So thinking about cause and effect gets people to examine their beliefs a bit more, and reduces extremism. But, why should anyone involved in law and policy, in

So thinking about cause and effect gets people to examine their beliefs a bit more, and reduces extremism. But, why should anyone involved in law and policy, including voters, care about cause and effect? It has little place in our legislature and our justice system. Something I've been thinking about for a little while, that is sort of related to the topic of this study, is how to tie laws with intent. If we assume that legislatures make laws for reasons, and that these reasons involve some desired effect that the laws are intended to cause, then we should be able to draw some theoretical causal chain between the law and the desired effect. The trick would be, that if the law does not cause the desired effect, it would be automatically repealed. So if a Senator wants to draft a bill banning drinking on Sundays, he would be required to establish some causal chain - in the text of the bill itself - between the policies that would be enacted by the new law and the desired effects (e.g. reduce traffic fatalities by x%, increase church attendance by y%, etc., within z years). If, after the law is passed, the desired effects do not occur, and the proposed causal chain therefore proven false, the law simply winks out of existence and ceases to be. No act of Congress, Supreme Court review, etc. It just ends. Of course, we're dealing with humans here, and this being politics, there would have to be some oversight of the process to ensure fair play, and I imagine it would be similar in design and scope to our existing justice system, though largely separate from it. You'd have to be sure that legislators couldn't submit causal chains with time horizons of 1000 years (without a very good reason), or alleged "causal chains" that don't really follow (e.g. ban drinking on Sundays so that the sun rises on Mondays). I don't underestimate the task here - it would be at least as involved as criminal and civil law already are. However, when it comes to law right now we mostly just study the impact on people who break the laws, or occasionally whether the laws conflict with other laws of greater precedence. There doesn't seem to be any formal approach for evaluating the logical validity of laws: whether they do what they say, what they're even supposed to accomplish in the first place, much less how they do it. Should there be? Perhaps if we implemented this, among other things it would get people thinking more about how the policies they support do what they are supposed to do, since it would be ingrained in the system itself.