On 2/24/2019 9:47 AM, D. Margaux wrote:>
> The mirror image assumption is partly wrong, in my opinion, and I don't
> think that CFJ adequately considers why.
>
> For rules A and B, let:
>
> “A > B” mean A claims precedence to B;
> “A < B” mean that A defers to B; and
> “A = B” mean that A is silent about its deference or priority relationship
> to B.
>
> The mirror image rule posits that {X > Y & Y = X} is logically equal to {Y
> X & X = Y}, and that both situations represent conflicts in the rules. I
> agree with that.
>
> BUT in my view, {X > Y & Y< X} is different. *That* example is *not* a
> conflict. In that example, both rules agree about the outcome. I just
> don’t see how that can be characterized as a conflict.
What's missing from this analysis, in my view, is that it's not purely A>B,
it's actually "A>B about fact P". So if two rules say different things
about P, the two rules can wholly agree, via an explicit
precedence/deference handshake, on whether A or B wins the conflict, but
"fact P" is still the "conflict".
So I would characterize the {X > Y on P & Y< X on P} situation as "both
rules agree on how the conflict about P is to be resolved". I think that
interpretation is foreseen and supported under this R1030 clause:
- If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of
itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) or takes
precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such
provisions shall be used to resolve the conflict, unless they
lead to contradictions between each other;
That clause foresees that there may be 2+ clauses that form a handshake ("at
least one of the Rules"), and still define that handshake as "provisions
used to resolve the conflict [over P]", saying that if the 2+ clauses agree
with each other, you've resolved the conflict over P (rather than defining
away the conflict over P as being "not a conflict"), and additionally
stating that if those conflict-resolution clauses themselves conflict, you
don't apply this step.
