3 ms·
Generally I take the stance that every regulation (and every other law) should have to justify its existence, and that it failing to do so would justify its rem
by PurpleBoxDragon 9y ago
Generally I take the stance that every regulation (and every other law) should have to justify its existence, and that it failing to do so would justify its removal. Yes, that is effectively a religious/moral argument given that determining why a law should exist is a subjective issue.
- JoeAltmaier 9y agoLets try that with your car some time - remove the brakes today, make them 'justify their existence' every so often. I don't think this idea is more than an ivory-tower sophistry.
- PurpleBoxDragon 9y agoBrakes aren't always applied, and I do have need to apply them many times every day I drive, and I can see the immediate consequences of not applying them. Also, I find the comparison of laws to brakes to be overlooking some key parts of laws and just how much abuse and corruption happens because of bad laws. If laws could be tested as much as brakes are, and if the laws had to show that they could achieve the desired results before being deployed to the public, then perhaps we could treat them more equally.
- JoeAltmaier 9y agoCue the essay by G. K. Chesterton regarding reform (and how its complex and simple solutions are naive): https://www.chesterton.org/taking-a-fence-down/ https://www.chesterton.org/taking-a-fence-down/