3 ms·

Hmm, I don't know how many of those truly are unneeded, at least without context on why they were created in the first place. There may have been real problems

by rattray 10y ago

Hmm, I don't know how many of those truly are unneeded, at least without context on why they were created in the first place. There may have been real problems with the Water Hyacinths as an invasive or endangered species, for example. And we certainly don't want to make it legal for people to change traffic signals at will! I had actually expected to find oodles of needless cruft and "dead code", but I'm starting to think that it might be possible that most regulation is there for a reason... who'd a thunk it!

zigzigzag 10y ago
The question is more one of costs and benefits. Anyone can argue a regulation is useful in the abstract. There's a lot of regulation around internet services and people under the age of 13. The primary effect of these rules has been that American internet services ask for your DoB and then ineffectively try to ban you from signing up if you say you're under 13. Do parents really need this?
vidarh 10y ago
One reform that most countries could make, would be for laws and regulations to start with a justification, and a test for outcomes that would see the law or regulation automatically become invalid if it can be proven that the outcomes are not met. Both because it would help with the problem where people don't understand the intent of a law or regulation and so assumes they are stupid, and because it would make passing genuinely stupid laws and regulations harder if you have figure out ways to set out the intent and an "outcome test" in a way that doesn't xpose how bad it is.
- noonespecial 10y ago
  Did... you just propose unit testing laws? Brilliant. Do want.
  - vidarh 10y ago
    Sort, of, yes. But with the courts as "testers". A lot of laws would fall due to having been passed due to ignorance. A lot of others would fail to pass in the first place because legislators would be forced to use legislators laying bare intent to punish based on morality rather than provable benefits to society - it's hard to get people to oppose laws where someone claims massive harm if a law isn't passed; it'd be easier to get people to oppose laws justified by a view of morality they may not share. And even if they still pass, it provides a much clearer attack surface for people campaiging for a repeal. But conversely it also provides a strong defense for laws with good purpose that actually work.

by rattray 10y ago

zigzigzag 10y ago

The question is more one of costs and benefits. Anyone can argue a regulation is useful in the abstract. There's a lot of regulation around internet services and people under the age of 13. The primary effect of these rules has been that American internet services ask for your DoB and then ineffectively try to ban you from signing up if you say you're under 13. Do parents really need this?

vidarh 10y ago

One reform that most countries could make, would be for laws and regulations to start with a justification, and a test for outcomes that would see the law or regulation automatically become invalid if it can be proven that the outcomes are not met. Both because it would help with the problem where people don't understand the intent of a law or regulation and so assumes they are stupid, and because it would make passing genuinely stupid laws and regulations harder if you have figure out ways to set out the intent and an "outcome test" in a way that doesn't xpose how bad it is.

noonespecial 10y ago
Did... you just propose unit testing laws? Brilliant. Do want.
- vidarh 10y ago
  Sort, of, yes. But with the courts as "testers". A lot of laws would fall due to having been passed due to ignorance. A lot of others would fail to pass in the first place because legislators would be forced to use legislators laying bare intent to punish based on morality rather than provable benefits to society - it's hard to get people to oppose laws where someone claims massive harm if a law isn't passed; it'd be easier to get people to oppose laws justified by a view of morality they may not share. And even if they still pass, it provides a much clearer attack surface for people campaiging for a repeal. But conversely it also provides a strong defense for laws with good purpose that actually work.