tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17908317.post760669559320943064..comments2024-03-28T03:15:14.875-07:00Comments on Unenumerated: The discovery of lawNick Szabohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16820399856274245684noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17908317.post-63591168423739544402008-02-23T14:31:00.000-08:002008-02-23T14:31:00.000-08:00It seems to me that if courts follow established p...<I>It seems to me that if courts follow established precedent it would be impossible to know if better results would be obtained had the original court decided differently...</I><BR/><BR/>One answer is parallel jurisdictions with different lines of precedent. In the U.S., for example, there are 50 states each with its own version of common law. One can then compare results from state to state. <BR/><BR/>Generally speaking, common law is a much slower in its development than technology. But this reflects the far greater complexity of the subject, i.e. of human relations. It's quite a superstition to think that there is a shortcut way to good law, but alas this superstition is extremely common.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17908317.post-5681685216507594462008-02-23T13:24:00.000-08:002008-02-23T13:24:00.000-08:00If I invent/discover a way of building what I purp...If I invent/discover a way of building what I purport to be a better mousetrap, people can try it out and will be presumably be able to conclude more or less objectively whether it is indeed a better way of trapping mice. It's not clear to me how an analogous process works with law. It seems to me that if courts follow established precedent it would be impossible to know if better results would be obtained had the original court decided differently, even if it could be agreed upon what "better" means. <BR/><BR/>It does seem that in general it is much better to have legal questions settled than to leave the law uncertain.George Weinberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05384566536853204992noreply@blogger.com