Multiplication of Negative Scenarios: the Approach Public Administrations Could Use at Drafting General Rules
This paper addresses problems that emerge when draft laws are created without due regard for the calculus of probability. Although the latter should be sine qua non for future legislation, legislators usually do not use it despite the legislation’s pro future orientation. The paper, based on Hume’s old “is-ought” problem (the impossibility to move from descriptive statements to prescriptive ones) and with the awareness that probability will not be used soon, offers a solution for the future legislation in the multiplication of (negative) scenarios, applied to different life questions. Despite the more and more “popular use” of regulatory impact assessments, smart regulation, probability and risk, public administrations as the major drafters of general legal rules usually do not even use the (much simpler) negative approach to gain better insight into problems, although it is per se the natural way of our thinking. A new view on probability through signs that fit into (unwanted, but known in advance) scenarios can also provide new answers regarding causality. The latter is based on signs, which is what evidence per se really means.
Only papers not published or submitted for publication elsewhere, will be considered. The author(s) is/are also responsible for any violations of the copyright regulations.