5 ms·

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 ins

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.
      - srtjstjsj 6y ago
        How often does a civil war lead to a better constitution? China? Vietnam? Korea?
        leetcrew 6y ago
        the obvious answer would be the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the US constitution after the american civil war.
        chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        So once? Or twice (counting the USian revolution)? There have to be more examples than that!
  - nradov 6y ago
    That is an acceptable outcome.
- gogopuppygogo 6y ago
  The amount of grifting you’d end would put up some really deep pocketed defenders of the current system.
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.

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.
    - srtjstjsj 6y ago
      How often does a civil war lead to a better constitution? China? Vietnam? Korea?
      - leetcrew 6y ago
        the obvious answer would be the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the US constitution after the american civil war.
        chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        So once? Or twice (counting the USian revolution)? There have to be more examples than that!
- nradov 6y ago
  That is an acceptable outcome.
gogopuppygogo 6y ago
The amount of grifting you’d end would put up some really deep pocketed defenders of the current system.

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.