3 ms·
>(Though it supports the idea that all laws should have a sunset clause and have to be intentionally renewed rather than just stay on the books because of apath
by BoxOfRain 5y ago
>(Though it supports the idea that all laws should have a sunset clause and have to be intentionally renewed rather than just stay on the books because of apathy)
This is honestly one of my favourite political concepts at the moment. I first became aware of it after reading an interview of Owsley Stanley of all people, but I've seen it discussed here on HN recently too. I really think it could solve a limited but very important set of society's problems. It's also neither left nor right wing in any meaningful sense, it has a broad non-partisan appeal.
- CamTin 5y agoWhile it may be broadly popular in the electorate across party lines, it's definitely a righty policy, since having lots of old, ambiguous laws on the books increases the discretion of police and prosecutors to deal with "troublemakers" as they see fit. Also, under the US system, many broadly popular policies (marijuana legalization, public health care option) have no realistic path to enactment, so that's far from a guarantee.
- version_five 5y ago> definitely a righty policy, since having lots of old, ambiguous laws on the books increases the discretion of police and prosecutors to deal with "troublemakers" as they see fit. are you saying the right is more likely to want to hassle troublemakers? If that were true, sunset clause would be a policy of the left, no? I don't think of it as left or right, it's a libertarian policy. Right now in the US the left skews authoritarian and the right libertarian but that's not a constant (e.g Texas abortion law)
- CamTin 5y agoIt's righty because pro-police policies are right wing policies. Sunsetting old laws takes away power from the police, and so is a lefty policy.