4 ms·

I'm extremely dubious about the claim that it's harder to repeal old laws than to create new ones. Why would this be the case? The big problem I see is that it

by pmccool 17y ago

I'm extremely dubious about the claim that it's harder to repeal old laws than to create new ones. Why would this be the case? The big problem I see is that it makes it harder to know what the law says at any given time; that's an inevitable result of more change. Change isn't necessarily bad, but in this case, change for change's sake undoubtedly is.

anamax 17y ago
> The big problem I see is that it makes it harder to know what the law says at any given time; It's already the case that no one knows "what the law says at any given time". > Change isn't necessarily bad, but in this case, change for change's sake undoubtedly is. It's not change for change's sake. It's change to get rid of laws that aren't worth renewing. Since laws are, by definition, threat or imposition of force, they should be somewhat valuable. I'd argue that simple renewal isn't enough, that renewal should require more effort/votes than the original passage. After all, renewal comes after experience. If a law actually works, it will have more support with experience. Note that expiration also makes it reasonable to try more experiments because you can reasonably say "hey, if it doesn't work, we're not stuck with it". With "stay until explicit repeal", it's a lot more work to undo mistakes. (Note that almost all laws have benefiaries, and those folks fight tooth and nail against repeal to keep their benefits.)
- pmccool 17y ago
  > It's already the case that no one knows "what the law > says at any given time". So nobody knows, for example, the road rules in their local area at any given time? That's my point: it's incumbent on people to know _some_ laws. The more stable these laws are, the easier it is to know what they say. This proposition makes them less stable. > It's not change for change's sake. It's change to get rid > of laws that aren't worth renewing. Since laws are, by > definition, threat or imposition of force, they should be > somewhat valuable. So repeal bad laws. That sounds like a better idea than presuming that all laws are bad and repealing them automatically.
  - anamax 17y ago
    > nobody knows, for example, the road rules in their local area at any given time? Actually, they don't. Almost every vehicle, including those fresh off the lot, will fail an inspection by someone who wants to find a problem. > The more stable these laws are, the easier it is to know what they say. This proposition makes them less stable. You're assuming that this change will significantly affect people's ability to know the law. It doesn't - they're already ignorant AND the law mutates enough as it is. > So repeal bad laws. It's almost impossible to repeal things. The US still has a mohair subsidy from WWI. > That sounds like a better idea than presuming that all laws are bad and repealing them automatically. I'm not presuming that all laws are bad. I'm proposing a mechanism for getting rid of bad and obsolete laws that has some chance of actually working. We don't elect legislators for life, so why should the default for laws be "forever"?
    - pmccool 17y ago
      > It's almost impossible to repeal things. The US still has a mohair subsidy from WWI. This is what I don't get; why? I get that laws aren't repealed as often as they should be. My personal suspicion is that it's a lack of political will. I'm not from the US, I don't know that much about the political system. I imagined that repealing a law would be a matter of passing a bill, same as making one. Is this assumption wrong?
      - anamax 17y ago
        > I imagined that repealing a law would be a matter of passing a bill, same as making one. Is this assumption wrong? That's correct. > This is what I don't get; why Why doesn't matter. What matters is whether it's true, because it's silly to act as if things are different, and what you're going to do about it. > My personal suspicion is that it's a lack of political will. Laws have beneficiaries. For example, someone is collecting that mohair subsidy. Those folks are quite motivated to keep things the way they are. The folks who would benefit from killing ths subsidy are diffuse - they don't even know that they're paying it. Plus, legislators get rewarded for doing "new" things, not for fixing old ones that no one remembers. That's why my "must be renewed every so often" proposal requires more and more effort to pass each time (approaching some limit). The longer that something has been around, the more popular it should be if it's actually worthwhile.

by pmccool 17y ago

anamax 17y ago

> The big problem I see is that it makes it harder to know what the law says at any given time; It's already the case that no one knows "what the law says at any given time". > Change isn't necessarily bad, but in this case, change for change's sake undoubtedly is. It's not change for change's sake. It's change to get rid of laws that aren't worth renewing. Since laws are, by definition, threat or imposition of force, they should be somewhat valuable. I'd argue that simple renewal isn't enough, that renewal should require more effort/votes than the original passage. After all, renewal comes after experience. If a law actually works, it will have more support with experience. Note that expiration also makes it reasonable to try more experiments because you can reasonably say "hey, if it doesn't work, we're not stuck with it". With "stay until explicit repeal", it's a lot more work to undo mistakes. (Note that almost all laws have benefiaries, and those folks fight tooth and nail against repeal to keep their benefits.)

pmccool 17y ago
> It's already the case that no one knows "what the law > says at any given time". So nobody knows, for example, the road rules in their local area at any given time? That's my point: it's incumbent on people to know _some_ laws. The more stable these laws are, the easier it is to know what they say. This proposition makes them less stable. > It's not change for change's sake. It's change to get rid > of laws that aren't worth renewing. Since laws are, by > definition, threat or imposition of force, they should be > somewhat valuable. So repeal bad laws. That sounds like a better idea than presuming that all laws are bad and repealing them automatically.
- anamax 17y ago
  > nobody knows, for example, the road rules in their local area at any given time? Actually, they don't. Almost every vehicle, including those fresh off the lot, will fail an inspection by someone who wants to find a problem. > The more stable these laws are, the easier it is to know what they say. This proposition makes them less stable. You're assuming that this change will significantly affect people's ability to know the law. It doesn't - they're already ignorant AND the law mutates enough as it is. > So repeal bad laws. It's almost impossible to repeal things. The US still has a mohair subsidy from WWI. > That sounds like a better idea than presuming that all laws are bad and repealing them automatically. I'm not presuming that all laws are bad. I'm proposing a mechanism for getting rid of bad and obsolete laws that has some chance of actually working. We don't elect legislators for life, so why should the default for laws be "forever"?
  - pmccool 17y ago
    > It's almost impossible to repeal things. The US still has a mohair subsidy from WWI. This is what I don't get; why? I get that laws aren't repealed as often as they should be. My personal suspicion is that it's a lack of political will. I'm not from the US, I don't know that much about the political system. I imagined that repealing a law would be a matter of passing a bill, same as making one. Is this assumption wrong?
    - anamax 17y ago
      > I imagined that repealing a law would be a matter of passing a bill, same as making one. Is this assumption wrong? That's correct. > This is what I don't get; why Why doesn't matter. What matters is whether it's true, because it's silly to act as if things are different, and what you're going to do about it. > My personal suspicion is that it's a lack of political will. Laws have beneficiaries. For example, someone is collecting that mohair subsidy. Those folks are quite motivated to keep things the way they are. The folks who would benefit from killing ths subsidy are diffuse - they don't even know that they're paying it. Plus, legislators get rewarded for doing "new" things, not for fixing old ones that no one remembers. That's why my "must be renewed every so often" proposal requires more and more effort to pass each time (approaching some limit). The longer that something has been around, the more popular it should be if it's actually worthwhile.