of the hierarchy is logarithmic compared to the linear population. Courts can decide on edge cases. The press helps to promote the common cases. People will buy more journals, if they see the value made in their own lives.

The cost is how the system circles back eventually. You have an issue, you may report it. Eventually you check the cost of the procedure. You may just solve the case of a late payment with your vendor.

The author's father used to suggest this method. He was a physician owning his own clinic. Read the law, this helps to make decisions quickly and cheaply. You can still ask your lawyers in case of edge cases. Remember, you are also accountable to the shareholders. Spending horrendous amounts on each customer issue may have legal issues on the other side due to dividends lost.

Also there is no civil law and common law at the level of individual decisions even as a manager. These used to be an excuse to try new things or to commit fraud reinterpreting written rules. Civil law describes most issues, common law relies on precedence judgement of past cases. Judges of common law are oftentimes elected directly like council members as a result. It does not matter. When you do the decision, describe it to yourself as a jury. This forward thinking will tell you the eventual judgement.

Cases. Which law is better?

Imagine a person, who is offered a job in the United States to be exposed to more and more fabricated cases to be used as a common law precedent. That person will eventually file a complaint that any issues are prefabricated without a way to opt out. Concept trials were common in the 1950s in the Soviet Union. Attorneys or cops trying to trap someone may actually be the root cause and liable for any damages, if the situation is enforced. Artificial intelligence deals with data. Replaying past cases will raise the question of not putting the liability on the participants, or on the data collector, but on those who use the data to replay such cases.

The author celebrated in a Christmas parade in Portland exactly at the same time, when somebody wanted to blast a bomb almost becoming a victim. My wife got an appointment for a CPA exam and we decided to go for two days from Redmond including the celebration. This was a case of a fake bomb given to a terrorist by the FBI to trap him. The terrorist signed up himself earlier, showed up, and eventually got locked up. If the FBI kept tricking and forcing him into the situation, the outcome would have been different. Intent is always important.

Betting is another issue. Betting on events of an individual or small group confidentially may raise eyebrows. It distorts the outcome of every day decisions. Fraudsters may try to influence the outcome. Betting should be limited and transparent.

Imagine the case of Alice and Bob again. A judge may just roll the dice. They will not be satisfied. Alice will feel disappointed. Bob will repeat the issue and fail second time with a different judge or outcome. The closer a judgement is to a rational resolution the better it is.

More education is going to have the side effect of more research. The author suggests using research on past data rather than doing A-B testing. A-B testing is invasive. Do not get me wrong, it is important to approve life saving medicine, etc. However, it cannot be handled en masse due to the opt in requirements and eventual interconnection of distinct trials.