Have STEM background

Feels more like I'm reading philosophy written in classical English.

i should have said upper division math courses, high abstractions and obtuse language

>Nothing I read makes any sense.
Have you thought about that this might be the intended purpose?

>reading a law textbook is more like reading a math textbook than a novel
>high abstractions and obtuse language

this is what liberal arts brainlets actually believe. math textbooks don't use obtuse language, they use simple, direct language to deal with high, complicated abstractions. law "textbooks" use obtuse, muddled language to deal with simple, straightforward topics

This

except math is a liberal art, maybe you should read the mathematician's lament

maybe you should stop assuming people who say things you don't like haven't read the same pervasive, pop things you have read. it's clear I'm using "liberal arts" in a more restrictive sense here

except you are demonstrably wrong in all sense

law is very systematic, if you dont know the system you will not understand it.

Not the user you replied to, but he's right. English speakers with a year of high school French can sit down and read a book by Serre. Math uses incredibly simple language.

if you're too fucking dense to realize, I'm saying liberal arts definitely includes math but i'm CLEARLY using the phrase in a more restrictive sense

fuck off with your "demonstrably wrong" nonsense as well, fucking fedora autist

Dont worry.
They don't know either,thats why a law takes 10 years to go through the system.

It's confusing because legislation has to be sufficiently complicated to make room for the state and private power that oversees it's drafting, and to obfuscate these loopholes from democratic oversight and ethics.
This effectively disenfranchises the population from the legal system that supposedly represents it.
Liberal democracy does not work. you know what does? anarchy.

It was a good post until the last word.

Fucking antifags GTFO my board
Reeeeeee

Actually, the more complicated a law is, the less loopholes it probably has. If you have a one sentence law you are definetely not covering all kinds of interpretations this sentence offers. Law is definetely not systematic to confuse people. In fact, such an attitude reeks of an anti-science-mentality.

law isn't science, brainlet.

But the attitude "If I don't understand something, it must be wrong" is still the hillbilly-antiscience mindset.

the language of law is needlessly obtuse, annoyingly so, because people will abuse imprecision of language if it's not made obvious. this isn't something good, and results in verbose, obtuse textbooks.

t. brainlet using some big words to cover the fact he knows nothing about law making

But going to higher abstractions makes things more intuitive

t. faggot
if you're not in STEM then fuck off

>If you have a one sentence law you are definetely not covering all kinds of interpretations this sentence offers.
If you have a one sentence law the law only has one rule. Law is formal, the function of its rules are not up to interpretation, what is interpreted is the product of the inputs.
If you have one rule A and one deliberation you have two possible outcomes, either the rule is broken or it is not.
If you have two rules A, B and one deliberation there are 4 possible outcomes
Both A and B are break the rule
A breaks and B does not
You get the idea, possible interpretations increase exponentially with complexity, I thought that would be obvious
>Law is definetely not systematic to confuse people
I never said that, I said it was systematic to protect the interests of the powerful.
>In fact, such an attitude reeks of an anti-science-mentality.
t. Chairman Mao
What a retarded thing to say
What wrong with anarchy?
>Antifag
What?

>anarchist
>calls anyone retarded
>expects to be taken seriously
go away

>Liberal democracy does not work. you know what does? anarchy.
>historically societies started out in anarchy and evolved to have some form of state structure
Really makes me think...

Just straight-up reading a math textbook is difficult at the beginning too. Once you learn to think like a mathematician it's a lot easier.
Until you get used to legal thinking understanding law is going to be hard work.

>what's wrong with anarchy
You'll eventually get de facto -archy from one guy or maybe a few guys with all the resources and power making up the rules, usually which serve them best. But if it's a few you'll eventually have a feud and have one.

Not difficult to understand how a state forms from a power void. It's difficult to accept for some though.

>What wrong with anarchy?
It does not provide sufficient freedom.
Anarchy will inevitably lead to the subjugation of people by stronger people thus dissolving the anarchy, at least on a small scale.

The basic requirement for anarchy is that EVERYONE wants to have it and accepts that ruling over other people in any way is not acceptable.
But even if that were to happen, Anarchy would still be dissolved, since now you have societal rules in place.

>Liberal democracy does not work
I agree, democracy is a huge failure and especially its tendencies to end very abruptly and violently and create a totalitarian state should make anyone concerned.

> you know what does? anarchy.
No, you somehow found a system even WORSE the anarchy.

that's why it should be anarcho-somethingism

If you have one sentence, for example "all people need to pay income tax", you basically have no rule. Who belongs to the "people", and who doesn't? What kind of money flow qualifies as income, what doesn't? When do I have to pay taxes? How and where do I have to pay taxes? How many taxes do I have to pay? What if I don't pay the taxes, or only partially? What if I pay the taxes, but too late? Etc. etc... you want to have a rule about income taxes that covers all possible questions and loopholes, you are going to write a very long text.

>anarcho-somethingism
They are just as stupid and will result in the exact same totalitarian societies.

Just Imagine how many minutes it will take from the begging of an anarcho-capitalist society to go to slavery.

Law represents a complex system of interrelations. If you cant read a plus sign, no maths. If you don't know the possible ways of interpreting a law, well, no law for you.
Law and Anarchy aren't stellar opposites in many ways Anarchy could harness the power of laws, since laws usually assume equality of indiviudals. Anarchy does not mean: everybody do whatever the fuck they want.
In many -unfortunately theoretical terms- laws are the most anarchistic thing we have in many democracies.

I've attended 2 lectures on exactly this, EU law. It's the most boring shit I've ever witnessed. I don't think I could maintain enough concentration to absorb 5 pages.

>If you have one sentence, for example "all people need to pay income tax", you basically have no rule.
That's not the way it works IRL. take the US tax code for example, it's massive, complicated, and almost impossible to understand, and in the US you have large corporations and very wealthy people paying an effective 0℅ income tax.
Stick to the facts

>European Union
>Nothing I read makes any sense

Sounds about right.

>Democracy doesn't work
>Anarchy is worse
>Anarchy is a system
Democracy works fine, liberalism does not, privatized property and more generally capitalism are the problem
Anarchy is not a system it is an idealized state a system is in. Where hegemony and coercion are destroyed by dissent, there are many different circumstances and scales where anarchy can be, nothing intrinsic to anarchy is contrary to democracy. In many cases anarchy implicates democracy.
Most if not all doctrinal systems compatible with anarchy, commonly recognized under the banner of libertarian socialism rely on radical democracy.

>Started out as anarchy
No
Authority v coercion is prerequisite to anarchy

Don't call me an anarchist, I'm an anarchy advocate. Anarchy isn't some doctrinal bullshit for social organization. Anarchy is what happens when hierarchy and coercion in general are no longer put up with.

>You'll eventually get de facto -archy from one guy or maybe a few guys with all the resources and power making up the rules, usually which serve them best
The thing is anarchy is the abolishment of the means those people have to do so.
An end to the legal protection of privatized property(not to be confused with personal possession) ends the ability of a few people to have "all the resources" and libertarianism and the general abolishment of the legal protection/authority to infringe on the freedom of others.
There isn't a power void, the concentration of power tends towards equilibrium.
In principle anarchy does not result in any of the things you have said it would,(unless it is coerced externally) otherwise it would not be anarchy. Keep in mind that anarchy, at least not in this context, is not a doctrinal system, it is a state systems are in.

>getting rid of laws gets rid of charisma and strength
In anarchy those who are strong and charismatic will rise into the elite and the state will come back.

>Elite?
What elite?
Being well liked and capable has no implication for somehow rising into the non-existent status of elite.
Fundamentally there is no means to obtain authority in an anarchal system