Now really, It does seem unfair to accuse legalese of being the cause of problems. In fact, and as much as it is preferred to be ignored, it is a natural cause of a system where to enforce laws based on what a person defines as the "spirit" of the law would have less basis then one using their actual words. "Spirit" brings up a whole world of bullshit, where people do not even require any sort of basis for their claims and enforcement. And no one can truly know what the intentions are, and the world is complicated enough that things will very quickly end up outside of nice boundaries, it ends up that no one can know. English is, as I've said before, a expansive way of communication. The word "free" means "unobstructed", unless it means "Not under control or influence". It isn't math, and the words you say mean more then one thing, and that's before factoring in intention.
Second, Politicians have been speech makers since roman times. A Noble son would be taught in Oratory as the last stage of his education, esp. if he wanted to enter the Roman political ladder of the Cursus Honorum. And that is because explaining, convincing, and communication is more important then ideology when it comes to politics. All the ideology in the world is nothing if it cannot being explained, and a good enough explainer can hold fast against a sea of all logic and reason: This is just how society and human beings work. In addition, Tthe fact that "teams of lawyers" write legislation isn't a cause for alarm, because well, it simply speeds up the process; the lawyers certainly aren't inserting language that would benefit them personally or something (As you mention, the politicians often are lawyers themselves: they'll notice, government watchers will notice, etc.), and it is still the politicians intent that is in the bill, only less likely to be abused by others because of the thoroughness. I'd prefer my politicians spend time meeting with the other side to see what can be done then hand-writing their own bills anyway. Politics isn't shouting your ideology at the other guy till he gives up from frustration, it's social skills, so writing out your bills doesn't make you more of a politician then one who has his aides draw up the legalese while he meets with the opposition, it actually makes a worse one. And sure, some politicians are not going to meet with the opposition, but even then, what is the point of wasting time? I would like to hear your implications voiced.
And the argument "But they can exploit loopholes", I have something to say about that: legalese is the most effective tool in the world to deal with loopholes. A single sentence can be interpreted a million ways. A sentence and another one spent clarifying it can be interpreted in fewer. One with stricter and more legalese can be proofed further still. Legalese, as I'll agree, is the foremost tool to create loopholes, but it is also the one with which to banish them. Much like government in general, getting rid of it won't work, adding more won't work, only effective legalese works. Anything else is scapegoating bullshit that doesn't help anyone.
The biggest problem is you can't say "The Biggest problem is X." There are no simple problems here, and if there was a simple solution, why hasn't someone done something? Because it's hard. It's just how life works. That doesn't mean that we should just throw ourselves on a funeral pyre, because clearly there have been effective governments in the past: It's just not that easy getting there.
Poll
7 (6.5%)
Author
Topic: Bay12 Election Night Watch Party (Read 821116 times)