[ModernMech]

Exactly how do you write a law that has no room for interpretation? What does that process look like exactly, and how do you achieve it at scale in a changing and dynamic world where the meanings of words change over time?

I think what you’re saying is the equivalent of “just write software without bugs and everything will be fine”

Yeah sure… but easier said than done.

[klyrs]

> Exactly how do you write a law that has no room for interpretation?

Funny question in light of Fischer vs. US. The majority found that the text of a law didn't mean what they believed it should, so they threw out the text and went with their feelings. How can one write a law with no room for interpretation, to be understood by a court who can't be trusted to retain the letter of the law?

[Dalewyn]

Generally speaking, a specific law is always better than a vague law. It allows for more fairer enforcement and better understanding of the law concerned.

If the words written on paper don't actually mean anything and can be interpreted wildly, what is even the point of passing laws?

Writing and passing unnecessarily vague laws open to interpretation and saying your job is done is like Bethesda publishing a bug infested game and saying they have a finished product. No, your work is shit, go back to the workshop.

[ModernMech]

Well I think there's quite a difference between what you originally said ("with no room for interpretation") and what you now say ("don't actually mean anything and can be interpreted wildly").

I think lawmakers strive to write laws that are precise enough that they can't be interpreted wildly, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect lawmakers to craft laws that have no room for interpretation.