3 ms·

The difference is that I'm not required to read any particular author's books. Following the laws is more compulsory, and I think legislators should be held to

• lutusp 14y ago
  > I think legislators should be held to a more rigorous standard. There is a long democratic tradition (and politics is as much about tradition as it is about common sense) that says representatives should resemble those they represent. This is why there are two houses of congress -- the house of representatives (aptly named) to accommodate those who think representatives should be ordinary people, and the senate, to accommodate those who think representatives should be a cut above. The founding fathers also deliberately produced multiple branches of government to avoid too much power in too few hands. The senate can't enact legislation without the cooperation of the "lower" house, and vice versa. Just as the founding fathers intended. There is a term for the kind of government you're describing -- "elitism". If history teaches us anything, it is that people who have law degrees aren't better at representing the pubic's interest than those who don't.
  • monochromatic 14y ago
    There's some truth to that, and I don't pretend to have a solution to this difficult question. I remember from earlier posts that you are a lawyer yourself, so I don't need to give you examples of all the poorly drafted laws one comes across. Do you think there's an ideal proportion of lawyers that should be involved in the legislative process?
    • monochromatic 14y ago
      It isn't letting me edit my post, but I think I may have misremembered about you being a lawyer. Oh well.