4 ms·

Here is a different question I am curious about. How do we manage the constantly growing number of laws that have to be passed to manage a state and all the is

Here is a different question I am curious about. How do we manage the constantly growing number of laws that have to be passed to manage a state and all the issues that come up? At some point, you might think that there needs to be a simpler set of higher level principles, but not quite so general as the constitution, to manage what must be tens of thousands of laws. i.e. to say that if the laws follow this set of principles, then their interpretation is clear. Because as far as I know, our courts are being swamped with cases and under water, every law that's passed opens up a new area of challenge for lawyers to learn/assist/profit from, depending on your perspective, and for people to have to keep track of or somehow find out about. Is it just a fact of modern life that the more new things we encounter as a society, the more laws we need? Does anyone else perceive that the growing body of law will at some point become a problem?

kungito 5y ago
From what I understand, this is a USA problem. European legal system isn't based on case law and there is a lot more of the jugde interpreting the loosely defined laws and the constitution. There is also this "law practice" or how would you call it which is when a similar thing has been decided in the same manner you can expect yours to be too but it is not guaranteed and these "trends" regarding the same thing can change from time to time
- tw04 5y ago
  It's called precedent and is also prevalent in the US Justice system
- still_grokking 5y ago
  It's not only the US with this "every court ruling becomes quasi-law" approach. (I have a hard time not to call it madness to be honest). It's inherited form the Anglo-Saxon law tradition so this system can be found across the whole British commonwealth as well. Most EU countries on the other hands side come from a law tradition inherited form the Roman Empire. The Romans didn't had case law but a very structured and principled law system. (It likely wouldn't had worked otherwise for them given all the different traditions in the provinces; you wouldn't have gotten any comparable court rulings in different parts of the empire without a strict systematic and strong governing principles). But EU law as a whole (compared to the law in the countries) isn't that "pure" as the Brits brought of course their views to the table and some more case-law like parts sneaked into EU law by now. Just look at who the European Court of Justice works for example.
sofixa 5y ago
I think the answer here is to improve the legal system, not limit the number of laws. IMHO it's inevitable that as society progresses it will have more and more things to take care of / regulate due to the evolving needs and general progress. Regulation of autonomous vehicles or e-scooters was a non-issue 10-15 years ago, but now it needs to be done. The same way that regulating ISPs or social media wasn't a thing that was needed 40 years ago.
jl2718 5y ago
Torts?
hellbannedguy 5y ago
If Jesus reappeared he would probally be in jail in a few day. fishing in the creek without a license fishing in a protected creek Loitering Could not account for the 3 gold coins found on him. (Cops confiscated, and charges pending.) Jaywalking (In CA they are getting rid of this one. Cops were using it to harass. I believe it's near Neusome's desk.) Drinking wine in public. Suspected drunk in public charge. Federal, state, an local, charges related to the fermentation, and manufacture of wine. He didn't get the right permits, or follow federal regulations. Supplying alcohol to a minor. (A 20 year old was drinking from his chalice.) Giving a sermon. (Didn't get/pay for a event permit from the town.) Bathing in a protected stream. Exposing himself to a minor. (Air dried because he didn't have a towel, and Cartman saw his thingy.) And finally, caught urinating in public. (all the wine?)
- cjblomqvist 5y ago
  Well, he was sentenced to die even when he lived so...
loosescrews 5y ago
California is not like other states in this regard. First is its size. California's population and GDP are more comparable to a country than most US states. "If California were a sovereign nation (2020), it would rank as the world's fifth largest economy, ahead of India and behind Germany" [1]. California also has a larger population than Canada [2, 3]. As a result, California has a long history of making its own rules and getting compliance. Second is that these types of California laws tend to affect more than just California. Several other US states and even some Canadian provenances have banded together with California and enforce California's regulations in their jurisdictions as well. ~15 US states and the Canadian province of Quebec enforce CARB standards [4]. Further, the national Government of Canada is cooperating with California on greenhouse gas emissions mitigation [4]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California [2] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/CA https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/CA [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Air_Resources_Board#Section_177_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Air_Resources_Board...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
TacticalCoder 5y ago
> Does anyone else perceive that the growing body of law will at some point become a problem? Tacitus perceived it already 2000 years ago. I've basically got his take on this and, yup, I perceive it's a very serious problem. Here's what he had to say about it: "The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state.".
- beebmam 5y ago
  Well if some guy said it, I'm persuaded!
  - still_grokking 5y ago
    But it's not just some guy. It's not like a post on Shitter, you know? It's a guy people still talking about what he said 2000 years later! That makes a little difference…
  - acdha 5y ago
    It basically a given that there have been changes of significance to society, technology, or the global environment in the last few thousand years, too. Humanity’s ability to handle complexity is just a universal constant.
throwawaysea 5y ago
I also feel it is a problem, but perhaps for different reasons. As an illustration, my first thought regarding this particular CA law is that some people will prefer gas vehicles and that is okay by me. Freedom matters - it isn’t just an empty slogan but something that really changes people’s perception of their life, their role as an actor with control, and their ability to undertake the activities they seek without fear of an intangible authority. To me, approaches that favor local choice are better - like pricing in the externalities (for both gas and electric vehicles) and letting people buy what they want. But as we create a larger and larger body of laws that move control into higher and higher levels of government, that sense of freedom gets eroded. It starts to feel like too many facets of our lives are subject to the whims of the government, which is to say, other people. It starts to force everyone to invest heavily in battling politically rather than saving that time for living their lives, because if they don’t, they will be subject to that loss of freedom based on the whims of those who are overly politically involved. A sufficiently complex legal system, like in west coast states, is also difficult to interpret and difficult to enforce fairly. You end up with the potential for abuse in the form of regulatory capture or selective enforcement or whatever else. The original vision for American government was a limited body that protected a small set of higher level principles (as you said), with everything else left to lower levels of government. There’s a lot of wisdom in that and I feel there’s a way to retain something closer to that instead of where we are today.
rgbrenner 5y ago
The less specific the law, the more the courts must define the details. The details don't magically disappear just because the legislature doesn't define them. If what you're saying really generated fewer cases, we wouldn't be fighting over what the constitution says 250 years later. If it helps you, think of the principle as a "clean environment" and each law as a detail to carry it out.
amanaplanacanal 5y ago
I think it’s somewhat like spaghetti code. At some point it will all need to be refactored.

kungito 5y ago

From what I understand, this is a USA problem. European legal system isn't based on case law and there is a lot more of the jugde interpreting the loosely defined laws and the constitution. There is also this "law practice" or how would you call it which is when a similar thing has been decided in the same manner you can expect yours to be too but it is not guaranteed and these "trends" regarding the same thing can change from time to time

tw04 5y ago
It's called precedent and is also prevalent in the US Justice system
still_grokking 5y ago
It's not only the US with this "every court ruling becomes quasi-law" approach. (I have a hard time not to call it madness to be honest). It's inherited form the Anglo-Saxon law tradition so this system can be found across the whole British commonwealth as well. Most EU countries on the other hands side come from a law tradition inherited form the Roman Empire. The Romans didn't had case law but a very structured and principled law system. (It likely wouldn't had worked otherwise for them given all the different traditions in the provinces; you wouldn't have gotten any comparable court rulings in different parts of the empire without a strict systematic and strong governing principles). But EU law as a whole (compared to the law in the countries) isn't that "pure" as the Brits brought of course their views to the table and some more case-law like parts sneaked into EU law by now. Just look at who the European Court of Justice works for example.

sofixa 5y ago

I think the answer here is to improve the legal system, not limit the number of laws. IMHO it's inevitable that as society progresses it will have more and more things to take care of / regulate due to the evolving needs and general progress. Regulation of autonomous vehicles or e-scooters was a non-issue 10-15 years ago, but now it needs to be done. The same way that regulating ISPs or social media wasn't a thing that was needed 40 years ago.

jl2718 5y ago

Torts?

hellbannedguy 5y ago

If Jesus reappeared he would probally be in jail in a few day. fishing in the creek without a license fishing in a protected creek Loitering Could not account for the 3 gold coins found on him. (Cops confiscated, and charges pending.) Jaywalking (In CA they are getting rid of this one. Cops were using it to harass. I believe it's near Neusome's desk.) Drinking wine in public. Suspected drunk in public charge. Federal, state, an local, charges related to the fermentation, and manufacture of wine. He didn't get the right permits, or follow federal regulations. Supplying alcohol to a minor. (A 20 year old was drinking from his chalice.) Giving a sermon. (Didn't get/pay for a event permit from the town.) Bathing in a protected stream. Exposing himself to a minor. (Air dried because he didn't have a towel, and Cartman saw his thingy.) And finally, caught urinating in public. (all the wine?)

cjblomqvist 5y ago
Well, he was sentenced to die even when he lived so...

loosescrews 5y ago

California is not like other states in this regard. First is its size. California's population and GDP are more comparable to a country than most US states. "If California were a sovereign nation (2020), it would rank as the world's fifth largest economy, ahead of India and behind Germany" [1]. California also has a larger population than Canada [2, 3]. As a result, California has a long history of making its own rules and getting compliance. Second is that these types of California laws tend to affect more than just California. Several other US states and even some Canadian provenances have banded together with California and enforce California's regulations in their jurisdictions as well. ~15 US states and the Canadian province of Quebec enforce CARB standards [4]. Further, the national Government of Canada is cooperating with California on greenhouse gas emissions mitigation [4]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California [2] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/CA https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/CA [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Air_Resources_Board#Section_177_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Air_Resources_Board...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

TacticalCoder 5y ago

> Does anyone else perceive that the growing body of law will at some point become a problem? Tacitus perceived it already 2000 years ago. I've basically got his take on this and, yup, I perceive it's a very serious problem. Here's what he had to say about it: "The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state.".

beebmam 5y ago
Well if some guy said it, I'm persuaded!
- still_grokking 5y ago
  But it's not just some guy. It's not like a post on Shitter, you know? It's a guy people still talking about what he said 2000 years later! That makes a little difference…
- acdha 5y ago
  It basically a given that there have been changes of significance to society, technology, or the global environment in the last few thousand years, too. Humanity’s ability to handle complexity is just a universal constant.

throwawaysea 5y ago

I also feel it is a problem, but perhaps for different reasons. As an illustration, my first thought regarding this particular CA law is that some people will prefer gas vehicles and that is okay by me. Freedom matters - it isn’t just an empty slogan but something that really changes people’s perception of their life, their role as an actor with control, and their ability to undertake the activities they seek without fear of an intangible authority. To me, approaches that favor local choice are better - like pricing in the externalities (for both gas and electric vehicles) and letting people buy what they want. But as we create a larger and larger body of laws that move control into higher and higher levels of government, that sense of freedom gets eroded. It starts to feel like too many facets of our lives are subject to the whims of the government, which is to say, other people. It starts to force everyone to invest heavily in battling politically rather than saving that time for living their lives, because if they don’t, they will be subject to that loss of freedom based on the whims of those who are overly politically involved. A sufficiently complex legal system, like in west coast states, is also difficult to interpret and difficult to enforce fairly. You end up with the potential for abuse in the form of regulatory capture or selective enforcement or whatever else. The original vision for American government was a limited body that protected a small set of higher level principles (as you said), with everything else left to lower levels of government. There’s a lot of wisdom in that and I feel there’s a way to retain something closer to that instead of where we are today.

rgbrenner 5y ago

The less specific the law, the more the courts must define the details. The details don't magically disappear just because the legislature doesn't define them. If what you're saying really generated fewer cases, we wouldn't be fighting over what the constitution says 250 years later. If it helps you, think of the principle as a "clean environment" and each law as a detail to carry it out.

amanaplanacanal 5y ago

I think it’s somewhat like spaghetti code. At some point it will all need to be refactored.