3 ms·

Legislating would collapse under the simple iterative maintenance of such a policy. Every year would be N+(this year's new legislation).

by realce 4y ago

sokoloff 4y ago
Perhaps society doesn't need an ever linearly-increasing body of laws?
- enraged_camel 4y ago
  Life today is immensely more complex than it was in the past, and you need to pass new laws (and amend the older ones) to keep up with it.
throwup 4y ago
I don't think the set of laws should be growing boundlessly year after year. Another idea is to adapt the house cleaning rule: to pass a new law, you must first get rid of an old law.
- geysersam 4y ago
  Why put such arbitrary restrictions on our elected lawmakers? Reducing regulatory complexity is a worthwhile goal, but that's a bad way of going about it.
  - enraged_camel 4y ago
    Just imagine: the day after the new search feature goes live, the product manager comes to you and asks where the user profiles have gone. You say, "oh, I removed them - I think it's a good idea to remove an existing feature after adding a new one! Complexity, after all, is bad!"
    - BlueTemplar 4y ago
      If you try to show all the icon bars in Office at the same time, you'll end up with half of your screen buried under them. There are diminishing returns.
- polygamous_bat 4y ago
  Replace "laws" with "features" or "lines of code" in your comment. Read it again. How much sense does it make?
  - Cyberdog 4y ago
    My friend, I don't think that's the epic airtight gotcha that you think it is…
    - polygamous_bat 4y ago
      You did not explain why, though. So I must remain here in my belief that my argument makes clear sense.
saalweachter 4y ago
Hint: this is a feature for people proposing this sort of thing. They want legislating to be pared down to where nothing is regulated, and the only crimes are property crimes. Everyone else just likes stability, knowing that the law tomorrow will mostly be the same as the law today.

Legislating would collapse under the simple iterative maintenance of such a policy. Every year would be N+(this year's new legislation).

by realce 4y ago

Legislating would collapse under the simple iterative maintenance of such a policy. Every year would be N+(this year's new legislation).

sokoloff 4y ago

Perhaps society doesn't need an ever linearly-increasing body of laws?

enraged_camel 4y ago
Life today is immensely more complex than it was in the past, and you need to pass new laws (and amend the older ones) to keep up with it.

throwup 4y ago

I don't think the set of laws should be growing boundlessly year after year. Another idea is to adapt the house cleaning rule: to pass a new law, you must first get rid of an old law.

geysersam 4y ago
Why put such arbitrary restrictions on our elected lawmakers? Reducing regulatory complexity is a worthwhile goal, but that's a bad way of going about it.
- enraged_camel 4y ago
  Just imagine: the day after the new search feature goes live, the product manager comes to you and asks where the user profiles have gone. You say, "oh, I removed them - I think it's a good idea to remove an existing feature after adding a new one! Complexity, after all, is bad!"
  - BlueTemplar 4y ago
    If you try to show all the icon bars in Office at the same time, you'll end up with half of your screen buried under them. There are diminishing returns.
polygamous_bat 4y ago
Replace "laws" with "features" or "lines of code" in your comment. Read it again. How much sense does it make?
- Cyberdog 4y ago
  My friend, I don't think that's the epic airtight gotcha that you think it is…
  - polygamous_bat 4y ago
    You did not explain why, though. So I must remain here in my belief that my argument makes clear sense.

saalweachter 4y ago

Hint: this is a feature for people proposing this sort of thing. They want legislating to be pared down to where nothing is regulated, and the only crimes are property crimes. Everyone else just likes stability, knowing that the law tomorrow will mostly be the same as the law today.