Formalisation can't save you from determining what is and isn't a document. The judges main task is formalising reality and lawd, the rest of the inference is typically easy.

▲

DoctorOetker 2 hours ago | parent [-]

>Formalisation can't save you from determining what is and isn't a document.

I'm not sure what this sentence even means, of course the democracy should have define those.

its up to the electorate to democratically define what is a document, to define classifications of types of documents, and which ones are administrative.

> The judges main task is formalising reality and lawd, the rest of the inference is typically easy.

Except the judge is plainly ignoring valid derivations, and as a verifier making silly "proofs" up (civil law, not common law) in full-frontal-nudity on behalf of one party.

The problem is not the concept of law, nor the concept of democracy, nor the concept of formalization: the problem is how do we defend against and formalize a response to corrupt verifiers in the legal system?

Those who understand technology to verify arguments already exists can only come to the conclusion we'd be better of with formal verifiers in legal systems.

	▲	drysart 33 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> Those who understand technology to verify arguments already exists can only come to the conclusion we'd be better of with formal verifiers in legal systems. Those who understand law know that formal verifiers cannot replace a judge, because every facet of law (the writing of it, the interpretation of it, the application of it, and the enforcement of it) has to account for all the vagueries of human existence. No formal verifier can account for definitions that need to expand as the scope of human endeavor expands. No formal verifier can determine mens rea. No formal verifier can determine if something is obscene. No formal verifier can determine someone's mental competence. No formal verifier can cover all mitigating factors. No formal verifier can apply mercy where mercy is needed.