In practical terms, an "unrecognized sovereign territory" is nothing more than an entity that asserts sovereignty over a territory where no one has bothered to take official notice of the claim. That's not much of a substantive shield for someone seeking to take up residence there as a means of protection against action by nation-states that are already targetting them.
Oh, quite indeed. But then even such recognition means jack when the US decides that it's going to invade you. Iraq was a recognized sovereign territory, and we just waltzed in there like we owned the place...
So, the weird thing about nation-states is that it's kind of more of a "as long as someone with a bigger bat doesn't come and hit me" situation. Just about everyone is only protected by their own ability and the willingness of others to prevent invasion...
Anyways, the sentiment is still true. Sovereignty is the right to self-rule, which you pretty much have unless someone else comes in and kicks you out of power, or assert their sovereignty over you.
You don't really need anyone else's recognition to self-rule with no authority above you. You just need to have no one else come in and tell you that you're wrong. (e.g. Iraq had sovereignty until the US came in and destroyed their government... then we handed sovereignty over to a new government following a short period where our military ran their government.)
And yet, if both France and the UK asserted a 12 mile territorial water boundary, they would both claim the same chunk of water around the Strait of Dover...
And yet, if both France and the UK asserted a 12 mile territorial water boundary, they would both claim the same chunk of land around the Strait of Dover...
The act contains no words that I could find pertaining to French territorial waters, nor Sealand explicitly.
The UK could of course just claim that this annexed the territories claimed by Sealand, but then that claim has no more merit than Sealand's claims... except for that it has a larger military backing it up.
I don't think too many people would cry if Sealand was invaded and forcibly annexed.
Just saying.
Oh no, I totally agree with you. Sealand would be screwed if the UK ever decided to assert its jurisdiction.
They exist in a sort of quasi-legal crack, that could be stamped out at any moment, and the only reason why they aren't, is because the UK views it as worthless scrap... as in, it would cost us more to do something about it, than to leave them alone.
Neither are Somali pirates off the coast of Africa, but the British navy will still capture and arrest them if they pose a serious threat to British (or, really, any) shipping.
Oh, I've never maintained that the UK wouldn't annex Sealand, or that anyone would particularly give a shit if the UK actually did (unlike when Iraq attempted to annex Kuwait).
The legislative conditions that created that stemmed from a time when the UK's territorial waters only extended 3 miles beyond the coast. This is no longer the case, so while it was not within their jurisdiction at the time it would be today.
Agreed, if Sealand were to attempt to construct its sovereignty now, it would fail, because the territory would already be under the jurisdiction of the UK.
However, Sealand constructed its sovereignty when it was not UK territory, and thus has rights to establish its own sovereignty.
One could argue that when the UK extended its territorial waters from 6 miles to 12 miles, that it annexed Sealand, and Sealand is now properly territory of the UK, however this has not been established by any legal rulings, and the UK continues to not assert any jurisdiction over the territory, while Sealand continues to operate with de facto sovereignty.
You're overinterpreting the decision. No one recognizes Sealand as sovereign. No nation would, because of the potential it would have for some crazy asshole trying it on them. At best invading it would be seen as an act of piracy, not an invasion.
Except that Sealand was in international waters when it constructed its claim to sovereignty. There is no concern about some island in your territorial waters up and declaring itself a micronation, because such a micronation would have to construct itself on territory that is already under the jurisdiction of a separate sovereign agency.
No one recognizes Sealand as sovereign, because it's insignificant and meaningless to do so.
you can't both claim to not be bound by the law *and* seeks it's protection.
There is no argument that they are not bound to international law. The argument is that they are outside of UK jurisdiction, and thus not subject to UK laws.
They are unwilling to spend the money, material, and men to take you down so that is that.
that wouldn't change the fact that Sealand has operated as a sovereign territory for years.
It wouldn't change the fact that Sealand has claimed they've been operating as a sovereign territory for years.
They haven't claimed shit. They actually have been operating with de facto sovereignty. Until you can show me a UK court case involving recognition that Sealand is within their jurisdiction, the question remains a vague "maybe?" and even a possible "unlikely?" as Sealand has already been explicitly ruled as being outside of UK jurisdiction.
The fact remains that until the UK comes in and enforces its jurisdiction over the territory, it remains in a quasi-legal limbo, which has de facto sovereignty, but no international recognition of that.
No one that counts recognizes Sealand's sovereignty. It is within the UK's territorial waters, it belongs to the UK.
Cool, what court case do you have to substantiate this position? Because there are already two UK court cases that explicitly disclaim Sealand as being under UK jurisdiction...
I understand that no one has made any positive recognition of Sealand's sovereignty, but it has acted with de facto sovereignty for a number of years already now, and modern international law does not require anyone's recognition of your sovereignty.
Sealand has fallen through a weird legal crack, that the UK could easily pave over at any moment, but until that time, Sealand is best described as an unrecognized sovereign territory.
You're confusing "we recognize your sovereignty" with "we really don't care enough to give a toss, we're busy working on actual issues". The difference being that if they start to do things which are genuinely embarrassing/awkward/dangerous, the former will get you censured in the U.N. whereas the latter will just get you a night-time invasion.
But modern international law holds that recognition by other countries is merely declaratory, and not constructive of the nation.
Correct, no one recognizes it as a country, but the fact that the UK has not enforced its jurisdiction over the property, and has explicitly denied jurisdiction over the territory opens the door to Sealand declaring its sovereignty.
Also, please note that I never said that the UK or anyone else recognizes Sealand's sovereignty, but then again, recall, modern international theory holds that recognition is not necessary for it to have sovereignty.
You state yourself that as long as someone else doesn't come in and kick you out, you have sovereignty. Believe it or not, Sealand has de facto sovereignty, and no one has bothered to come in and kick them out, and assert their jurisdiction. And even if the UK decided to do that tomorrow, that wouldn't change the fact that Sealand has operated as a sovereign territory for years.
It doesn't move them out of reach, it just adds an extra step or two to takedown.
A takedown would actually seem to be far easier. The site could be treated as a vessel engaged in criminal activity on the high seas and an naval vessel could board it, search it and confiscate contraband.
It would seem that in reality they have removed the required legal steps for a takedown.
If you don't recognize Sealand's sovereignty then it is well within the UK's territorial waters, so it's not "a vessel engaged in criminal activity on the high seas".
You simply have a large enough, powerful enough military that nobody can tell you that you aren't sovereign. They are unwilling to spend the money, material, and men to take you down so that is that. You are sovereign on account of nobody being able to say otherwise.
Ok, apart from mixing up "ability" with "unwilling"... you know, because the US could oust just about any government from power, so all of them are no longer sovereign?
So, taking it that the case is "No other nation is willing to spend the money, material, and men to take you down", Sealand is in fact a sovereign nation, as the UK has not attempted to assert that Sealand is within its jurisdiction since the original court ruling that it lies outside of of their jurisdiction.
Sealand is tolerated because it's just some morons with comprehension problems. But if it starts committing acts that might be viewed as criminal, such as, say, violating the national security of the United Kingdom, then the whole farce will come to an end in short order.
Or say, like firing on ships that travel too close to the structure as well... they would be hauled into British court, and charged with a crime.
Oh, wait, that already happened? The British courts ruled that it was outside of their jurisdiction? So, the sovereignty of Sealand was established BEFORE it lay within the UK's territorial waters, and there are international laws pertaining to how territorial waters work if two nations are within 12 miles of each other.
If I remember my Sealand history correctly, a couple guys with a boat and some small arms almost did overtake it.
Indeed, Achenbach a German citizen also carrying a Sealand passport hired some mercenaries and assaulted the platform with a few boats and a helicopter.
Later, the original monarch recovered the platform, and since he carried a Sealand passport, they charged Achenbach with treason.
which government would they worry about upsetting if they did so?
The UK government. Sealand did not fall within the territorial waters of the UK before, but now it does. As such, if Sealand were not recognized as a sovereign nation, then it would be UK territory.
I highly doubt that the British would take kindly to us singing a large-ish structure in their territorial waters.
A nation by definition must have territory. No interpretation of International Law I've ever seen allows a steel man-made structure to be considered territory. Thus Sealand, whatever it may be, is not a nation, and thus while it may not be within Britain's sovereignty, if the Royal Navy decided tomorrow to blockade it or sink it, there is no lawful means by which the owner could hope to prevent it, save by appealing to a British court, which means the owner recognizes the sovereignty of Britain.
And Monte Carlo has no judges of its own, and all of its judges are supplied by the French... stick to the "it has no territory" argument, it holds far better water than any other "it has no XY"...
First Sale Doctrine covers this. Everywhere else in the physical world you cannot pull this fucking shit for two seconds without being called crazy greedy retarded sons of bitches.
You uh... might want to check your facts? The First-sale doctrine doesn't necessarily to all IP, and it most certainly doesn't cover the whole world. As an example, for artistic works, the EU has Droit de suite, which allows artists and perhaps some other IP holders the rights to either control resale or a right to some of the resale value.
It's natural to assume you're the only citizenry being screwed, but it's not the case, everywhere screws its citizens, and no matter what bogus law or idea is out there, at least two countries have pretty much always implemented it.
The point is that people are given the opportunity to understand the law and are given fair notice as to what that law is. If it is too complicated, it will then cause a rightful uproar as people look at the crazy booklet.
You're arguing circles. People are already exposed to how complicated the details of traffic law are, and people are not in an uproar. No less, people in generally understand that the whole legal system is vastly complex, and that it requires not just an expert, but specialized experts to understand properly.
And to what end? Any booklet that you give people is going to be a simplification of the actual laws that are enacted. Even if we only take the most basic traffic laws, printing them out in a "for dummies" format would readily expand beyond the size of a booklet.
Lawyers might argue that the signature is meaningless as the law is sufficiently confusing that even if you think you understood it, you probably didn't. If it is as simple as it can be and readily comprehensible, it will be no problem.
But the first and VERY FIRST thing that any lawyer is going to argue in court if you enact your distopian concept of law, would be that the law was too complex to be properly understood.
Seriously, this is starting to drive me crazy that you think that you can just simplify all the rules down to a simple little stone tablet that everyone can understand...
I'm sorry to get kind of offensive here, but it portrays an incredible lack of ability to follow a logical thread to its conclusions.
Here, I know, let's throw out the entirety of law as it already stands, and only consider a simple Nomic. Every Nomic becomes dominated by individuals who are capable of logical and reasoned debate. They will quickly explode any ruleset into a massive complex web of rules, interconnected and disjoint at the same time, where certain individuals are quickly recognized as the person you WANT to argue your case before whatever arbitration exists because they make the best arguments, and are the most likely to have arbitration side with their arguments.
A group of TEN PEOPLE playing a GAME can't even keep the rules simple enough for every person subject to those rules to be aware of them and understand them properly enough to meet the criteria that you set forth for people to be held accountable to those rules.
Even in a game where the purpose of the game is not to alter the rules, the rules are complex enough that disputes can arise in even the highest levels of game play.
And all of this is assuming unambiguous rules... English as a language is ambiguous in ways that we've had to have computers point out to us. What happens when someone does understand the law, but understands the law to mean something completely different than other people understand it to mean? So, we just make the laws unambiguous, but again, this is not perfectly possible... there will always be some form of ambiguity, and in fact, disambiguating laws make them longer, and more difficult to understand, because you're no longer using simple language.
It's like you're completely missing the innate complexity of language, as well as rules. We cannot make useful laws simple enough that everyone would understand, and affording a person innocence by ignorance of the law... is incredibly bad policy. Affording a person innocence instead because the law is too complex to be understood by a reasonable person? You're asking people who's profession is to actually understand the details of the law, to decide what is too complex for a reasonable person.......
It just doesn't make sense to me how you could champion an idea who's consequences would be overwhelmingly distopian.
You commented earlier: "the law is not a force of nature, it is an act of man", but the complexity of natural language is a FACT OF NATURE, as sure as gravity, or evolution.
Going to your example of hunting, the right answer is to require you to sign a legal document stating that you have read and understood the laws pertaining to hunting (and include a specific text containing those laws by reference) and have understood them. You are now on record proclaiming your knowledge of the law.
What are you blathering on about? You think just because you have people sign a document that says that they understand the laws governing their behavior that that means that anyone will actually understand the laws?
Here, let me show you how it goes: Licensor: You can't hunt without signing this document. Licensee: What does it say? Licensor: That you understand the laws governing hunting. Licensee: But what if I don't? Licensor: Then you don't get to hunt. Licensee: So, all I have to do is sign this, and say that I understand the law, and I can go hunting? Licensor: Yes, ma'am. Licensee: Then of course I understand the laws.
You've replaced the problem that you're complaining about: that people can't possibly understand the laws that they're expected to follow, with: the government is coercing you into agreeing that you understand the laws that you're expected to follow, even if you're not.
Everyone must pass a test (both a written and a practical) demonstrating knowledge of the traffic laws before they get their license.
Ah, the solution now is a test! Ok... what is the difference between a yellow and a white speed limit sign? You are approaching an intersection, where you have a sign indicating "Yield", in another direction of travel, another driver has a sign indicating "Stop". There is a collision at that intersection, who is at fault? You're traveling down a four lane divided highway, and in the other direction of travel, a bus stops, and puts up its flashing red sign indicating "Stop", do you have to stop? How many headlights may a motorcycle legally have? A friend hands you the keys to his car, so that you can drive his car, as he is drunk, and you have not had a single drink all night, you are pulled over for an expired registration, and when collecting the car's documents for the officer, you become aware that the car also is not insured. Who gets the ticket? Which passengers in a motor vehicle must wear seat belts, and who is at fault if they are not wearing them, the passenger himself, or the driver? When is it legal to pass another vehicle on the right? You're traveling down a residential street with striped lines, and a car is parked in the road. In order to safely travel around the vehicle, you will have to cross into the opposing lane of traffic. How do you perform this legally? You're leaving a parking lot, between the parking lot and the road, there is a sidewalk. Where does the law state you are required to stop? You're traveling towards an intersection, and the light turns yellow, you enter the intersection and the light turns red. Have you run a red light? You're stopped at a traffic signal that only has red-yellow-green indicators, and you wish to make a left-hand turn, but there is a car ahead of you that also wants to make a left-hand turn. You have both entered the intersection, preparing to make a left-hand turn, but the on-coming traffic does not let up until the light has already turned red, because someone performed the maneuver stated just prior to this one. The person in front of you clears the intersection, are you legally allowed to clear the intersection, or have you already committed a traffic infraction?
In order for your position to be justified, 100% of all people passing the driver's ed tests must be able to answer at least all of these questions correctly, otherwise tests do not prove that people are fully able to understand all the laws pertaining to the acts that they seek to engage in.
Slashdot Mirror
In practical terms, an "unrecognized sovereign territory" is nothing more than an entity that asserts sovereignty over a territory where no one has bothered to take official notice of the claim. That's not much of a substantive shield for someone seeking to take up residence there as a means of protection against action by nation-states that are already targetting them.
Oh, quite indeed. But then even such recognition means jack when the US decides that it's going to invade you. Iraq was a recognized sovereign territory, and we just waltzed in there like we owned the place...
So, the weird thing about nation-states is that it's kind of more of a "as long as someone with a bigger bat doesn't come and hit me" situation. Just about everyone is only protected by their own ability and the willingness of others to prevent invasion...
Oh... so it is.
Anyways, the sentiment is still true. Sovereignty is the right to self-rule, which you pretty much have unless someone else comes in and kicks you out of power, or assert their sovereignty over you.
You don't really need anyone else's recognition to self-rule with no authority above you. You just need to have no one else come in and tell you that you're wrong. (e.g. Iraq had sovereignty until the US came in and destroyed their government... then we handed sovereignty over to a new government following a short period where our military ran their government.)
And yet, if both France and the UK asserted a 12 mile territorial water boundary, they would both claim the same chunk of water around the Strait of Dover...
There... fixed that for myself...
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1987/49
And yet, if both France and the UK asserted a 12 mile territorial water boundary, they would both claim the same chunk of land around the Strait of Dover...
The act contains no words that I could find pertaining to French territorial waters, nor Sealand explicitly.
The UK could of course just claim that this annexed the territories claimed by Sealand, but then that claim has no more merit than Sealand's claims... except for that it has a larger military backing it up.
I don't think too many people would cry if Sealand was invaded and forcibly annexed.
Just saying.
Oh no, I totally agree with you. Sealand would be screwed if the UK ever decided to assert its jurisdiction.
They exist in a sort of quasi-legal crack, that could be stamped out at any moment, and the only reason why they aren't, is because the UK views it as worthless scrap... as in, it would cost us more to do something about it, than to leave them alone.
Neither are Somali pirates off the coast of Africa, but the British navy will still capture and arrest them if they pose a serious threat to British (or, really, any) shipping.
Oh, I've never maintained that the UK wouldn't annex Sealand, or that anyone would particularly give a shit if the UK actually did (unlike when Iraq attempted to annex Kuwait).
The legislative conditions that created that stemmed from a time when the UK's territorial waters only extended 3 miles beyond the coast. This is no longer the case, so while it was not within their jurisdiction at the time it would be today.
Agreed, if Sealand were to attempt to construct its sovereignty now, it would fail, because the territory would already be under the jurisdiction of the UK.
However, Sealand constructed its sovereignty when it was not UK territory, and thus has rights to establish its own sovereignty.
One could argue that when the UK extended its territorial waters from 6 miles to 12 miles, that it annexed Sealand, and Sealand is now properly territory of the UK, however this has not been established by any legal rulings, and the UK continues to not assert any jurisdiction over the territory, while Sealand continues to operate with de facto sovereignty.
You're overinterpreting the decision. No one recognizes Sealand as sovereign. No nation would, because of the potential it would have for some crazy asshole trying it on them. At best invading it would be seen as an act of piracy, not an invasion.
Except that Sealand was in international waters when it constructed its claim to sovereignty. There is no concern about some island in your territorial waters up and declaring itself a micronation, because such a micronation would have to construct itself on territory that is already under the jurisdiction of a separate sovereign agency.
No one recognizes Sealand as sovereign, because it's insignificant and meaningless to do so.
you can't both claim to not be bound by the law *and* seeks it's protection.
There is no argument that they are not bound to international law. The argument is that they are outside of UK jurisdiction, and thus not subject to UK laws.
You state yourself that as long as someone else doesn't come in and kick you out, you have sovereignty.
No, I don't. To claim I do is inaccurate.
Should you read your own posts?
They are unwilling to spend the money, material, and men to take you down so that is that.
that wouldn't change the fact that Sealand has operated as a sovereign territory for years.
It wouldn't change the fact that Sealand has claimed they've been operating as a sovereign territory for years.
They haven't claimed shit. They actually have been operating with de facto sovereignty. Until you can show me a UK court case involving recognition that Sealand is within their jurisdiction, the question remains a vague "maybe?" and even a possible "unlikely?" as Sealand has already been explicitly ruled as being outside of UK jurisdiction.
The fact remains that until the UK comes in and enforces its jurisdiction over the territory, it remains in a quasi-legal limbo, which has de facto sovereignty, but no international recognition of that.
No one that counts recognizes Sealand's sovereignty. It is within the UK's territorial waters, it belongs to the UK.
Cool, what court case do you have to substantiate this position? Because there are already two UK court cases that explicitly disclaim Sealand as being under UK jurisdiction...
I understand that no one has made any positive recognition of Sealand's sovereignty, but it has acted with de facto sovereignty for a number of years already now, and modern international law does not require anyone's recognition of your sovereignty.
Sealand has fallen through a weird legal crack, that the UK could easily pave over at any moment, but until that time, Sealand is best described as an unrecognized sovereign territory.
You're confusing "we recognize your sovereignty" with "we really don't care enough to give a toss, we're busy working on actual issues". The difference being that if they start to do things which are genuinely embarrassing/awkward/dangerous, the former will get you censured in the U.N. whereas the latter will just get you a night-time invasion.
But modern international law holds that recognition by other countries is merely declaratory, and not constructive of the nation.
Correct, no one recognizes it as a country, but the fact that the UK has not enforced its jurisdiction over the property, and has explicitly denied jurisdiction over the territory opens the door to Sealand declaring its sovereignty.
Also, please note that I never said that the UK or anyone else recognizes Sealand's sovereignty, but then again, recall, modern international theory holds that recognition is not necessary for it to have sovereignty.
You state yourself that as long as someone else doesn't come in and kick you out, you have sovereignty. Believe it or not, Sealand has de facto sovereignty, and no one has bothered to come in and kick them out, and assert their jurisdiction. And even if the UK decided to do that tomorrow, that wouldn't change the fact that Sealand has operated as a sovereign territory for years.
It doesn't move them out of reach, it just adds an extra step or two to takedown.
A takedown would actually seem to be far easier. The site could be treated as a vessel engaged in criminal activity on the high seas and an naval vessel could board it, search it and confiscate contraband.
It would seem that in reality they have removed the required legal steps for a takedown.
If you don't recognize Sealand's sovereignty then it is well within the UK's territorial waters, so it's not "a vessel engaged in criminal activity on the high seas".
You simply have a large enough, powerful enough military that nobody can tell you that you aren't sovereign. They are unwilling to spend the money, material, and men to take you down so that is that. You are sovereign on account of nobody being able to say otherwise.
Ok, apart from mixing up "ability" with "unwilling"... you know, because the US could oust just about any government from power, so all of them are no longer sovereign?
So, taking it that the case is "No other nation is willing to spend the money, material, and men to take you down", Sealand is in fact a sovereign nation, as the UK has not attempted to assert that Sealand is within its jurisdiction since the original court ruling that it lies outside of of their jurisdiction.
Sealand is tolerated because it's just some morons with comprehension problems. But if it starts committing acts that might be viewed as criminal, such as, say, violating the national security of the United Kingdom, then the whole farce will come to an end in short order.
Or say, like firing on ships that travel too close to the structure as well... they would be hauled into British court, and charged with a crime.
Oh, wait, that already happened? The British courts ruled that it was outside of their jurisdiction? So, the sovereignty of Sealand was established BEFORE it lay within the UK's territorial waters, and there are international laws pertaining to how territorial waters work if two nations are within 12 miles of each other.
If I remember my Sealand history correctly, a couple guys with a boat and some small arms almost did overtake it.
Indeed, Achenbach a German citizen also carrying a Sealand passport hired some mercenaries and assaulted the platform with a few boats and a helicopter.
Later, the original monarch recovered the platform, and since he carried a Sealand passport, they charged Achenbach with treason.
which government would they worry about upsetting if they did so?
The UK government. Sealand did not fall within the territorial waters of the UK before, but now it does. As such, if Sealand were not recognized as a sovereign nation, then it would be UK territory.
I highly doubt that the British would take kindly to us singing a large-ish structure in their territorial waters.
A nation by definition must have territory. No interpretation of International Law I've ever seen allows a steel man-made structure to be considered territory. Thus Sealand, whatever it may be, is not a nation, and thus while it may not be within Britain's sovereignty, if the Royal Navy decided tomorrow to blockade it or sink it, there is no lawful means by which the owner could hope to prevent it, save by appealing to a British court, which means the owner recognizes the sovereignty of Britain.
And Monte Carlo has no judges of its own, and all of its judges are supplied by the French... stick to the "it has no territory" argument, it holds far better water than any other "it has no XY"...
Remember CALEA, the act that required phone companies to give the police easy wiretapping access?
Look, I'm all for resisting increased government power, but if they obtain a warrant, then they should have easy wiretap access.
First Sale Doctrine covers this. Everywhere else in the physical world you cannot pull this fucking shit for two seconds without being called crazy greedy retarded sons of bitches.
You uh... might want to check your facts? The First-sale doctrine doesn't necessarily to all IP, and it most certainly doesn't cover the whole world. As an example, for artistic works, the EU has Droit de suite, which allows artists and perhaps some other IP holders the rights to either control resale or a right to some of the resale value.
It's natural to assume you're the only citizenry being screwed, but it's not the case, everywhere screws its citizens, and no matter what bogus law or idea is out there, at least two countries have pretty much always implemented it.
The point is that people are given the opportunity to understand the law and are given fair notice as to what that law is. If it is too complicated, it will then cause a rightful uproar as people look at the crazy booklet.
You're arguing circles. People are already exposed to how complicated the details of traffic law are, and people are not in an uproar. No less, people in generally understand that the whole legal system is vastly complex, and that it requires not just an expert, but specialized experts to understand properly.
And to what end? Any booklet that you give people is going to be a simplification of the actual laws that are enacted. Even if we only take the most basic traffic laws, printing them out in a "for dummies" format would readily expand beyond the size of a booklet.
Lawyers might argue that the signature is meaningless as the law is sufficiently confusing that even if you think you understood it, you probably didn't. If it is as simple as it can be and readily comprehensible, it will be no problem.
But the first and VERY FIRST thing that any lawyer is going to argue in court if you enact your distopian concept of law, would be that the law was too complex to be properly understood.
Seriously, this is starting to drive me crazy that you think that you can just simplify all the rules down to a simple little stone tablet that everyone can understand...
I'm sorry to get kind of offensive here, but it portrays an incredible lack of ability to follow a logical thread to its conclusions.
Here, I know, let's throw out the entirety of law as it already stands, and only consider a simple Nomic. Every Nomic becomes dominated by individuals who are capable of logical and reasoned debate. They will quickly explode any ruleset into a massive complex web of rules, interconnected and disjoint at the same time, where certain individuals are quickly recognized as the person you WANT to argue your case before whatever arbitration exists because they make the best arguments, and are the most likely to have arbitration side with their arguments.
A group of TEN PEOPLE playing a GAME can't even keep the rules simple enough for every person subject to those rules to be aware of them and understand them properly enough to meet the criteria that you set forth for people to be held accountable to those rules.
Even in a game where the purpose of the game is not to alter the rules, the rules are complex enough that disputes can arise in even the highest levels of game play.
And all of this is assuming unambiguous rules... English as a language is ambiguous in ways that we've had to have computers point out to us. What happens when someone does understand the law, but understands the law to mean something completely different than other people understand it to mean? So, we just make the laws unambiguous, but again, this is not perfectly possible... there will always be some form of ambiguity, and in fact, disambiguating laws make them longer, and more difficult to understand, because you're no longer using simple language.
It's like you're completely missing the innate complexity of language, as well as rules. We cannot make useful laws simple enough that everyone would understand, and affording a person innocence by ignorance of the law... is incredibly bad policy. Affording a person innocence instead because the law is too complex to be understood by a reasonable person? You're asking people who's profession is to actually understand the details of the law, to decide what is too complex for a reasonable person.......
It just doesn't make sense to me how you could champion an idea who's consequences would be overwhelmingly distopian.
You commented earlier: "the law is not a force of nature, it is an act of man", but the complexity of natural language is a FACT OF NATURE, as sure as gravity, or evolution.
and wrong, american fascism has already proven to be superior (goal of fascism is not genocide but enrichment of the few).
I do not think that word means what you think it means...
Going to your example of hunting, the right answer is to require you to sign a legal document stating that you have read and understood the laws pertaining to hunting (and include a specific text containing those laws by reference) and have understood them. You are now on record proclaiming your knowledge of the law.
What are you blathering on about? You think just because you have people sign a document that says that they understand the laws governing their behavior that that means that anyone will actually understand the laws?
Here, let me show you how it goes:
Licensor: You can't hunt without signing this document.
Licensee: What does it say?
Licensor: That you understand the laws governing hunting.
Licensee: But what if I don't?
Licensor: Then you don't get to hunt.
Licensee: So, all I have to do is sign this, and say that I understand the law, and I can go hunting?
Licensor: Yes, ma'am.
Licensee: Then of course I understand the laws.
You've replaced the problem that you're complaining about: that people can't possibly understand the laws that they're expected to follow, with: the government is coercing you into agreeing that you understand the laws that you're expected to follow, even if you're not.
Everyone must pass a test (both a written and a practical) demonstrating knowledge of the traffic laws before they get their license.
Ah, the solution now is a test! Ok... what is the difference between a yellow and a white speed limit sign? You are approaching an intersection, where you have a sign indicating "Yield", in another direction of travel, another driver has a sign indicating "Stop". There is a collision at that intersection, who is at fault? You're traveling down a four lane divided highway, and in the other direction of travel, a bus stops, and puts up its flashing red sign indicating "Stop", do you have to stop? How many headlights may a motorcycle legally have? A friend hands you the keys to his car, so that you can drive his car, as he is drunk, and you have not had a single drink all night, you are pulled over for an expired registration, and when collecting the car's documents for the officer, you become aware that the car also is not insured. Who gets the ticket? Which passengers in a motor vehicle must wear seat belts, and who is at fault if they are not wearing them, the passenger himself, or the driver? When is it legal to pass another vehicle on the right? You're traveling down a residential street with striped lines, and a car is parked in the road. In order to safely travel around the vehicle, you will have to cross into the opposing lane of traffic. How do you perform this legally? You're leaving a parking lot, between the parking lot and the road, there is a sidewalk. Where does the law state you are required to stop? You're traveling towards an intersection, and the light turns yellow, you enter the intersection and the light turns red. Have you run a red light? You're stopped at a traffic signal that only has red-yellow-green indicators, and you wish to make a left-hand turn, but there is a car ahead of you that also wants to make a left-hand turn. You have both entered the intersection, preparing to make a left-hand turn, but the on-coming traffic does not let up until the light has already turned red, because someone performed the maneuver stated just prior to this one. The person in front of you clears the intersection, are you legally allowed to clear the intersection, or have you already committed a traffic infraction?
In order for your position to be justified, 100% of all people passing the driver's ed tests must be able to answer at least all of these questions correctly, otherwise tests do not prove that people are fully able to understand all the laws pertaining to the acts that they seek to engage in.
Everything is better in europe.
Their healthcare, their food, their government, their women, their cars, their tv, their bathrooms, their internet.
Even their fascism! .... what? too early?
Who cares? Unless he actually goes out and implements any of his plans he's nothing more than a dreamer.
You call me a dreamer, but the government calls me a terrorist?