Why I Could Never Be a Lawyer
Or, rather, why I would likely do poorly in law school, and even if I managed to pass, would likely hate the kinds of b.s. little trials that 99% of lawyers have to work on to earn a living. In writing that last mini-rant about the Second Amendment and the "incorporation doctrine" and why the courts have not made it clear that states may not violate the Second any more than they may violate the First or the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, etc., I realized something expressed by this analogy: memorizing baroque law:understanding principles of systems :: memorizing baroque Unix and security protocols:understanding physics and math. In English, the talent for being able to memorize a lot of often confusing and contradictory law is related to the talent for being interested in basic economic or system principles in the same way that the talent for understanding arcane Unix and security protocols is related to the talent for understanding math or physics. I confess, I'm not a "Unix geek." I skip most messages which talk about SSL, DNS, and the intricacies of Linux or BSD or the like. More and more "security" and crypto seems to be about this kind of stuff. It reminds me a lot of the law, where one just has to absorb thousands of cases and bits of "lore" about precedents and statutes. I would bog down, I expect, in not being able to simultaneously grok the Bill of Rights AND the aforementioned "incorporation doctrine" mess. Also, unlike many in the law business (at least as I see them being interviewed on video and in print), I don't see any "majesty" in the law. What I see instead is a massive deviation from the "kernel" of a largely self-running machine based on core (kernel) principles of "you leave me alone and I'll leave you alone" kinds of Schelling points. The law has become a baroque collection of "buttinsky" exceptions and mix-ins and overrides. (A mess of "before" and "after" methods, in Lisp terms.) Now I don't mean to insult any of those here who can write learnedly about the Unix-flavored hacks and about all nine layers of TCP/IP (or is TCP/IP just one of the layers of some other byzantine cake? I never bothered to learn the equivalent of "King Philip Could Only Find Good Strawberries"--Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. The world needs all kinds. And right now, security and crypto seems to be mostly about knowing lots and lots of pieces of cruft. I surmise that the same skills--including the ability to absorb seemingly unrelated and even contradictory bits of stuff--useful for programmers are useful for lawyers. Which may be why several current or former Cypherpunks have become lawyers or are in law school. Gaak! And GAK! Two sayings appeal to me more: "Never memorize anything you can look up." --Einstein. "Think deeply about simple things." --motto of Ross Summer School, quoted often by physicist and mathematician John Baez. --Tim May "Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity." --Robert A. Heinlein
On Wednesday 21 May 2003 20:36, Tim May wrote:
memorizing baroque law:understanding principles of systems :: memorizing baroque Unix and security protocols:understanding physics and math.
Another analogy: complying with rules of procedure : finding justice :: foil fencing in a match : real sword fighting I like whacking people with swords, but _hate_ the senseless, picky foil rules. -- Steve Furlong Computer Condottiere Have GNU, Will Travel Guns will get you through times of no duct tape better than duct tape will get you through times of no guns. -- Ron Kuby
On Wed, 21 May 2003, Steve Furlong wrote:
I like whacking people with swords, but _hate_ the senseless, picky foil rules.
I feel the same way about 'martial arts' and 'tournaments'. -- ____________________________________________________________________ We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space" ravage@ssz.com jchoate@open-forge.org www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 05:36:51PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
Also, unlike many in the law business (at least as I see them being interviewed on video and in print), I don't see any "majesty" in the law. What I see instead is a massive deviation from the "kernel" of a largely self-running machine based on core (kernel) principles of "you leave me alone and I'll leave you alone" kinds of Schelling points.
I agree. I've never understood why folks find the law to be "majestic." Some theories: * Some people thrill to the raw application of power. This may explain the popularity of law and order and shows of that genre. It explains why many people move to Washington, to be close to power and eventually hope to become a deputy assistant undersecretary of petty and generally inscrutable affairs. * Law professors have spent too much time reading legal "rights theory" and other assorted oppressed-class nonsense (I have in my possession a law review article written about science fiction worlds, which while entertaining is hardly what I would call an academic pursuit). Using the law to implement your will can be majestic, perhaps. * Still others view politics as an honorable profession, or are simply intrigued by the change to do good in some way. I know a reporter at the New York Times who has consciously dedicated her life to the pursuit of "civil justice." The common law, before Washington created a Napoleonic code of thousands of pages of rules and exceptions and allowances for well-connected lobbyists, may have had a better claim to being majestic. No longer. -Declan
On Wednesday, May 21, 2003, at 06:27 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 05:36:51PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
Also, unlike many in the law business (at least as I see them being interviewed on video and in print), I don't see any "majesty" in the law. What I see instead is a massive deviation from the "kernel" of a largely self-running machine based on core (kernel) principles of "you leave me alone and I'll leave you alone" kinds of Schelling points.
I agree. I've never understood why folks find the law to be "majestic." Some theories:
* Some people thrill to the raw application of power. This may explain the popularity of law and order and shows of that genre. It explains why many people move to Washington, to be close to power and eventually hope to become a deputy assistant undersecretary of petty and generally inscrutable affairs.
Yes, I think the "will to power" is very strong. It's just that different people see it in different ways, and define "power" differently. In my case, I grew up knowing how atom bombs worked before I was 11 (well, I had a clear mental picture of chain reactions, and I was able to describe the "gun type" Little Boy device to my 5th grade class...though in retrospect I expect few of them understood what I was saying). I thus grew up believing that science and math were the _real_ forms of magic and wizardry in the world, that while there are obvious no demons and warlocks and Lovecraftian mysteries, there are deep mysteries in the structure of the real numbers, compelling power in the nature of undecidable propositions, unbreakable boxes and impenetrable shields in the form of RSA, and, of course, powerful computers and magnificent H-bomb explosions. And so on, with DNA, engineering of bridges and ships, the mystery of turbulence in fluids, and on. (And now I'm excited, though I don't write about it much here for obvious reasons, that we may be on the verge of discovering what "money" really is, in terms of epistemic logic, possible worlds semantics, Bayesian belief networks, and topos theory. How can being an Assistant Undersecretary for Retired Schoolteachers Affairs possibly compete?) It seemed terribly petty to me to want to control or have power over other people. (I practiced what I preach: when I was at Intel the top mgmt was constantly trying to get me to manage a lot of people. I hated managing other people. I hated having to tell them what to do, having to discipline them for coming to work late, all that jive. I only wanted to do my own projects, though I sometimes appreciated having technicians around as extra sets of hands to build equipment, help with experiments, take data, etc. But I generally hated having control over other people. I have none today, and this is fine with me. This does not contradict the fact that I would be more than willing to exert a certain kind of ultimate control--death administered by firearm--if the situation arose where it was justified. Which for me is anyone entering my house without my permission, anyone stealing from me, anyone trying to tell me what I can read and what I cannot. It's all consistent as far as I'm concerned.) When I was interviewing college seniors and grad students for employment at Intel, a large fraction of the people gave as their goal "I want to work with people." Gaack! I generally recommended for hiring (or further interviews) those who told me with some excitement what their Ph.D. thesis had been about, or what work had inspired them, or which classes they liked a lot. I might ask them what they thought of MOS versus bipolar, or about superconductivity and what the significance of Cooper pairs really was, in their opinion. If they were clueless, or bored, or nattered on about how much they wanted to "work with people!," I usually didn't recommend them. (I think some kids--and this was mostly in the years 1977-80--just had the idea that they were supposed to emphasize their "people skills" and to jabber about how much they liked the idea of being part of a team and all. It may have gotten worse after Personnel stopped favoring me as someone to go out to engineering campuses to recruit.) And I think the political equivalent of this is having someone say "I want to do public service." "Public service" meaning "'work in government." Clearly the world is changed a lot more by the development of a new microprocessor or way of doing relational data bases than it is by some earnest young history major working her way up from GS-3 to an eventual GS-10 position as Administrative Assistant to the Deputy Director of Aptical Foddering, Near East Subdivision. And why is is thought to be noble to work for non-market wages in an imperial city like Washington? (As most of you probably know, I spent most of the 1960s living near Washington. JFK did not impress me at all--a liar born with a silver spoon in his mouth, courtesy of his bootlegging father who then bought his way into respectability and the corridors of power, proving everything that is wrong about politics. Many of us were not sad to see Kennedy whacked. I was not impressed with Washington and I certainly had no desire to go back there to work. "Mr. Deeds Goes to Washington" never impressed me. A city of petty bureaucrats not working on anything important. ) Anyway, I equate "want to work with people" with "want to enter public service." These are not builders and doers and thinkers and men of accomplishment.
* Still others view politics as an honorable profession, or are simply intrigued by the change to do good in some way. I know a reporter at the New York Times who has consciously dedicated her life to the pursuit of "civil justice."
Or like Blair, at the NYT, who devoted his 4-year career there to putting one over on whitey. (He explained in recent days that the reason he lied and fabricated nearly everything was because by being black he had "disadvantages" at the Times.)
The common law, before Washington created a Napoleonic code of thousands of pages of rules and exceptions and allowances for well-connected lobbyists, may have had a better claim to being majestic. No longer.
Yep, it's a disgusting dish made by tens of thousands of cooks, each adding the ingredients to further his own career and maximize the kickbacks. Nattering about the "majesty of the law" belongs with the other fatuous expressions. --Tim May "The Constitution is a radical document...it is the job of the government to rein in people's rights." --President William J. Clinton
On Wednesday 21 May 2003 22:54, Tim May wrote: ...
When I was interviewing college seniors and grad students for employment at Intel, a large fraction of the people gave as their goal "I want to work with people."
Gaack!... If they were clueless, or bored, or nattered on about how much they wanted to "work with people!," I usually didn't recommend them.
(I think some kids--and this was mostly in the years 1977-80--just had the idea that they were supposed to emphasize their "people skills" and to jabber about how much they liked the idea of being part of a team and all.
I think that's right. I finished high school just after that time block, and would have been interviewing for my first after-graduation job in '84 if I hadn't put on the green suit. The high school guidance counselor and the college job hunting assistant certainly emphasized people skills to us engineer types. "You may be the best engineer ever, but you have to impress the personnel department first. They like to deal with people, so make sure to speak their language." It didn't much affect me, but many of my friends weren't savvy enough to realize that career advice from a high school guidance counselor or a 23-year-old grad assistant who had yet to find work outside of acedemia was not worth much. -- Steve Furlong Computer Condottiere Have GNU, Will Travel If someone is going to use their weapons to protect their rights, [it] makes me nervous that they have these weapons at all!" -- Rep. Henry Waxman
On Sat, 24 May 2003, Steve Furlong wrote:
I think that's right. I finished high school just after that time block, and would have been interviewing for my first after-graduation job in '84 if I hadn't put on the green suit. The high school guidance counselor and the college job hunting assistant certainly emphasized people skills to us engineer types. "You may be the best engineer ever, but you have to impress the personnel department first. They like to deal with people, so make sure to speak their language." It didn't much affect me, but many of my friends weren't savvy enough to realize that career advice from a high school guidance counselor or a 23-year-old grad assistant who had yet to find work outside of acedemia was not worth much.
Largely similar with my experience. I went and talked to the counselor, carefully considered what they said, and completely ignored the suggestions. I'm wearing a different hat now, but in a previous life managed an engineering department that turned out Product extremely well. I tend to be a difficult person. Not becuase I like to be, but because asking questions seems to lead to better Product. In a more research focused persuit, I'd present as a very different person. I do remember a conversation with a college couselor who told me I was promising, but difficult. When I replied, pointing out that simply saying "yes" all the time is a bad way to make sure everyone had some idea of what is going on, I heard something largely along the lines of "see, that's the problem." School counselors in general seem to suffer from the same problem as phychologists. Not only can't they tell someone what "best practice" is for what they want to do, but also, they fail to meaningfully help out with the question of "what is it that I want to do?" I don't hold it against them that they can't do so, but I still find them useless. The random .sig that came up strikes me as amusing. -j -- Jamie Lawrence jal@jal.org Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud. After a while, you realise the pig is enjoying it.
On Wed, 21 May 2003, Declan McCullagh wrote:
I agree. I've never understood why folks find the law to be "majestic."
They don't. They like law because it is interesting to them. It is interesting like a novel, or an encyclopedia. When I was a kid I used to love flipping the pages of an encyclopedia - usually forgetting what I was originally looking for. I liked the information - lawyers like the words. Some people like studying bugs. Some people like studying brain cells. Some people like studying anything, because *everything* is interesting. If you think about anything deeply enough, you find out there's a lot you don't understand. As the number of people increase, the social pressure increases, and we begin to cook in ways we didn't think possible. Law is supposed to aleviate that pressure, but it usually backfires. Lawyers like words, they don't really care about what they mean in an overall picture of society, rather than how they relate to each other. I'm glad Tim knows he can't be a lawyer, but given his comments here, there may come a day when he'll appreciate what they can do with words. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
At 21:27 -0400 2003/05/21, Declan McCullagh wrote:
I agree. I've never understood why folks find the law to be "majestic."
Recently here in Palo Alto, a latino teenager was railroaded by the cops and almost convicted of raping an elderly white lady. Nevermind those pesky DNA tests, he confessed after many hours in police custody without representation. Lawyers kept him from being framed by forcing a DNA test that failed to match his DNA with that of the rapist. The lawyers that freed him might not consider the law "majestic", but I think they have good reason to sleep well at night. -- J. Eric Townsend -- jet spies com buy stuff, damnit: http://www.spies.com/jet/store.html
participants (7)
-
Declan McCullagh -
Jamie Lawrence -
jet -
Jim Choate -
Mike Rosing -
Steve Furlong -
Tim May