Defects 06

Defect negotiations

It's easy to say defects are obvious, skip over exactly how redress negotiations take place, and assume dicta are just magically voided. But defect challenges don't have criminals and victims, there's no physical evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the disputants are passionate about whatever the dictum was meant to accomplish, and there's a whole lot of inseparable ideology mixed in; what kind of compromise is possible between defective and valid? There is no objective "truth" like criminal redress.

A compromise replacement bill is likeliest only while still a bill, when defects are merely embarrassing; once a bill is enacted, defects void it and undo all effects, a very public rebuke on the author and all approvers. Supporters dig in their heels and refuse to give an inch lest they be the one who caved and invalidated all those previous cases. Disputants aren't able to shun each other as obvious malingerers.

There are two reasons to stalemate: interpretation and ideology. Differing interpretations are prima facie evidence of the dictum being unclear, thus defective. So there's problem No 1: distinguishing a malingering bogus interpretation from an honest interpretation. Remember, this has to be settled by the disputants, not third parties. Impromptu juries offer opinions, nothing more. Have the disputants argue with all the jurors listening and watching, or have the disputants write everything down for the jurors to review. A unanimous or large majority opinion may be enough to sustain a shunning and force resolution, one way or the other.

To actually void a defective dictum, the winners present their verdict to the various redress companies and property registrars who have the dictum on file. It's extremely unlikely any would refuse to update the dictum's status, no matter how popular the dictum is.

If the defect is rejected, the disputants are left with ideology, and that's a matter for votes, not complaints.

Repeal is easier than with legacy governments.

Expiration limits the damage, if passions cool or experience shows it didn't really work, and everyone can save face by not renewing it "due to popular opinion".

But since anyone can join as disputant, "everyone" may be impossible.

Each potential defect is its own defect challenge.

Fresh experience provides new unexpected consequences.

Old defect challenges can be reopened for fresh evidence.