Скачать или смотреть The Computational Reconstruction of Jurisprudence

1. Core Claim

• The legal framework contains internal contradictions that make compliance impossible.
• Statutes, regulations, and enforcement practices impose mutually exclusive obligations.

2. Structural Conflict

• Agencies interpret the same statutory language in incompatible ways.
• Courts apply differing standards of review, producing inconsistent precedents.
• Compliance with one mandate triggers violation of another.

3. Procedural Breakdown

• Administrative rules incorporate vague or circular definitions.
• Enforcement bodies rely on discretionary interpretations rather than fixed criteria.
• Regulated parties cannot predict lawful behavior due to shifting guidance.

4. Constitutional Tension

• Due process is undermined when laws are indeterminate or self‑contradictory.
• Equal protection issues arise when identical conduct is treated differently across jurisdictions.
• Non‑delegation concerns appear when agencies effectively rewrite statutory meaning.

5. Practical Consequences

• Individuals and organizations face unavoidable liability.
• Enforcement becomes selective, arbitrary, or politically influenced.
• Compliance costs escalate because actors must satisfy incompatible standards.

6. Systemic Effect

• The legal system functions as a paradox:
• Obeying one rule requires breaking another.
• No actor can achieve full compliance.
• This creates a coercive environment where discretion replaces law.

7. Final Compression

• The analysis shows a legal regime where contradictory statutes, inconsistent interpretations, and discretionary enforcement make lawful conduct structurally impossible, violating predictability, fairness, and constitutional due process.