3 ms·

> Getting rid of them would simply prolong the process of passing laws. Sounds good to me! If I ever run for office (ha!), I'd run on a platform of reducing t

by beambot 11y ago

> Getting rid of them would simply prolong the process of passing laws. Sounds good to me! If I ever run for office (ha!), I'd run on a platform of reducing the number of outstanding laws -- e.g. every new law passed requires two antiquated laws to be rescinded. Plus, as a side benefit, we could massively reduce the amount of quid pro quo pork added via amendments. Consider it the legal version of "My net programming contribution this week was -2000 lines of code." [1] [1] http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Negative_2000_Lines_Of_Code.txt http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Negative_2000_Lin...

mangeletti 11y ago
I would vote for you, based on that merit alone. I often hear people say things like, "If Republicans and Democrats (or the house and senate) could work together, they'd get a lot more done.", and I think to myself, "Is a 'productive' congress one that passes thousands of pages of legislation?".
- Retra 11y ago
  You have to pass a law to repeal another one.
  - manicdee 11y ago
    Bills are like diffs. They are not law, they merely make changes to the laws that exist. Some bills will add new files to the working repository, others will delete files. The diff isn't the code.
vacri 11y ago
"A law" is not like "a line of code".
- beambot 11y ago
  That's a deeply insightful observation about my analogy... thanks! </s> The point was: Continuously bolting on new {law, code} tends to monotonically increase a system's complexity. Many people consider unnecessary complexity "bad." I'm one of those people.
  - vacri 11y ago
    Sometimes I just can't be bothered to spoonfeed the drones. That's not sarcasm. My point was that "a law" is not an atomic item like you think it is.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]