Where's the spec?
Published Wed, Jan 21 2009 1:15 PM
I write software for a living. Among other things, I “foist [my] opinions on [my] fellow countrymen and countrywomen” as recreation. Writing blog posts is not at all like writing software. For one thing, my blog posts are entirely my own opinion, and the only thing(s) they have to do to “work” for me is to express that opinion well — that and be based upon a sound footing. For software to “work” it has to perform a specific task — correctly.
Since I write software for a living, it's only natural that someone where I work has to test that software. Oh, sure, as a software developer I have to test it myself, but there's a potential difference in the way that developers and “testers” do things. It is said that a developer will check that the software does what it's expected to do, while a tester will check that the software doesn't do what it's not expected to do. In test driven development, as much of the code as possible is tested, to make sure that the results are as expected for every logical operation that takes place.
The key word here is “expected.” When software does what's expected, it works. When it does the unexpected, it doesn't work. So, how do you know what's expected? After all, if you want to write bug free software that works, don't you need to know what the customer wants it to do?
So, how do you find out what the customer wants your software to do? Well, one approach is to interview the customer and gather their requirements, then write them down into a requirements document. Then you analyze the requirements, looking for conflicts or things that aren't technologically feasible and negotiate those requirements with the customer. Once you've come to an agreement on the requirements you are almost ready to begin.
In order to craft software that works, you have to understand the requirements. In order to test software you have to understand the requirements. If the software doesn't satisfy the requirements, then it doesn't “work.” Testers are expected to log bugs whenever the software fails to meet the agreed upon requirements.
Of course, just having the requirements isn't really enough to write quality software. Generally you also need a specification that explains how those requirements should be met. This requires analyzing the requirements, choosing the right technology and selecting the algorithms and objects that should be implemented to satisfy those requirements. The specification should be thoroughly reviewed to ensure that all of the requirements are covered by the proposed solution before a single line of code is written.
Software requirements evolve of course, and some sort of change management is required. New requirements must be negotiated with the customer as well as the team implementing the software. The earlier in the process changing requirements are recognized the better off everyone is, because it's a lot less expensive to change a system before it's implemented than afterward, and it's a lot less expensive to verify that the changes work and to plan for how to test them early rather than late.
Government works in a similar fashion. What do we want from our government? Aren't those the requirements that we the people, as customers of government have? How do we know whether our government works as intended, unless we know what we want from it? Simply put, “Where's the spec?”
I believe that the fundamental requirements document for our government is the Declaration of Independence. This document lays out very specifically what the founding fathers, the archetypical “customers” of American government required. Government is to secure our unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Government is to derive its powers from the consent of the people being governed. It is the job of government to effect the people's safety and happiness. The government established by the people needs to be stable and only altered for serious reasons, not light and transient causes. The Declaration also laid out a long list of things that government ought not to do, presenting a list of grievances against King George III.
Government should not prohibit the passages of laws that are of immediate and pressing importance. It should not prevent the passage of laws that are wholesome and for the public good. It ought not to intrude upon the workings of legislatures of local districts (i.e. the States), or make it impossible or difficult for them to operate. It ought not to dissolve the local governments that oppose its aims. It should not prevent the people from deciding who their representatives ought to be. It should not block the execution of the laws, or the selection of judges. These are just a few of the things that government is required not to do by our governments primary requirements document, the Declaration of Independence. There are many more.
As for the “spec,” we've had two of them. The first specification for our government, attempting to satisfy the requirements established in the Declaration of Independence was the Articles of Confederation. This was a good start, but it failed to meet a few of the primary requirements including effecting the people's safety. In fact it nearly failed even to meet it's own established goal of establishing a perpetual union between the States. Failing to meet the established requirements resulted in a second try at a specification for government — the Constitution for the United States of America.
Our ultimate specification for government, the Constitution meets all of the requirements established by the founders. It places strict limitations on what the federal government can and can't do. It establishes the relationships between the three branches of government, and establishes their duties and responsibilities, as well as the powers granted to them in order to fulfill those duties and responsibilities. It provides guarantees to the States and stability by providing a carefully thought out mechanism by which it can be changed (a change control process for you geeks). Finally, it also leaves the powers and responsibilities that are not explicitly granted to the federal government to the States and the people at large (that is, those powers and responsibilities that are not also explicitly prohibited to the States and people.
This then, is the standard by which we ought to measure whether government “works.” We don't measure the success of our government by how well wealth is redistributed by the system. We don't measure the success of our government by how well tyrants and dictators like us. We don't measure the success of our government by anything other than how it lives up to its stated purpose.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
That's the standard. The rules by which our government is to meet those standards are spelled out in the Constitution.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
We've strayed a bit from those requirements, but we've never altered them in any fundamental way (well, perhaps the sixteenth and seventeenth amendments made some fundamental shifts, as well as supreme court interpretation of the fourteenth amendment's equal protection clause). If the people believe that for some reason the requirements have changed since 1776, then we need a new Revolution to alter or abolish the existing government. However, interpreting these documents as “living documents” open to the interpretation of the day, so that the words mean what we “want” them to mean rather than taking their plain meaning as they had when they were written is to say that there are no requirements and there is no specification.
In his inaugural speech, President Obama had this to say (via the Heritage Foundation's “Morning Bell”)…
Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. ... The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act. ... The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works.
If the question is whether our government works, shouldn't we answer by how well it continues to meet the founder's original requirements? And, if as President Obama seems to imply, the requirements aren't complete, then the path to fixing the bugs is to re-negotiate the requirements. If redistribution of wealth is the answer to our economic woes, then we need to amend our Constitution to allow it.
My thought though isn't that we need to alter our Constitution. I don't believe we need to redistribute the wealth earned by those people that have been exercising their unalienable rights to pursue happiness either. Rather, I think we need to re-examine our government programs and start removing the ones that don't comply with the specification, or that operate counter to the requirements document.
Trackback URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/track.aspx?postid=1300
Permalink URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/2009/1/21/1300.aspx
Subscribe to this entry's
comment feed. (Atom)
David responded with:
 | “ ...the Declaration of Independence. This document lays out very
specifically what the founding fathers, the archetypical 'customers' of
American government required.”
And those requirements were stated as both positives and negatives,
explicity or implied. The “long train of abuses” would form a framework
for analyzing governmental abuses, even today, IMO... and your post
seems to indicate your essential agreement with this position. *heh* Big
surprise; you're literate. ;-)
“It is the job of government to effect the people's safety and happiness.”
I think this is a stretch from what both the Declaration and the
Constitution lay down. A better exegesis would be something like, “It is
the job of government to positively affect the people's safety and not
place undue (or rights-abrogating) barriers to their pursuit of
happiness.” Effecting safety would require cradle-to-grave swaddling in
fluffy cotton, but government should be a terror to outlaws. Neither,
AFAIK, did the Founders believe that government could effect happiness,
although they did assert that it could affect it and illegitimately
limit its pursuit by free men.
This then was the essential measurement laid down by the Founders, if
one were to distill the essence of the American State Papers:
Provide reasonable protection against malefactors and get out of the way
of common law-abiding citizens' daily lives.
What we have today is fast becoming the opposite of that ideal:
anarcho-tyranny, where common citizens have good cause to fear their own
government and outlaws can largely scoff at it.
I do wonder what my form of government(s) grandchidren (if I ever have
any, even our oldest seems in no particular hurry there :-)) may live
under. Certainly I know that MY grandparents would find little of the
government they THOUGHT they had in today's messes, and my
great-grandparents (from what exposure I had to them as a child) would
find even less to recognize.
And even they labored under the delusion that Lincoln had “saved” the
republic. |
Perri Nelson responded with:
 | I take the safety and happiness statement from this line in the Declaration…
“laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” However, my interpretation of its meaning is much closer to yours than say FDR's interpretation. Funny you should mention the misapprehension that Lincoln “saved” the republic. I know that you and I have talked about this issue before, and while I still don't quite agree that the South was blameless in the war of 1860 (particularly South Carolina), I do agree that Lincoln probably did more to damage the Constitution than any President before him, and most since. Walter Williams has an interesting article on this point on Townhall.com today. In it he excoriates the hypocrisy in the Emancipation Proclamation (which, despite popular opinion did nothing whatsoever to free the slaves), and bemoans the excessive power that the federal government acquired through overwhelming force — and the negative consequences it had for the ninth and tenth amendments to the Constitution. I think you'd find it well worth reading. |
Perri Nelson responded with: Twittering
| I've recently taken to social networking via Twitter. I did this in part to build a network of people that I could draw inspiration from, and in part to boost traffic here. While I do write mostly for myself, I am interested in sharing my opinions, and Twitter seems to be a good way to promulgate them, 140 characters at a time. Some rather interesting people use Twitter including @orbusmax. “The Orb” as he calls himself as a fabulous news portal out here that I've made one of my home pages. I highly recommend it if you're in the Pacific Northwest. There are quite a few other interesting people to “follow” on twitter, and many of them will follow you back when you do. Building a network this way is really handy, and leads to lots of interesting insights from other bloggers. And of course, it lets you share your views to a wide audience as well. That's how I ended up following @bitmaelstrom. One thing led to another, and I sent him a link to this post. His response was a post of his own on the concept. Who knows? This social networking thing might just be useful after all. |
ablurn responded with:
 | Every once in a while something I write strikes a cord and gets picked up by a national news source. For a week or two my hits go nuts but it doesn't tend to hold.
The likely reason is that I don't post every day. It is my time and I only post when the mood or inspiration strikes me. It is hard to maintain readership in an immediate satisfaction society when you only average a little better then weekly.
My stuff on the paramedical exam is still on Life Quote after almost 2 years. I still get hits from that. |
Stanford Matthews responded with:
 | As a republic we elect others to represent us within the government. It has been my understanding that a true democracy requires majority rule by each and every citizen and in a republic we 'hire' others to represent us. They are not required to operate based on any majority opinion of their constituents and if they fail to meet with the approval of those they represent, elections can replace them or legal proceedings for excessive abuses.
It seems to me the 'spec' lies with the people based on the founding documents, etc., and distilling that 'spec' seems to be at issue now and in the past.
Public discourse may hold the key to resolving these issues. The more people discuss the issues the larger the chance to resolve them. |
ablur responded with:
| Looks like one of my better responses got lost in the transition. I wish I would have saved it. |
JMB responded with:
 | I read Mr, Walter Williams article, as you had seggested, and I have some questions that maybe you can anser for me...
Would not our States have, in 1787, fully understood, that if any of them were to attempt to secede from this union, that those reasons for this, should be fully justifiable.
What were those reasons that were declared by our southern States, and did those reasons in anyway resemble those that had been announced whithin our own Declaration of Independence.
Should any reasons given suffice.
And...
You claim you do not like what South Carolina did, is it because they did not have good enough reasons to use brute force, or is it just simply because they had.
I do want you to know Mr, Nelson, that I am in no way set against any State, or any collection of them, seceding from a Union of tyranny. |