LegalHub: theory: Difference between revisions

[[Rent-seeking]] encourages us to squirrel away [[Verbiage|verbal mush]] on the grounds that it is “proprietary technology”: we straight-facedly say “my [[fifteen minutes]] of effort, wherein I rendered a [[Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999|Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act clause]], must perpetually be rewarded.” This is a profoundly ''awful'' disposition. Sorry, folks, but there is ''nothing'' — utterly nil — that is special, clever or even desirable about legal [[boilerplate]]. It is to witness marginal utility at the point it touches zero: it is the dreary formality one must go through ''to get to the heart of the deal''. The same goes, my friends, for your ISDA schedule — yes, friends, the whole god-forsaken thing, even the customised {{isdaprov|ATE}}s. No-one ''cares''. No-one ''likes'' it. No-one ''wants'' it. It is a regrettable externality; a grim fact of life. It is not the act; it is the rubber johnny and the [[signed, sealed, delivered|duly witnessed]] consent and [[disclaimer]] you need ''before'' you get on with it.<ref>Oh, and make sure there’s a [[counterparts]] clause for good measure.</ref> [[Ask nicely|It is the mask you need to go into the supermarket]].

So these [[feedback loop]]s drive us ''away'' from the place we want to go. Instead of a self-service ethos of simplified, standardised, user-friendly<ref>And no, the “user” is ''not'' the [[legal eagle]]: the user is the ''client''.</ref> components that, though continual refinement are honed, standardised and further simplified, we have processes which keep their existing convolution, get worse, all the time supporting a more elaborate infrastructure that purportedly is there to support them.  

Recall once again, {{author|Yuval Harari}}’s observation about the domestication of wheat,<ref>Harari’s suggestion, which owes something to [[Douglas Adams]] and his [[The Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy|pan-dimensional hyper-intelligent mice]], is that ''wheat'' domesticated ''homo sapiens'' and not ''vice versa''. See https://www.ynharari.com/topic/ecology/ </ref> and apply it here: is the [[rent-seeking]] re-intermediated support structure that has evolved an some kind of [[extended phenotype]]: a beaver dam; an adaptation wrought on the environment to ensure the process can survive, ''or is it the ''opposite''? Is the process is an external adaptation that this [[rent-seeking]] infrastructure depends upon to survive. Which way does the causal arrow flow? ''Who'' has domesticated ''whom''?

Now bear in mind this: staying with this process is not a zero-cost option. Staying with this infrastructure is ''monstrously'' expensive. Every year, this is costing you tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. ''Each''. There is good money to spend to stop you throwing other good money after bad. ''[[Contract negotiation]] is not a profit centre for any client. It is a cost.''

Design a system with feedback loops that push us towards a simplified, standardised centre, that emphasises transparency and commonality, not proprietary technology. In essence, a GitHub for legal terms: