Moderator: Stoic Guardian
Carleas wrote:I suppose I want it to reek of reform, that's my intent: a structural reform of the law-making process that will tend towards better laws. Like you I think the law tends to perpetuate certain evils. Unlike you I think the basic concept of a government of laws is a valuable one, and that what we have is better than what e.g. most of central Africa has.
James L Walker wrote:You say that the west is much better than central Africa.
I would like for you to comment on the recent example of a homeless man beaten to death by police caught on video. Comments?
Carleas wrote:To the end of reviving experimentalism in the law, I propose that all laws be paired with an expiration date. This will require the law to be reviewed and aired publicly on a regular basis, and make the status quo a constant of no law. Only laws that still make sense will survive, and there will be an opportunity to tweak them in response to changes of interpretation or application.
Carleas wrote:Thanks for your comments, James, let me see if I understand you correctly:
Your claim is that, because what I've proposed will mean more votes on a specific decision, it will mean more incentive for outside actors ("terrorists") to act outside the system to influence it through force. Does that sum it up accurately?
Carleas wrote:If so, in counter I would suggest that in addition to increasing the opportunity for outside influence to enact certain types of law, it proportionately decreases the payoff of any successful influence. While a law that is on the books permanently will only be voted on once, if the law can be influenced it will keep paying off more or less indefinitely. So, for example, if the Patriot Act expired and had to be voted on again today, it would certainly fail.
Carleas wrote:If the whole purpose of 9/11 was to get Americans to sacrifice freedom for safety, then the payout would be short lived, and a 9/11 would be required every time the Act came up for a vote. That may encourage more terrorism, but terrorism like 9/11 isn't simple, especially because society reacts to it. It would be much more difficult to pull off a 9/11 today, making repeated terrorism increasingly costly.
Carleas wrote:There is also the likely possibility that terrorism is meant to achieve large results, and it only happens when the payoff tips a certain scale. i.e., a little payoff doesn't warrant a little terrorism, but no terrorism at all.
Carleas wrote:I'd be interested to know any alternatives you've come up with that achieve similar adaptability and experimentation of law.
James S Saint wrote:Isn't the intent of your proposal to come up with a means to ensure more rational laws, laws that better suit their stated purpose?
James S Saint wrote:even I could take advantage of it and soon rule the world.
Carleas wrote:James S Saint wrote:Isn't the intent of your proposal to come up with a means to ensure more rational laws, laws that better suit their stated purpose?
Yes, but I should clarify that purposes are not necessarily equal. Many laws have been passed, for example, with the explicit purpose of combatting drug use, and combatting drug use has the purpose of minimizing criminality or maximizing morality or some such. These latter, in turn, are sought for yet another purpose, perhaps achieving some sort of universal self-actualization or heaven on earth. The point is that experimentation is the law is beneficial not only for making laws achieve their purpose, but for making subordinate purposes consistent with whatever is the ultimate purpose of government, and ultimately for determining what an ideal purpose is for government.
Carleas wrote:James S Saint wrote:even I could take advantage of it and soon rule the world.
But surely everyone couldn't take advantage of the laws to rule the world, because then there would be a world of rulers, which is functionally equivalent to no rulers at all. A system that can be gamed simply is not necessarily broken, because everyone is trying to game the system to their ends. The military industrial complex wants war, colleges and venture capitalists want peace, luxury item vendors want peace and wealth disparity, unions want a relatively flat society but can tolerate war, etc. etc. In Federalist 10, Madison talked about the influence of factions on government, and the solution as he framed it wasn't to eliminate the ability of factions to enact policies, but to keep factions small enough that they could never overwhelm the system (whether the American experiment in that was a success is debateable).
Carleas wrote:If I read you correctly, much of what you say seems to be a criticism of government in general, of problems like government failure and regulatory capture. I agree those are issues, and my concern here isn't to address them directly, but to find a structural solution that addresses such problems organically.
...that's not uncommon for hereJames L Walker wrote:How did this whole conversation go to being about 9-11?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users