5 ms·

We should eliminate a majority of law. Too much law is like an over engineered program with edge cases for everything that prevents anything from changing in th

We should eliminate a majority of law. Too much law is like an over engineered program with edge cases for everything that prevents anything from changing in the future. Law cements stagnancy in our society. And at the worst, it creates moats for the powers that can use law to protect their interests over others.

yoube 7y ago
Why is tech infested with know-it-all libertarians? Honestly, do you think we'd all be better off in a lawless anarchy?
- dymk 7y ago
  Same reason "Let's just throw it away and rewrite it the right way this time!" is such a common failure mode of engineering projects. While it nearly assures the death of the project, it's so enticing due to its simplicity.
  - dfischer 7y ago
    The point isn’t to throw it away - law has meaning. It has less meaning when it defines everything.
- jMyles 7y ago
  I can't speak for the rest of "tech", but this know-it-all libertarian prefers lawful anarchy to the lawless variety. :-) (Not sure I'm really a libertarian either, but almost certainly a know-it-all)
- _tb 7y ago
  yes.
- WalterSear 7y ago
  Cognitive artifacts exacerbate the fundamental attribution error in proportion to their social effect.
- quickthrower2 7y ago
  I think the parent meant less laws, not lawless. Anarchy? No.
  - dfischer 7y ago
    Correct. Typical knee-jerk reaction of our zeitgeist. Sad, downvoted? Ok - what a way to inspire conversation. Thanks HN. Stay bright.
- loxs 7y ago
  Strange, I thought it's infested with know-it-all socialists.
dymk 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence
- Mathnerd314 7y ago
  A lot of laws were written before the internet and don't really apply now that culture has changed so much. And the rest are so vague that even lawyers argue over what they mean. Newer laws are written by corporate lawyers and passed by corrupt politicians to further protect their monopolies, with no regard as to their long-term effects. Trump has a 5:1 ratio on regulations cut vs passed: https://cei.org/blog/trump-maintains-one-five-out-pace-rules-and-regulations https://cei.org/blog/trump-maintains-one-five-out-pace-rules... tl;dr no point in paying attention to existing laws.
- microcolonel 7y ago
  I'm more a fan of the inverse: anything that could be reformed in the future should not be proposed without an accompanying explanation of the full context of the decision to enact the policy. If you believe reforms should not be made, publish those arguments to the best of your abilities. Never assume that your reasoning will be obvious to even the next person in your position, let alone the next generation.
ralusek 7y ago
One of my favorite policy proposals I've ever seen is Andrew Yang's proposal to sunset old laws, and put expiration dates on legislature. Laws should have to continuously defend their existence. Particularly in regards to laws that provide benefits to a group of people, it's basically political suicide for somebody to run on the platform of removing that benefit. My girlfriend used to work in affordable housing, and she would tell me about how the reference book of codes and laws they had to keep in line with had increased by orders of magnitude in size as compared to those from a few decades prior. A politician adds access to affordable housing for those making less than 45k, except for those who were part of the 1985 initiative benefiting LGBTQ out of state college graduates, in which case their children can continue to benefit from access to the affordable housing for 7 years after the death of their parents at a more forgiving 75k minimum salary, after which a 15 year period lowers it to 60k, given that they continue to work within 50 miles of the initial residence of their parent beneficiaries. I'm obviously making this specific example up, but it's not too far off from reality.
- pessimizer 7y ago
  This would just result in industries, sharks and scam artists waiting until laws expired and quietly doing the thing the law was designed to prevent like crazy until it was noticed and legislative machinery could slowly get around to closing the loophole again. Legislation and regulation are horribly slow to get passed anyway, a rule like that would add an order of magnitude more overhead. Now the question wouldn't be "how may laws apply to the thing I want to do" but "how many laws will pop out of existence over the duration of the thing I want to do, which ones benefit me and which hurt me, how much will I have to spend on lawyers and lobbyists to maintain a vaguely stable environment, and who will be spending to oppose this?"
  - ruytlm 7y ago
    That, or representatives tacking on pork barrel spending to legislation renewal when their vote is needed to pass it. "Oh, you want to renew the "Don't put lead in milk" law? Yeah, you're gonna have to set aside $50m for this project I think is super important.."
- 7y ago
lunias 7y ago
This. We should be constantly striving for the minimal set of laws which produce the desired effects. After all, the more lines you write the more space there is to play in between them.

yoube 7y ago

Why is tech infested with know-it-all libertarians? Honestly, do you think we'd all be better off in a lawless anarchy?

dymk 7y ago
Same reason "Let's just throw it away and rewrite it the right way this time!" is such a common failure mode of engineering projects. While it nearly assures the death of the project, it's so enticing due to its simplicity.
- dfischer 7y ago
  The point isn’t to throw it away - law has meaning. It has less meaning when it defines everything.
jMyles 7y ago
I can't speak for the rest of "tech", but this know-it-all libertarian prefers lawful anarchy to the lawless variety. :-) (Not sure I'm really a libertarian either, but almost certainly a know-it-all)
_tb 7y ago
yes.
WalterSear 7y ago
Cognitive artifacts exacerbate the fundamental attribution error in proportion to their social effect.
quickthrower2 7y ago
I think the parent meant less laws, not lawless. Anarchy? No.
- dfischer 7y ago
  Correct. Typical knee-jerk reaction of our zeitgeist. Sad, downvoted? Ok - what a way to inspire conversation. Thanks HN. Stay bright.
loxs 7y ago
Strange, I thought it's infested with know-it-all socialists.

dymk 7y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence

Mathnerd314 7y ago
A lot of laws were written before the internet and don't really apply now that culture has changed so much. And the rest are so vague that even lawyers argue over what they mean. Newer laws are written by corporate lawyers and passed by corrupt politicians to further protect their monopolies, with no regard as to their long-term effects. Trump has a 5:1 ratio on regulations cut vs passed: https://cei.org/blog/trump-maintains-one-five-out-pace-rules-and-regulations https://cei.org/blog/trump-maintains-one-five-out-pace-rules... tl;dr no point in paying attention to existing laws.
microcolonel 7y ago
I'm more a fan of the inverse: anything that could be reformed in the future should not be proposed without an accompanying explanation of the full context of the decision to enact the policy. If you believe reforms should not be made, publish those arguments to the best of your abilities. Never assume that your reasoning will be obvious to even the next person in your position, let alone the next generation.

ralusek 7y ago

One of my favorite policy proposals I've ever seen is Andrew Yang's proposal to sunset old laws, and put expiration dates on legislature. Laws should have to continuously defend their existence. Particularly in regards to laws that provide benefits to a group of people, it's basically political suicide for somebody to run on the platform of removing that benefit. My girlfriend used to work in affordable housing, and she would tell me about how the reference book of codes and laws they had to keep in line with had increased by orders of magnitude in size as compared to those from a few decades prior. A politician adds access to affordable housing for those making less than 45k, except for those who were part of the 1985 initiative benefiting LGBTQ out of state college graduates, in which case their children can continue to benefit from access to the affordable housing for 7 years after the death of their parents at a more forgiving 75k minimum salary, after which a 15 year period lowers it to 60k, given that they continue to work within 50 miles of the initial residence of their parent beneficiaries. I'm obviously making this specific example up, but it's not too far off from reality.

pessimizer 7y ago
This would just result in industries, sharks and scam artists waiting until laws expired and quietly doing the thing the law was designed to prevent like crazy until it was noticed and legislative machinery could slowly get around to closing the loophole again. Legislation and regulation are horribly slow to get passed anyway, a rule like that would add an order of magnitude more overhead. Now the question wouldn't be "how may laws apply to the thing I want to do" but "how many laws will pop out of existence over the duration of the thing I want to do, which ones benefit me and which hurt me, how much will I have to spend on lawyers and lobbyists to maintain a vaguely stable environment, and who will be spending to oppose this?"
- ruytlm 7y ago
  That, or representatives tacking on pork barrel spending to legislation renewal when their vote is needed to pass it. "Oh, you want to renew the "Don't put lead in milk" law? Yeah, you're gonna have to set aside $50m for this project I think is super important.."
7y ago

lunias 7y ago

This. We should be constantly striving for the minimal set of laws which produce the desired effects. After all, the more lines you write the more space there is to play in between them.