3 ms·
There's a sense in which simplifying laws merely passes the burden to the Executive Branch. It's far easier to prove that a person wore some federal uniform tha
by smhost 10y ago
There's a sense in which simplifying laws merely passes the burden to the Executive Branch. It's far easier to prove that a person wore some federal uniform than it is to prove that they pretended to be a federal employee. Just imagine that you're the prosecutor and think about the difference in the amount of work you would have to do for this case. These are resources that can be used elsewhere, and as a citizen, I gladly and enthusiastically forfeit my right to dress as a mailman if it means that it will help reduce cases of fraud.
I do like the idea of simple laws, though, and I hope that a future civilization may flourish under the Golden Rule as its only law.
- baddox 10y agoThe ease of the prosecution proving their cases is not a higher priority to me than the feasibility of an average citizens reading and understanding most laws.
- smhost 10y agoAs I see it, the government's only job is to protect its citizens, and anything that gets in the way of it doing its job is counterproductive. I agree that a best-informed populace probably must also be the best-protected, but I disagree that the solution is to limit all legislation to the eighth grade level of diction. Free legal aid as a constitutional right seems like a slightly more practical alternative to me.