7 ms·

This is mentioned in the famous "Don't talk to the police" youtube video (from this point[0] and a minute on): there are just enough laws that even lawmakers an

by cmehdy 6y ago

This is mentioned in the famous "Don't talk to the police" youtube video (from this point[0] and a minute on): there are just enough laws that even lawmakers and experts don't have an actual count, can't keep track of all of them, and they can say nearly anything. (These are my words, not the video:) In the bigger scheme of things, you're likely to be guilty of something almost at all times. Whether or not people know, care, or come down on you depends on a variety of factors. This is pretty much true in any country, it's just that the richest ones have codified it to give the madness more legitimacy. [0] https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE?t=279 https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE?t=279

anm89 6y ago
Funny I think I internalized that rant from that video, because I had forgotten about that video but I'd definitely seen it before.
baskire 6y ago
It doesn’t help that politicians face as much hardship in removing old laws as adding a new one. Leading to us always creating laws and rarely removing them.
- curtis3389 6y ago
  All laws in a democracy should have to be re-affirmed by the populace on a regular basis. That is, every law should be required to have a sunset date. It's insane that we can be born into the tyranny of rotting corpses.
  - Aerroon 6y ago
    I think so too. The government has to pass a budget every year. Would it really be too much to ask of them to reaffirm old laws every 10-20 years?
    - smegger001 6y ago
      > think so too. The government has to pass a budget every year. Would it really be too much to ask of them to reaffirm old laws every 10-20 years? You realize the federal government shuts down every so often fro days to months because they cant get there act together on the budget. can you imagine the chaos that would insue in the current political climate if one party or the other thought they could hold a major law hostage to what ever cause they want.
      - yunruse 6y ago
        This is a moot point anyway; laws can be overwritten with new laws. Perhaps requiring a supermajority (2/3) to remove would be useful, but even still, _having_ the laws put into question would be a remarkable use of time, keeping law orderly. I suppose the US Code might help with that effort; in the UK it's a tad more disorganised.
      - freeone3000 6y ago
        Most governments manage to pass a budget every year. The American government's exceptional incompetence should not be treated as a foregone conclusion -- and their inability to pass laws speak more to the innate unfairness of unaffirmed laws than anything else! Imagine if they would simply have to defend every law like the Assault Weapons Ban. We'd have fewer laws. Fewer by FAR.
        tialaramex 6y ago
        > Most governments manage to pass a budget every year. Not exactly. Two things are going on here that makes the US "special". I would argue they're both design mistakes in the US government, its proponents will doubtless chime in that it's supposed to be like this, and presumably they are proud of the results... 1. Appropriations bills. In most countries it is seen as a foregone conclusion that the government should continue to operate. Politicians steer, but in their absence the ship of state continues onwards on auto-pilot. The US has never entirely worked that way, and last century the GOP intentionally destroyed some of the mechanisms to let it keep running in their absence, because of course they did. So, Congress must explicitly pass bills at least once per year that say the government will pay for things, or else important government functions just stop. Nothing like these Appropriations Bills exists in most countries. 2. Separate Executive. In most democratic countries there is ultimately a single elected power, even if it looks on the surface as though there are two or more political power centres, one of them is actually running everything. In this situation there is no conflict between policy and budget, so of course a "government budget" will pass. One of the few upsides to another US civil war is it's likely that there would be an opportunity to redesign the US government in the aftermath. We've learned a lot about how to design governments since the 18th century.
  - gumby 6y ago
    I’d agree but then there will just be an annual law that blanket renews all the laws that would expire in the upcoming year. How about laws without cute names and that began by describing the problem they intend to solve? I have been told they are written that way in russia though I have no way to verify.
    - WiseWeasel 6y ago
      In Russia, law names you.
    - jonkho 6y ago
      How about law as a subscription service? The maxim is if it has value in people’s eyes, then people should be willing to pay a monthly fee for it, voluntarily and without coercion.
      - gumby 6y ago
        A big part of government function is managing externalities (pollution, food safety, roads etc) -- things that are not economic when purchased individually. They suffer from a free rider issue: I benefit from clean air whether I pay for it or not. In addition I don't know enough about traffic safety to figure out what the best speed limit is for certain roads, nor how the road should be constructed (especially given local environmental conditions, estimated use etc). It's cheaper overall to outsource it to people who know. Otherwise how can I decide if I want to subscribe to that safety rail at the edge of a certain roadway?
        throwaway0a5e 6y ago
        >A big part of government function is managing externalities (pollution, food safety, roads etc) -- things that are not economic when purchased individually. Says you. Damn near every government (from local to national) has a charter more along the lines of "do these specific mostly administrative things that we agree are best done at this level".
      - NikolaNovak 6y ago
  - vixen99 6y ago
    That's not going to happen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Acts_of_the_Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom,_1980%E2%80%931999 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Acts_of_the_Parliament... I'll leave it to someone else to tot up how many laws we're considering here.
  - dec0dedab0de 6y ago
    I have thought this for a long time. I also think they should have to be voted in by the public, with a higher percentage required as the geographical area expands.
- 0134340 6y ago
  Anyone have a rough estimation of the laws made vs laws repealed? This is what I wonder and worry sometimes. It seems we're constantly making far more laws than repealing and slowly but surely caging ourselves in. Our parties seem to be in a blind race downhill to see who can implement the most laws to block the other parties but I feel we're just "cleaning" ourselves into a corner.
  - yreg 6y ago
    I'm not american, but I listened to this Planet Money podcast[0] and they talked about how Trump planned to enforce the following rule: >If congress wants to add a new regulation, they have to find two outdated regulations and remove them. I have no idea how it went. [0] episode including transcript: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/659049880 https://www.npr.org/transcripts/659049880
    - xkcd-sucks 6y ago
      That would have to include a rule about scope, so that it doesn't end up as two old laws concatenated into one new law ...this would be good for other reasons too, like unrelated riders tacked onto appropriations bills
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      Well, since regulations are created by the executive branch and not Congress, which makes law and to which the President can't dictate rules, the proposed rule is meaningless, so enforcing it is a non-issue. Also, “a regulation” is not a particularly useful unit of size.
    - lenkite 6y ago
      Supposedly it helped a bit according to the below: https://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2020/06/29/how-donald-trump-has-cut-regulationbut-also-added-it/#1ccba49930d3 https://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2020/06/29/how-donal...
- smaryjerry 6y ago
  Also lawmakers have pretty much put sourced their jobs to unelected committees. They realized they don’t know anything about a topic and also can’t be bothered so they appoint these committees Who put into place “regulations” instead of laws that are basically the same thing but without oversight or accountability - they don’t get voted out if people don’t like it, and most don’t even know who these people are.
  - cortesoft 6y ago
    > They realized they don’t know anything about a topic and also can’t be bothered so they appoint these committees It is literally impossible for any single elected official to know enough about every topic they need to legislate in order to make good laws. This isn't because they "can't be bothered", but because there are only so many hours in a day. They have to delegate. Now, we can argue they do a poor job of delegating, but the problem isn't in the act itself.
- godelski 6y ago
  This is why I always liked the idea of automatic sunsetting of laws. If it worked as expected, pass it through again. If it had loopholes, patch and reissue (better than applying patch to patch to patch). If it didn't have the effect you wanted, let it slip by. It is always beneficial to review your work and analyze it. There needs to be a good mechanism for this to happen within a government and automatic sunsetting forces this issue on lawmakers. Of course, there are other things that can help too.
Aerroon 6y ago
This is why I think our legal system is not really compatible with the world of surveillance. Everyone has something to hide, therefore everyone has something to fear.
- StavrosK 6y ago
  Where's the incompatibility? Sounds exactly on the money to me.
  - Aerroon 6y ago
    If you want a society that doesn't run on corruption then it's incompatible.
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      You and I want that, but let's not assume anything about the people who decide these things.
      - kortilla 6y ago
        Lets. Any model that depends on intentional evil at every level is likely wrong. The more likely reality is that politicians think they are doing what their constituents want by passing laws to address what they are currently complaining about. And constituents rarely complain about existing laws so the only natural way for the government to go is more laws and more regulations. When’s the last time you heard a politician run on the platform of getting rid of laws? Even the Republicans who run on less regulation generates far more legislation than repealed.
        craftinator 6y ago
        > Any model that depends on intentional evil at every level is likely wrong. This is unfounded (do you have any sort of backing for this ridiculously bold claim?), historically inaccurate (in nearly every generation, there's at least one mass-murdering regime born), and isn't actually relevant to the question (evil at every level discounts those who aren't involved, those that are victims, and those that are powerless to stop the evil). The rest of your comment is spot on. The unfortunate truth is that people who are elected have the skills required to be elected, not the skills required to lead. Our legislative system is designed to encourage childish bickering, which is attractive to people with old faces and childish personalities. The system is built around the idea that the president will be the "adult in the room" and apply a considered direction to the children to mediate their bickering; it seems that doesn't work well.
kubanczyk 6y ago
Laws are source code. Currently it's all spagetti and applying even simplest proven tricks from software domain would yield immensely good results. Like, duh, removing goto. Software is crap, law is so much worse.
Enginerrrd 6y ago
What's even worse is it's disturbingly easy to not just break the law, but it's surprisingly easy to commit a felony. That's a situation that just shouldn't be. In my opinion, a felony should almost universally be something either egregiously reckless or done with nefarious intent, and it should be something that people can universally agree is an obvious problem. (And by that, I mean an ACTUAL problem, not a side-target of the thing that's really of interest.)

by cmehdy 6y ago

anm89 6y ago

Funny I think I internalized that rant from that video, because I had forgotten about that video but I'd definitely seen it before.

baskire 6y ago

It doesn’t help that politicians face as much hardship in removing old laws as adding a new one. Leading to us always creating laws and rarely removing them.

curtis3389 6y ago
All laws in a democracy should have to be re-affirmed by the populace on a regular basis. That is, every law should be required to have a sunset date. It's insane that we can be born into the tyranny of rotting corpses.
- Aerroon 6y ago
  I think so too. The government has to pass a budget every year. Would it really be too much to ask of them to reaffirm old laws every 10-20 years?
  - smegger001 6y ago
    > think so too. The government has to pass a budget every year. Would it really be too much to ask of them to reaffirm old laws every 10-20 years? You realize the federal government shuts down every so often fro days to months because they cant get there act together on the budget. can you imagine the chaos that would insue in the current political climate if one party or the other thought they could hold a major law hostage to what ever cause they want.
    - yunruse 6y ago
      This is a moot point anyway; laws can be overwritten with new laws. Perhaps requiring a supermajority (2/3) to remove would be useful, but even still, _having_ the laws put into question would be a remarkable use of time, keeping law orderly. I suppose the US Code might help with that effort; in the UK it's a tad more disorganised.
    - freeone3000 6y ago
      Most governments manage to pass a budget every year. The American government's exceptional incompetence should not be treated as a foregone conclusion -- and their inability to pass laws speak more to the innate unfairness of unaffirmed laws than anything else! Imagine if they would simply have to defend every law like the Assault Weapons Ban. We'd have fewer laws. Fewer by FAR.
      - tialaramex 6y ago
        > Most governments manage to pass a budget every year. Not exactly. Two things are going on here that makes the US "special". I would argue they're both design mistakes in the US government, its proponents will doubtless chime in that it's supposed to be like this, and presumably they are proud of the results... 1. Appropriations bills. In most countries it is seen as a foregone conclusion that the government should continue to operate. Politicians steer, but in their absence the ship of state continues onwards on auto-pilot. The US has never entirely worked that way, and last century the GOP intentionally destroyed some of the mechanisms to let it keep running in their absence, because of course they did. So, Congress must explicitly pass bills at least once per year that say the government will pay for things, or else important government functions just stop. Nothing like these Appropriations Bills exists in most countries. 2. Separate Executive. In most democratic countries there is ultimately a single elected power, even if it looks on the surface as though there are two or more political power centres, one of them is actually running everything. In this situation there is no conflict between policy and budget, so of course a "government budget" will pass. One of the few upsides to another US civil war is it's likely that there would be an opportunity to redesign the US government in the aftermath. We've learned a lot about how to design governments since the 18th century.
- gumby 6y ago
  I’d agree but then there will just be an annual law that blanket renews all the laws that would expire in the upcoming year. How about laws without cute names and that began by describing the problem they intend to solve? I have been told they are written that way in russia though I have no way to verify.
  - WiseWeasel 6y ago
    In Russia, law names you.
  - jonkho 6y ago
    How about law as a subscription service? The maxim is if it has value in people’s eyes, then people should be willing to pay a monthly fee for it, voluntarily and without coercion.
    - gumby 6y ago
      A big part of government function is managing externalities (pollution, food safety, roads etc) -- things that are not economic when purchased individually. They suffer from a free rider issue: I benefit from clean air whether I pay for it or not. In addition I don't know enough about traffic safety to figure out what the best speed limit is for certain roads, nor how the road should be constructed (especially given local environmental conditions, estimated use etc). It's cheaper overall to outsource it to people who know. Otherwise how can I decide if I want to subscribe to that safety rail at the edge of a certain roadway?
      - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
        >A big part of government function is managing externalities (pollution, food safety, roads etc) -- things that are not economic when purchased individually. Says you. Damn near every government (from local to national) has a charter more along the lines of "do these specific mostly administrative things that we agree are best done at this level".
    - NikolaNovak 6y ago
- vixen99 6y ago
  That's not going to happen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Acts_of_the_Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom,_1980%E2%80%931999 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Acts_of_the_Parliament... I'll leave it to someone else to tot up how many laws we're considering here.
- dec0dedab0de 6y ago
  I have thought this for a long time. I also think they should have to be voted in by the public, with a higher percentage required as the geographical area expands.
0134340 6y ago
Anyone have a rough estimation of the laws made vs laws repealed? This is what I wonder and worry sometimes. It seems we're constantly making far more laws than repealing and slowly but surely caging ourselves in. Our parties seem to be in a blind race downhill to see who can implement the most laws to block the other parties but I feel we're just "cleaning" ourselves into a corner.
- yreg 6y ago
  I'm not american, but I listened to this Planet Money podcast[0] and they talked about how Trump planned to enforce the following rule: >If congress wants to add a new regulation, they have to find two outdated regulations and remove them. I have no idea how it went. [0] episode including transcript: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/659049880 https://www.npr.org/transcripts/659049880
  - xkcd-sucks 6y ago
    That would have to include a rule about scope, so that it doesn't end up as two old laws concatenated into one new law ...this would be good for other reasons too, like unrelated riders tacked onto appropriations bills
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    Well, since regulations are created by the executive branch and not Congress, which makes law and to which the President can't dictate rules, the proposed rule is meaningless, so enforcing it is a non-issue. Also, “a regulation” is not a particularly useful unit of size.
  - lenkite 6y ago
    Supposedly it helped a bit according to the below: https://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2020/06/29/how-donald-trump-has-cut-regulationbut-also-added-it/#1ccba49930d3 https://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2020/06/29/how-donal...
smaryjerry 6y ago
Also lawmakers have pretty much put sourced their jobs to unelected committees. They realized they don’t know anything about a topic and also can’t be bothered so they appoint these committees Who put into place “regulations” instead of laws that are basically the same thing but without oversight or accountability - they don’t get voted out if people don’t like it, and most don’t even know who these people are.
- cortesoft 6y ago
  > They realized they don’t know anything about a topic and also can’t be bothered so they appoint these committees It is literally impossible for any single elected official to know enough about every topic they need to legislate in order to make good laws. This isn't because they "can't be bothered", but because there are only so many hours in a day. They have to delegate. Now, we can argue they do a poor job of delegating, but the problem isn't in the act itself.
godelski 6y ago
This is why I always liked the idea of automatic sunsetting of laws. If it worked as expected, pass it through again. If it had loopholes, patch and reissue (better than applying patch to patch to patch). If it didn't have the effect you wanted, let it slip by. It is always beneficial to review your work and analyze it. There needs to be a good mechanism for this to happen within a government and automatic sunsetting forces this issue on lawmakers. Of course, there are other things that can help too.

Aerroon 6y ago

This is why I think our legal system is not really compatible with the world of surveillance. Everyone has something to hide, therefore everyone has something to fear.

StavrosK 6y ago
Where's the incompatibility? Sounds exactly on the money to me.
- Aerroon 6y ago
  If you want a society that doesn't run on corruption then it's incompatible.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    You and I want that, but let's not assume anything about the people who decide these things.
    - kortilla 6y ago
      Lets. Any model that depends on intentional evil at every level is likely wrong. The more likely reality is that politicians think they are doing what their constituents want by passing laws to address what they are currently complaining about. And constituents rarely complain about existing laws so the only natural way for the government to go is more laws and more regulations. When’s the last time you heard a politician run on the platform of getting rid of laws? Even the Republicans who run on less regulation generates far more legislation than repealed.
      - craftinator 6y ago
        > Any model that depends on intentional evil at every level is likely wrong. This is unfounded (do you have any sort of backing for this ridiculously bold claim?), historically inaccurate (in nearly every generation, there's at least one mass-murdering regime born), and isn't actually relevant to the question (evil at every level discounts those who aren't involved, those that are victims, and those that are powerless to stop the evil). The rest of your comment is spot on. The unfortunate truth is that people who are elected have the skills required to be elected, not the skills required to lead. Our legislative system is designed to encourage childish bickering, which is attractive to people with old faces and childish personalities. The system is built around the idea that the president will be the "adult in the room" and apply a considered direction to the children to mediate their bickering; it seems that doesn't work well.

kubanczyk 6y ago

Laws are source code. Currently it's all spagetti and applying even simplest proven tricks from software domain would yield immensely good results. Like, duh, removing goto. Software is crap, law is so much worse.

Enginerrrd 6y ago

What's even worse is it's disturbingly easy to not just break the law, but it's surprisingly easy to commit a felony. That's a situation that just shouldn't be. In my opinion, a felony should almost universally be something either egregiously reckless or done with nefarious intent, and it should be something that people can universally agree is an obvious problem. (And by that, I mean an ACTUAL problem, not a side-target of the thing that's really of interest.)