Support NeoGAF

[cpp_is_king]

Is there some proof that government becomes more or less dysfunctional in relation to the quantity of laws that exists?

Does it need proof? It seems fairly obvious to me. Each new law that is passed must not contradict with any of the previous laws. And the more laws there are, the more difficult it is to ensure this. Why do you think bills that come through congress are so complicated (to the point that the congressmen don't even read them)?

This is why the justice system is so fucked, because no matter what you're accused of, there's a law somewhere that will get you off on a technicality, or incarcerate you on a technicality, or even BOTH, depending on how good your (or their) lawyer is.

It's the reason why I need to pay my accountant like $1,500 to do my taxes, because the tax code is so incomprehensible that you need to dedicate your entire career to studying it, and even then you still might make mistakes, and every couple year they make 100 adjustments to it that you need to be a professional to even make sense of.

Laws are, by definition, bureaucracy. Of course we need them for the important things, but the more bureaucracy there is, the more inefficient your government becomes. This isn't some kind of radical argument, it's just common sense.

 

[Euron]

Check out these two videos recently posted to Trump's Facebook...

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10156016850440725

That quote's from 2013 and Barbara has gone back on it: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/barbara-bush-changes-her-mind-about-jeb-presidential-campaign

Granted, I agree wholeheartedly with what she said in the video. Enough Bushes. Hopefully Jeb continues to decline.

 

[speculawyer]

Does it need proof? It seems fairly obvious to me. Each new law that is passed must not contradict with any of the previous laws. And the more laws there are, the more difficult it is to ensure this. Why do you think bills that come through congress are so complicated (to the point that the congressmen don't even read them)?

This is why the justice system is so fucked, because no matter what you're accused of, there's a law somewhere that will get you off on a technicality, or incarcerate you on a technicality, or even BOTH, depending on how good your (or their) lawyer is.

It's the reason why I need to pay my accountant like $1,500 to do my taxes, because the tax code is so incomprehensible that you need to dedicate your entire career to studying it, and even then you still might make mistakes, and every couple year they make 100 adjustments to it that you need to be a professional to even make sense of.

Laws are, by definition, bureaucracy. Of course we need them for the important things, but the more bureaucracy there is, the more inefficient your government becomes. This isn't some kind of radical argument, it's just common sense.

I'm not convinced.

 

[Stinkles]

You haven't really articulated why this is a problem or what the threshold for "too many" laws even is. Is there some proof that government becomes more or less dysfunctional in relation to the quantity of laws that exists?

If he'd said the tax code was too complicated he wouldn't be in this hole of his own digging.

 

[Polip Fawn]

I'm pretty sure it is an idea by definition.

idea
[ahy-dee-uh, ahy-deeuh ]
1. any conception existing in the mind as a result of mental understanding, awareness, or activity.
2. a thought, conception, or notion:

I like how you dodged the rest of my post. Also I'd argue you didn't meet any of the criteria.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

It's funny how Trump is trying to cling to this market movement as an opportunistic political ploy. The natural order of a free market is cyclical, this is something that will happen from time to time.

What's he gonna do? Forbid selling stocks? Shorting stocks? Pass a law that says the market can only go up and not down? That's now how the world works but his yokel followers will probably fall for it.

 

[cpp_is_king]

I'm not convinced.

Which of the following statements are you unconvinced of?

A. More laws creates more government inefficiency
B. We have too many laws
C. Government inefficiency can be a bad thing (beyond a certain threshold)
D. It is possible for laws to disagree with each other
E. Our government would benefit from being more efficient

Edit:
F. We should strive to achieve a system of laws that agree with each other

 

[Polip Fawn]

Does it need proof? It seems fairly obvious to me. Each new law that is passed must not contradict with any of the previous laws. And the more laws there are, the more difficult it is to ensure this. Why do you think bills that come through congress are so complicated (to the point that the congressmen don't even read them)?

This is why the justice system is so fucked, because no matter what you're accused of, there's a law somewhere that will get you off on a technicality, or incarcerate you on a technicality, or even BOTH, depending on how good your (or their) lawyer is.

It's the reason why I need to pay my accountant like $1,500 to do my taxes, because the tax code is so incomprehensible that you need to dedicate your entire career to studying it, and even then you still might make mistakes, and every couple year they make 100 adjustments to it that you need to be a professional to even make sense of.

Laws are, by definition, bureaucracy. Of course we need them for the important things, but the more bureaucracy there is, the more inefficient your government becomes. This isn't some kind of radical argument, it's just common sense.

And again, you dodged this last time, but an expiry plan doesn't make less laws, it would make more because you could present more solutions and because there's a time limit, if it didn't work you could cancel it or if it did work you could extend it or maybe add some always around it to fix issues. An 8 year date of expire is basically rewarding risk without the super long-term consequences.

It can even make it so that good ideas that don't work or show only marginal improvement during that time would be stopped for a new plan even though if people waited longer, it could have sky rocketed to great heights. Like long-term economic plans.

 

[Arkeband]

Which of the following statements are you unconvinced of?

A. More laws creates more government inefficiency
B. We have too many laws
C. Government inefficiency can be a bad thing (beyond a certain threshold)
D. It is possible for laws to disagree with each other
E. Our government would benefit from being more efficient

Edit:
F. We should strive to achieve a system of laws that agree with each other

Ooh! Ooh!

B! I think that's what we've been asking for a page and a half. Aside from the tax code, what else could you possibly be referring to?

 

[cpp_is_king]

Ooh! Ooh!

B! I think that's what we've been asking for a page and a half. Aside from the tax code, what else could you possibly be referring to?

So since you only disagree with B, then you agree with A and C. In that case I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand, as we only disagree on how many laws is too many. We both draw the same line, I just draw it in a different place then you. What's the confusion?

 

[Blader]

Does it need proof? It seems fairly obvious to me.

Well yeah this is generally how arguments work. When people say "make your case," they don't usually mean just say one sentence and then leave it at that.

Each new law that is passed must not contradict with any of the previous laws. And the more laws there are, the more difficult it is to ensure this. Why do you think bills that come through congress are so complicated (to the point that the congressmen don't even read them)?

Is inter-law contradictions really a big systemic problem? Laws get passed around Congress so often because of compromises that need to be made (plus throwing a bone or two to whichever lobby). I don't think the issue is ever really "We can't pass this because another law says we can't!" so much as it is, "House wants this, Senate wants that, lobby wants x and y, president will only sign if it includes Z. How do we get that all in?"

What makes policymaking such a time-consuming clusterfuck isn't the risk of breaking other laws in the process, it's pleasing all of the cooks in the kitchen.

It's the reason why I need to pay my accountant like $1,500 to do my taxes, because the tax code is so incomprehensible that you need to dedicate your entire career to studying it, and even then you still might make mistakes, and every couple year they make 100 adjustments to it that you need to be a professional to even make sense of.

On the flip side, it only takes me like an hour to do my taxes. But then again I have a pretty simple filing status.

Laws are, by definition, bureaucracy. Of course we need them for the important things, but the more bureaucracy there is, the more inefficient your government becomes. This isn't some kind of radical argument, it's just common sense.

All I'm asking for is some kind of proof of a negative relationship between the volume of laws and government productivity. If it's such a no-brainer argument, then shouldn't be that easy to provide?

Again, government dysfunction today has nothing to do with the quantity of laws and everything to do with highly partisan, radicalized elected officials representing highly partisan, radicalized constituents. You can pass or repeal as many laws as you want, none of that would have any impact on the root cause of the problem. And again, I point to how the Congress of the last few years has passed the fewest laws ever and is yet the most (or one of the most) dysfunctional on record. Scaling back the number of laws passed since 2010 hasn't created a more efficient or productive government at all.

 

[Polip Fawn]

Still waiting for you to address my other point CPP

 

[RDreamer]

This is why the justice system is so fucked, because no matter what you're accused of, there's a law somewhere that will get you off on a technicality, or incarcerate you on a technicality, or even BOTH, depending on how good your (or their) lawyer is.

How exactly do we have more people in prison that tons of other countries if you can apparently literally get away with anything?

 

[Maxim726X]

How exactly do we have more people in prison that tons of other countries if you can apparently literally get away with anything?

If you have money in this country you can certainly get away with quite a bit, I don't think that's too much of a stretch.

 

[joedan]

You may as well stop trying. There is almost no winning any fight from the other side here.

I am reminded of a situation here the other day. The Obama thread about legalizing pot, people chimed in with logical explanations why it may not be possible, how he can't just say to do it and have it be done. Many examples were given, pictures explaining our government and how there is a long process, and how it isn't a dictatorship.

However, when anything people don't agree with is mentioned by Trump (or anyone else from the GOP), it is instant fear, worry of the end of the world, going on and on about how he will ruin any good done in the history of our country - as if the office of the president is that of a dictator, and with one mentioning of something things can instantly be changed.

I haven't seen such absurd, illogical, fear from people since everyone on the right realized Obama was going to win, and since those on the left realized Bush was being reelected. Only this time it is far more evident, and almost comical.

It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't full of so many blanket statements. Again, that shouldn't be allowed here period, no matter the topic and no matter the side of the aisle you fall on.

Ain't that the truth. Partisanship is an ugly thing. Brings out the worst in people. Logic is thrownout and hypocrisy is brought in. If your side is Jesus then the other side must be the devil. In the end it's never about right and wrong or greater good, all politics is local, people vote for what they think is in their best interests.

 

[RDreamer]

If you have money in this country you can certainly get away with quite a bit, I don't think that's too much of a stretch.

I read that sentence wrong and didn't see part of it for some reason.

You can get away with quite a bit, but I don't think the problem there is that there's too many laws. In fact a lot of times it's when you simplify something that a technicality is created. You then put in more rules to fill in those gaps.

I don't know why I'm coming to this as an example, but it's the first thing that popped into my brain: When you create age of consent laws, for instance, if you did a blanket law that under 18 cannot consent, you've created a lot of strange situations. What if both people are under 18? Well, we need another law or ruleset to deal with that, because it'd be quite strange to charge two kids for each raping each other! Now how about if you're literally a month over 18 and someone else is literally a month under 18? Is that really just as wrong? No, probably not, so hey we need some more rules to fill in that gap there, too.

This is also kind of why Flat taxes don't work. It's simple, sure, but there are all sorts of instances where you can't just rely on one simple rule. People need help for various reasons. Life is complex, and thus laws probably have to be, too.

If the problem is really that people with better lawyers get better treatment in the justice system, we could fix that in different ways, not by simplifying laws or taking them out.

 

[Arkeband]

So since you only disagree with B, then you agree with A and C. In that case I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand, as we only disagree on how many laws is too many. We both draw the same line, I just draw it in a different place then you. What's the confusion?

Don't get me wrong, I disagree with A and C too, but that's because you treat B as a factual basis.

 

[4Tran]

It's funny how Trump is trying to cling to this market movement as an opportunistic political ploy. The natural order of a free market is cyclical, this is something that will happen from time to time.

What's he gonna do? Forbid selling stocks? Shorting stocks? Pass a law that says the market can only go up and not down? That's now how the world works but his yokel followers will probably fall for it.

I think that you're presuming too much in thinking that either Trump or his supporters care about a real solution to this problem. They're more interested in proclaiming that the current system doesn't work, and only have platitudes as fixes. The same can probably be said of the rest of the Republican, and to a lesser extent, the Democrats as well. Only a few of the political elite are interested in substantive change: figures like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, and they're not anywhere near the political mainstream.

 

[cpp_is_king]

Don't get me wrong, I disagree with A and C too, but that's because you treat B as a factual basis.

I think most of the time when people are debating something, both sides understand that they are debating each others' opinions. Is this something that actually needs to be explicitly stated nowadays?

I don't know why it would serve much purpose to debate the truthity of facts.


That being said, why would my opinion about B affect yoru opinion of A and C? You said you disagree with A and C because I treat B as factual (which I don't, btw). A-F are independent statements. And furthermore, even if they weren't, why would my belief in B affect your belief in A?

Are we in the twilight zone or something?

 

[pj]

So since you only disagree with B, then you agree with A and C. In that case I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand, as we only disagree on how many laws is too many. We both draw the same line, I just draw it in a different place then you. What's the confusion?

Your premise is half baked but for some reason you are unable to admit this and let it go.

Could you give a few examples of laws that we could lose and what benefit that would provide? I'm not talking about silly laws like "In Ohio it's unlawful for a man to have both sideburns and a moustache"

 

[cpp_is_king]

Your premise is half baked but for some reason you are unable to admit this and let it go.

All ideas are half baked. That's why they're called ideas instead of plans.

 

[pj]

All ideas are half baked. That's why they're called ideas instead of plans.

Jesus christ, what planet are you from?

 

[Polip Fawn]

All ideas are half baked. That's why they're called ideas instead of plans.

How about you come and address this point right here:

but an expiry plan doesn't make less laws, it would make more because you could present more solutions and because there's a time limit, if it didn't work you could cancel it or if it did work you could extend it or maybe add some always around it to fix issues. An 8 year date of expire is basically rewarding risk without the super long-term consequences.

It can even make it so that good ideas that don't work or show only marginal improvement during that time would be stopped for a new plan even though if people waited longer, it could have sky rocketed to great heights. Like long-term economic plans.

I mean if you keep dodging questions and making one line responses nobody will take you seriously and your idea ends up not being an idea just nothing and you're basically trolling to defend something you won't even support.

 

[Cheebo]

I am still confused where he gets the idea there is this major issue in our country of having so many laws that they contradict each other.

Have we had a SINGLE case where we had a issue due to passing one law at the federal level that contradicted another law currently in place at the federal level?

I have no idea why he is treating this as a major issue when it isn't even a minor issue, or an issue at all.

He also seems to equate having a complex tax code with having too many laws which one has nothing to do with the other.

 

[Nealand Liquor]

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, this is a fun thread!

I hope Trump gets elected if it means four years of this.

 

[Quixzlizx]

This thread went PoliSci 101 fast.

 

[Cheebo]

I am still baffled that he seemed taken a-back and confused with the requested follow-up and evidence to his initial claim of advocating of electoral dictatorship.

This thread went PoliSci 101 fast.

That is bound to happen when someone openly advocated and argues for an electoral dictatorship as his initial opening point of debate. You have to start back at square one, because his point was completely incorrect at the most basic level and all of his future arguments all failed the basic test of working in a functional democracy.

 

[Arkeband]

I think most of the time when people are debating something, both sides understand that they are debating each others' opinions. Is this something that actually needs to be explicitly stated nowadays?

I don't know why it would serve much purpose to debate the truthity of facts.


That being said, why would my opinion about B affect yoru opinion of A and C? You said you disagree with A and C because I treat B as factual (which I don't, btw). A-F are independent statements. And furthermore, even if they weren't, why would my belief in B affect your belief in A?

Are we in the twilight zone or something?

With all due respect you're twisting this into word soup, so let's bring it back a little.

Your premise: There are too many laws -
STOP!
Now explain yourself.

What constitutes "Too many"? You used tax code as an example because apparently you're so successful you're paying accountants good money to do yours, but does this observation apply anywhere else? Do you have a single example of where laws have become cumbersome, and where your weird 8-year dictator idea would be a plausible idea we should explore?

 

[cpp_is_king]

How about you come and address this point right here:



I mean if you keep dodging questions and making one line responses nobody will take you seriously and your idea ends up not being an idea just nothing and you're basically trolling to defend something you won't even support.

I actually think everyone else is trolling. I believe it's within my right -- and does not constitute trolling -- to pose a high level idea without having to write it down into a 250 page bill that covers every edge case and detail. As I've repeatedly said, I've stated an idea. Not a plan, not a policy, not a law. A high level idea. It's one that I think is good. Note that I used the word *think* this time, since people seem to mistakenly believe that I think my ideas are facts.

What you've stated there is your opinion. You think it would make more laws. Great, we disagree. Now I've addressed it.

Out of curiosity, how does my idea "end up not being an idea"? That doesn't even make sense. It's already an idea by merit of the fact that I thought of it. That's literally what an idea is.

I support it wholeheartedly and I still think it's a great idea. Doesn't mean it would work, or that I'm stating as a fact it would work. It means I think it's a good idea that, like every other idea anyone's ever thought of, is not fully fleshed out and is easy to poke holes in because it is not fully fleshed out, by definition of being an idea.

 

[cpp_is_king]

With all due respect you're twisting this into word soup, so let's bring it back a little.

Your premise: There are too many laws -
STOP!
Now explain yourself.

What constitutes "Too many"? You used tax code as an example because apparently you're so successful you're paying accountants good money to do yours, but does this observation apply anywhere else? Do you have a single example of where laws have become cumbersome, and where your weird 8-year dictator idea would be a plausible idea we should explore?

 

[Cheebo]

I actually think everyone else is trolling. I believe it's within my right -- and does not constitute trolling -- to pose a high level idea without having to write it down into a 250 page bill that covers every edge case and detail. As I've repeatedly said, I've stated an idea. Not a plan, not a policy, not a law. A high level idea. It's one that I think is good. Note that I used the word *think* this time, since people seem to mistakenly believe that I think my ideas are facts.

This is a a discussion board. Where we discuss things. You throw out a very extreme stance, of course people are going to want to discuss it and ask you follow-up and explanation of how you think your idea could actual work and function.

An actual discussion does not mean you throw out an outrageous idea, drop the mike and no one is going to ask you follow-up. When you posted your advocacy for a electoral dictatorship and putting a 8 year timer on every law of the land you should have clearly expected follow-up questions about why this would work, because this is not an idea that has ever been implemented or entertained anywhere prior.

No one is asking for 250 pages, but when you state such a stance on a discussion board one would expect you to discuss it further and answer queries about how and why this policy could actually function.

 

[Zultan]

It's funny how Trump is trying to cling to this market movement as an opportunistic political ploy. The natural order of a free market is cyclical, this is something that will happen from time to time.

What's he gonna do? Forbid selling stocks? Shorting stocks? Pass a law that says the market can only go up and not down? That's now how the world works but his yokel followers will probably fall for it.

You mean like people tried to pin the 2000 stock market crash on Bush?

 

[pj]

Try clicking that link.

Here's what I saw on a page linked by the page your quote is from

The belief that there are approximately
20,000 gun-control laws in the
United States has become received
wisdom. The figure is cited by advocates,
scholars, and the media with surprising
regularity—an electronic newspaper search
yielded more than 200 uses of the figure in
the last five years alone. But as it turns out,
there appears to be little basis for the number.

The most informative answer to the
question of “how many gun-control
laws?” is then “about 300 major state
and federal laws, and an unknown but
shrinking number of local laws.”
Rather than trying to base arguments
for more or fewer laws on counting up
the current total, we would do better
to study the impact of the laws we do
have.

http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publications/gunbook4.pdf

 

[Cheebo]

Try clicking that link.

Here's what I saw on a page linked by the page your quote is from





http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publications/gunbook4.pdf

This post has made my day. His policy based on a google search result that he himself won't even click to read.

 

[TestOfTide]

Trump: Because you think there are actually 20,000 gun control laws and feel burdened by money you have enough of to hire an accountant for.

 

[cpp_is_king]

This post has made my day. His policy based on a google search result that he himself won't even click to read.

And this is why I have little interest in answering yours or anyone else's questions. Because like everyone else on your side of the fence, you have little interest in the actual discussion part of this exchange. Your only interest is in owning people over the internet. Hence my earlier comment that it's everyone else that's actually trolling.

Have fun storming the castle. And yes, I still think my idea is good.

 

[pj]

And this is why I have little interest in answering yours or anyone else's questions. Because like everyone else on your side of the fence, you have little interest in the actual discussion part of this exchange. Your only interest is in owning people over the internet. Hence my earlier comment that it's everyone else that's actually trolling.

Have fun storming the castle. And yes, I still think my idea is good.

I had some interest, that's why I did 15 seconds of investigating to see how correct your image was. Turns out it's wrong by two orders of magnitude. If there had in fact been 20,000 gun laws, I would have agreed with you that it was far too large a number and that they were likely counterproductive and contradictory.

Do you have any other (actual) examples of excessive laws in america?

 

[Cheebo]

And this is why I have little interest in answering yours or anyone else's questions. Because like everyone else on your side of the fence, you have little interest in the actual discussion part of this exchange. Your only interest is in owning people over the internet. Hence my earlier comment that it's everyone else that's actually trolling.

Have fun storming the castle. And yes, I still think my idea is good.

If your idea is good why are you unable to provide any sort of evidence whatsoever when asked? When you try it blows up as in your previous post.

I enjoyed it not because I want to "own" you. Leave that sort of Internet lolz nonsense to those who post on the gaming side. I enjoyed it because I fee your idea is inherently flawed and believe there is no evidence to back your claim, you failed to provide evidence and clearly put very little time or effort in trying to provide evidence since you didn't even click your own link.


Again it comes down to: if your idea is so good explain to us WHY it's so good.

 

[Suikoguy]

And this is why I have little interest in answering yours or anyone else's questions. Because like everyone else on your side of the fence, you have little interest in the actual discussion part of this exchange. Your only interest is in owning people over the internet. Hence my earlier comment that it's everyone else that's actually trolling.

Have fun storming the castle. And yes, I still think my idea is good.

I'd be embarrassed after posting something that disproves your whole point, while thinking it proved it.

 

[cpp_is_king]

I had some interest, that's why I did 15 seconds of investigating to see how correct your image was. Turns out it's wrong by two orders of magnitude. If there had in fact been 20,000 gun laws, I would have agreed with you that it was far too large a number and that they were likely counterproductive and contradictory.

Do you have any other (actual) examples of excessive laws in america?

Nobody even knows how many laws there are, so the type of evidence you're looking for is not even answerable with concrete evidence. Even the best legal scholars can't tell you how many laws there are.

But the undisputable fact (and yes, I'm saying fact now) is that politicians' jobs are to create laws, not to review the relevance or status of existing laws. It's literally the definition of what they do. They are called "lawmakers" for a reason. So it goes without saying that the number of laws is constantly increasing. I don't need examples of this because it's simple logic.

If you don't think there are too many laws now, how about 200 years from now after laws of today are still being cited in courtrooms in the year 2215.

I'll leave you with an opinion piece (since in the absence of hard data about just how many laws there are, the best you're going to get from someone is an opinion)

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/03/29/crime-law-criminal-unfair-column/70630978/

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

And this is why I have little interest in answering yours or anyone else's questions. Because like everyone else on your side of the fence, you have little interest in the actual discussion part of this exchange. Your only interest is in owning people over the internet. Hence my earlier comment that it's everyone else that's actually trolling.

Have fun storming the castle. And yes, I still think my idea is good.

Guys I think Trump is on GAF

 

[pj]

Nobody even knows how many laws there are, so the type of evidence you're looking for is not even answerable with concrete evidence. Even the best legal scholars can't tell you how many laws there are.

But the undisputable fact (and yes, I'm saying fact now) is that politicians' jobs are to create laws, not to review the relevance or status of existing laws. It's literally the definition of what they do. They are called "lawmakers" for a reason. So it goes without saying that the number of laws is constantly increasing. I don't need examples of this because it's simple logic.

If you don't think there are too many laws now, how about 200 years from now after laws of today are still being cited in courtrooms in the year 2215.

I'll leave you with an opinion piece (since in the absence of hard data about just how many laws there are, the best you're going to get from someone is an opinion)

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/03/29/crime-law-criminal-unfair-column/70630978/

Did you ever stop to think the reason that we don't know exactly how many laws exist is because the number doesn't matter?

Nobody knows how many wild apple trees there are in kentucky, does that mean there are too many wild apple trees in kentucky?

Lawmakers don't just make new laws, they modify and repeal existing ones.

If this issue is so important, shouldn't there be some example you can cite that has a negative impact the average joe or jane's life? I don't disagree that there is a lot of cruft that accumulates as laws become unnecessary with time. Laws about horses on city streets are about as relevant today as texting laws will be in 20 years. But so what? Who gives a shit if it's still technically illegal to have a team of more than 2 horses on city streets between the hours of 3 and 6 PM? What is the actual harm?

 

[cpp_is_king]

Did you ever stop to think the reason that we don't know exactly how many laws exist is because the number doesn't matter?

Nobody knows how many wild apple trees there are in kentucky, does that mean there are too many wild apple trees in kentucky?

Lawmakers don't just make new laws, they modify and repeal existing ones.

If this issue is so important, shouldn't there be some example you can cite that has a negative impact the average joe or jane's life? I don't disagree that there is a lot of cruft that accumulates as laws become unnecessary with time. Laws about horses on city streets are about as relevant today as texting laws will be in 20 years. But so what? Who gives a shit if it's still technically illegal to have a team of more than 2 horses on city streets between the hours of 3 and 6 PM? What is the actual harm?

The article I linked gives some specific examples.

But anyway, this goes back to my point earlier that laws create inefficiency.

The more complex the legal code, the more valuable a lawyer is (and hence the more he charges you when you need him)

The more complex the legal code, the longer that an average trial will last as both sides try to squeeze in all the obscure laws and cases they can to argue their side (and to increase their clients' bills)

The more complex the legal code, the more people will be hit with frivolous lawsuits, just in case the plaintiff can make something stick.

The busier the court system is, the longer it takes people to weed their way through it and get their matters resolved because the court is busy dealing with frivolous lawsuits as previously mentioned.

Oh, and the more frequently you will get called for jury duty too.

The same people here who disagree with me that there's too many laws probably think our prisons are overcrowded and we should release people for minor offenses like posession of small amounts of marijuana or other non-violent offenses. Why do you think they ended up there in the first place? Too many laws

Where I live in California, an entire 100 square mile area consisting of literally over 100 cities is getting gentrified because there are so many laws and conflicting interests that you can't get a fucking house built, so rich people keep driving up the prices of everything forcing lower and even middle class people out.

And you asked for another concrete example besides the Tax Code. Try Patent and IP law.

 

[speculawyer]

Which of the following statements are you unconvinced of?

A. More laws creates more government inefficiency - Not convinced. Bad laws create inefficiency.
B. We have too many laws - Somalia (effectively) has no laws. I prefer here.
C. Government inefficiency can be a bad thing (beyond a certain threshold) - Certainly but I don't see too many laws causing it . . . bad laws yes.
D. It is possible for laws to disagree with each other - Definitely and that is a good point. But the courts find them and they do get fixed.
E. Our government would benefit from being more efficient - Obviously but not convinced the 'too many laws' is a big problem.

Edit:
F. We should strive to achieve a system of laws that agree with each other - Sure but they should research the existing laws before passing a new one.

Look, I certainly think there is a point to old and/or bad laws causing problems. We should go back and cull laws/regulations as needed. And Clinton assigned Gore to this task and they actually did that to some degree though no one remembers. (Yes, that's right . . . Clinton/Gore actually reduced regulations! They didn't just talk about it.)

Personally, I think the that the law/regulation requiring side-view mirrors should be changed. You should be able to have a camera system that replaces those side view mirrors if you chose to do so. Getting rid of those things would reduce drag and save millions of gallons of gasoline. So, yeah, old laws need to change.

But just having them ALL expire is stupid. It is a great policy for certain things . . . like the Patriot act.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

calm down he's not going to be pres. He's just a flase flag for Bush to look appealing and become pres, then everyone be like: "phew we almost got Trump in". When that was the plan all along.

Bush is flailing like no potential nominee in recent history. Romney was on the heels of every upstart at this point in the game.

Obviously he'll rise when some drop out, but I can see a big chunk of the small fry supporters drifting to Trump as he's just the "sexier" pick at the moment, and we've spent the last year drilling into everyone's heads that Walker/Bush can't beat Clinton.

 

[pj]

The article I linked gives some specific examples.

But anyway, this goes back to my point earlier that laws create inefficiency.

The more complex the legal code, the more valuable a lawyer is (and hence the more he charges you when you need him)

The more complex the legal code, the longer that an average trial will last as both sides try to squeeze in all the obscure laws and cases they can to argue their side (and to increase their clients' bills)

The more complex the legal code, the more people will be hit with frivolous lawsuits, just in case the plaintiff can make something stick.

The busier the court system is, the longer it takes people to weed their way through it and get their matters resolved because the court is busy dealing with frivolous lawsuits as previously mentioned.

Oh, and the more frequently you will get called for jury duty too.

The same people here who disagree with me that there's too many laws probably think our prisons are overcrowded and we should release people for minor offenses like posession of small amounts of marijuana or other non-violent offenses. Why do you think they ended up there in the first place? Too many laws

Where I live in California, an entire 100 square mile area consisting of literally over 100 cities is getting gentrified because there are so many laws and conflicting interests that you can't get a fucking house built, so rich people keep driving up the prices of everything forcing lower and even middle class people out.

And you asked for another concrete example besides the Tax Code. Try Patent and IP law.

There is a difference between "too many laws" and "bad laws". Putting people in jail for non-violent drug offenses is bad law. The number of laws isn't the problem there at all. (e.g. simply substituting prison sentences with rehab/probation wouldn't change the number of laws)

Patent and IP law need major reforms for sure, but that will happen with new laws, not by just getting rid of the old ones.

It's a complicated world and the laws for a country of hundreds of millions of people are always going to be complicated.

There are a lot of things I'm concerned about in this world, being the subject of a frivolous lawsuit or having to serve jury duty are not in the top 50.

Your california towns example makes no sense. Too many towns is the same as too many laws? What is your solution to that? Make a law restricting the number of towns in a given area?

You are all over the place trying to justify this idea. You are trying to put 100 completely different problems under one umbrella of "too many laws", when the actual problems are due to bad/outdated/ambiguous laws. Fewer laws isn't just a ridiculously broad non-solution to all of these problems, it's a non-solution for any individual problem.

 

[cpp_is_king]

Look, I certainly think there is a point to old and/or bad laws causing problems. We should go back and cull laws/regulations as needed. And Clinton assigned Gore to this task and they actually did that to some degree though no one remembers. (Yes, that's right . . . Clinton/Gore actually reduced regulations! They didn't just talk about it.)

Personally, I think the that the law/regulation requiring side-view mirrors should be changed. You should be able to have a camera system that replaces those side view mirrors if you chose to do so. Getting rid of those things would reduce drag and save millions of gallons of gasoline. So, yeah, old laws need to change.

But just having them ALL expire is stupid. It is a great policy for certain things . . . like the Patriot act.

One of my follow-up posts suggested that the expiration date could be on a per-law basis. I mean hell, you could make it 100 years. With the exception of things like murder, I'm pretty sure that almost everything could stand to be revisited after some duration. And even "murder" isn't exactly a law, by itself. There's no law that says "Don't kill people". There's hundreds of laws that define the conditions under which people are killed and the corresponding punishments. So individually, yes they could all be revisited after a certain time.

Where are we going to be 1,000 years from now, when the pile of laws has had some more time to collect? People are already getting sued over nothing, just because someone found a law somewhere that made X illegal.


Since the idea of expiration dates is so contentious, I'll offer an alternate proposal. Split congress into two halves. The lawmaker half the law-killer half. Half of congress continues to make laws, as they do. The other half of congress does nothing but find laws to get rid of.

 

[cpp_is_king]

Your california towns example makes no sense. Too many towns is the same as too many laws? What is your solution to that? Make a law restricting the number of towns in a given area?

I mentioned the number of towns as a way to illustrate the magnitude of the problem. The issue is due to a combination of state and city policies that interact to create an environment where houses cannot be built anywhere in this area - because of the number of laws and regulations.

 

[Cheebo]

One of my follow-up posts suggested that the expiration date could be on a per-law basis. I mean hell, you could make it 100 years. With the exception of things like murder, I'm pretty sure that almost everything could stand to be revisited after some duration. And even "murder" isn't exactly a law, by itself. There's no law that says "Don't kill people". There's hundreds of laws that define the conditions under which people are killed and the corresponding punishments. So individually, yes they could all be revisited after a certain time.

Where are we going to be 1,000 years from now, when the pile of laws has had some more time to collect? People are already getting sued over nothing, just because someone found a law somewhere that made X illegal.


Since the idea of expiration dates is so contentious, I'll offer an alternate proposal. Split congress into two halves. The lawmaker half the law-killer half. Half of congress continues to make laws, as they do. The other half of congress does nothing but find laws to get rid of.

how does such a split work? Each district gets 1 representative. So half the country would not have any representation in congress representing them in the formation of new laws and budgets and so on during a given time? This country was partially formed on the belief of "no taxation without representation" You would be hard pressed to find a single voter who would be okay with that.

Or would you call for the doubling of the amount members of congress?

 

[cpp_is_king]

how does such a split work? Each district gets 1 representative. So half the country would not have any representatives in congress representing them in the formation of new laws and budgets and so on? Or would you call for the doubling of the members of congress?

I have no idea. I just made the idea up out a minute ago. Feel free to run with it however you like. Or think of other ideas for how to get rid of useless laws.