> Isn't stopping people from murdering, and stealing from, each other a purpose?
I think TFA is trying to say that Law 2.0 doesn't say "Don't steal", it says instead that "The minister or an agency designated by the minister, which may be a company, shall promulgate regulations to protect property rights." And Law 3.0 says "The Agency shall cause automatic money transfers from thieves to victims to occur, to compensate victims of theft."
I deplore Law 2.0-type legislation; TFA notes that secondary legislation is subject to review by the House of Lords, but the fact is that this will be in committee; committees don't get a lot of media attention, and nothing that happens in the Lords gets much media attention. Basically, secondary legislation isn't really subject to public scrutiny, in the sense of press campaigns and proper debates, in and out of Parliament.
Also, primary legislation that provides for secondary legislation is an abstraction; it doesn't say what the law is going to be. You can read the primary legislation all through, and yet have no clue what it means, because it means nothing until the secondary legislation is implemented.
Law 2.0 also allows bills to be really badly-drafted, because the meat is all in the secondary legislation. "Let's just get it passed - ministers can fix it later, if it turns out to be a PoS." TFA notes the length of this bill - 427 pages. Even ministers don't read bills that long; MPs certainly don't, at least most of them don't.
My view is that you can't hold someone to a law that they can't reasonably be expected to know.
That means that the law must be clear and explicit. If it can't be expressed concisely, then it isn't clear. All supporting documentation (e.g. industry regulations) must be equally clear and explicit, and free for anyone to read (so no incorporation by reference of industry standards that cost £1500 for a single printed copy).
I think TFA is trying to say that Law 2.0 doesn't say "Don't steal", it says instead that "The minister or an agency designated by the minister, which may be a company, shall promulgate regulations to protect property rights." And Law 3.0 says "The Agency shall cause automatic money transfers from thieves to victims to occur, to compensate victims of theft."
I deplore Law 2.0-type legislation; TFA notes that secondary legislation is subject to review by the House of Lords, but the fact is that this will be in committee; committees don't get a lot of media attention, and nothing that happens in the Lords gets much media attention. Basically, secondary legislation isn't really subject to public scrutiny, in the sense of press campaigns and proper debates, in and out of Parliament.
Also, primary legislation that provides for secondary legislation is an abstraction; it doesn't say what the law is going to be. You can read the primary legislation all through, and yet have no clue what it means, because it means nothing until the secondary legislation is implemented.
Law 2.0 also allows bills to be really badly-drafted, because the meat is all in the secondary legislation. "Let's just get it passed - ministers can fix it later, if it turns out to be a PoS." TFA notes the length of this bill - 427 pages. Even ministers don't read bills that long; MPs certainly don't, at least most of them don't.
My view is that you can't hold someone to a law that they can't reasonably be expected to know.
That means that the law must be clear and explicit. If it can't be expressed concisely, then it isn't clear. All supporting documentation (e.g. industry regulations) must be equally clear and explicit, and free for anyone to read (so no incorporation by reference of industry standards that cost £1500 for a single printed copy).