Source: Facebook

It’s because I designed, proposed, and wrote specifications for more software over the past forty years than anyone else I know. And because, aside from a few games, almost all of it was designed to solve business problems – each one a case study. So it’s not so much that I wrote that much software per se. I did. But because I designed and specified and wrote plans for so many different business problems. When combined with ‘austrian’ (operational) economics, and my lifelong business struggle against what I consider the immorality of law, taxation, and government interfering with the information systems that are necessary for business cooperation, I evolved an intuition against aggregates that permitted takings, distortions, and deceits, and in favor of a sequence of testable operations, each of which must survive moral scrutiny. So by 2009, I changed from trying to create transparency, to what I called ‘calculability’, and what today I call ‘decidability’: the use of a sequence of testable operations that remove all discretion from legal prose. But limiting the interpretation (“discretion”) in the law by requiring that any prohibitionary statement include the purpose it is meant to solve and how. This constraint reduces law to a programming exercise that is not open to interpretation, and therefore not open to discretion, and therefore not open to deception.