Creative Destruction of Law

[Carleas]

Laws can be written any number of ways to accomplish the same end. To prevent killing, you can structure law to restrict the means (e.g. gun regulation), to make the act itself more costly (e.g. prison time, fines, or in-kind punishment), or you can reduce the factors that lead to killing in the first place (e.g. alcohol regulation, anger management education). For crimes like killing, we tend to apply every restriction, under the assumption that the cost of a killing is so high that the cost imposed by anything that ultimately limits killing is a net positive. It is probably the case, though, that in an objective sense a certain amount of killing should be allowed if the costs of preventing it would be excessive. Whether or not that's right, crime prevention resources are finite, and even if we should spend everything we have to limit e.g. killing, different mixes of policies may do more than others.

But there is little testing of the laws to see what it the best option. If a law is extraordinarily harmful, it is occasionally repealed, but not always. It is often politically easier to allow a law that is on the books to remain, even though it is clear that it is doing more harm than good (c.f. marijuana prohibition). One of the strengths of the federal system in the US, and the country system globally, is that the separate jurisdictions serve as "laboratories", allowing each to try different laws, balancing different approaches, different levels of prohibition and punishment, to achieve optimal ends. Theoretically a better system elsewhere can be copied at home, so that over time laws become more efficient and more effective.

But what happens as this system dies? As the US has moved more decision-making to the federal level, and as countries have become more involved in each others local policy choices, laws standardize by force and not by choice. The laboratory effect disappears in favor of the status quo.

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.

Because some laws are less subject to changing circumstances, the time period after which a law will lapse should be pegged to the unanimity with which it passes. A law that has broad support may last fifty or a hundred years; a law that passes narrowly may expire at the end of the election cycle.

This model comports better with ideals of liberty and democracy, because it assumes that laws are an aberration from the norm, and need to be constantly reaffirmed to remain valid. It also allows the law to change, and to change explicitly, so that the common law and written law can be made uniform over time, and the courts can be rebuffed when they overstep their remit. Finally, it allows us to experiment and to adapt our law to the changing circumstance of our society. Laws that are unanimous will change only slowly if at all, while laws that are hotly contested may well be on the losing side in half a decade. It might also discourage omnibus legislation, because it would be more efficient to decide highly unanimous actions separately so that they don't have to be discussed again in a short time.

Thoughts?

[James L Walker]

Government law is meaningless.

Government law exists only to preserve the status quo and the level of inequality it profits off of.

Your posts reeks of typical reformist bullshit.

[Carleas]

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]

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.

It is not any different than central Africa just more sanitized.

The west is a very sanitized place of it's malice, destruction, and social inequality. I use the word sanitized describing that which is hidden or unquestionably ingrained in everyday activities as just being accepted.

To the careful studying person of society everything is hidden in plain sight it's just the ignorant that fail to grasp or see it in front of themselves.


Carleas you are too much of a idealist and more worrisome is you hold all government values or assumptions to be true. You are a true believer.

There is no reasoning with the likes of you.

So long as there is money and greed your reformist platitudes will amount to nothing but you idealists never like hearing that, do you?

[James L Walker]

Carleas, I need you to help me out.

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]

Well, I didn't intend this thread to be a general vindication of government, but seeing as no one's biting at that...

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?

First, obviously, police shouldn't be beating people to death. What distinguishes the US from central Africa is that when police here beat someone to death,

1. It's video taped. This indicates both that we have access to a technological system in which every citizen can be a reporter. It also indicates that police misconduct is so rare and unacceptable as to be newsworthy.
2. People react with outrage. Again, we don't expect police to act this way, we find it unacceptable when they do, and the notion that they could evokes a strong popular response.
3. There are democratic avenues through which people can seek change. Police will be fired; if they aren't, city council members won't be reelected. Laws will change, police funding will change, the government will change in reaction to a breakdown of order.

Most of the time, people like the police. Most of what the police do in the US is valuable. Every once in a while, they beat someone up unjustifiably, but much more often they arrest thieves, they keep roads orderly, they preserve the structure of society so that people can focus on seeking their joys.

In central Africa, corrupt goverments do whatever they want, they don't react to public will, abuses of power go unaddressed or rewarded. There's a difference between a lapse that resembles bad government and actual bad government.

[James L Walker]

Abuse of power is not rewarded in western governments?

I'll agree with you that the west has mastered PR spin.

That goes back to that whole sanitized existence I was talking about earlier.

[James S Saint]

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.

Although I agree with the general tone and intent, I can see a variety of serious issues arising.

One of those is that what you proposed will spawn endless terrorism.

Laws are made today (especially noted by the Patriot Act) by;
1) instigating a "clear and present danger",
2) implicating a guilty entity or cause, then
3) offering a solution for the price of less freedom and more authority.

That is the current favorite methodology throughout the world.

So what is going to happen concerning your experiments, is that outside manipulators are going to increase the heat (secretly instigate troubles) in the labs that might end up proposing any law that is not favored by the instigators. OF course, what they will favor or disfavor is whatever laws yield the most power into their own hands.

What provides them with such power is none other than terrorism (as recognized even 6000 years ago as "The Serpent"). So the laws that WILL be the predictable end result of that experimental paradigm will be the laws that permit specific people to continue their terrorism for power.

There is a better way to accomplish what you seem to be aiming toward.

[Carleas]

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?

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. 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.

There is also the likely possibility that terrrism is meant to achieve large results, and the 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.

I'd be interested to know any alternatives you've come up with that achieve similar adaptability and experimentation of law.

[James S Saint]

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?

Secretive manipulation, the "left hand" of the Magi.
Now whether you believe that such is already going on or not, if you were to accomplish your experimental paradigm, even I could take advantage of it and soon rule the world.

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.

I doubt that, but even if so, all I would have to do is use my magic to ensure that it never got voted on. The House is historically well noted for such prejudice.

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.

Terrorism pays for itself (when done properly).
It is by varied forms of that same formula that people, being basically confused, naive and kept that way, end up giving money indirectly to the terrorists. All I have to do is cause them to believe that they have a problem (drugs, cancer, terrorists, global warming, diseases, Christians,...), have someone offer a solution, and tax them for the exchange in trade. You can't blame me for taxation right? All governments need taxation to handle the "clear and present danger". The weapons market is a very lucrative business and has been for very many years (although never as much as it is today).

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.

As explicated above, a little leads to a lot. It is an absolute law that all things take time, not too much and not too little, "step by step", closing the fence. Usually such a tactic is pretty cheap in that it merely requires whispering in the right ears. Each step, no matter how small, helps add up to pay for the bigger steps.

I'd be interested to know any alternatives you've come up with that achieve similar adaptability and experimentation of law.

First, just to ensure I'm not wasting my time on this;

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?
I need confirmation on that.

[Carleas]

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.

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).

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.

[James L Walker]

How did this whole conversation go to being about 9-11?

[James S Saint]

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.

First let me say that if you could for example, use each of 50 US states as separate experiments for different governing styles through a few generations, the information potentially gained would be utterly phenomenal. So if you could actually do what you suggested, the entire world would gain horrendously from the experience/experiment. But as I stated, there are actually a few problems (besides the intentional manipulation of generations of people's lives). And there is a better way.

You have mentioned "ultimate purpose". Can we agree that the ultimate purpose of any governance is merely to achieve, through cooperative effort, the means to accomplish things that the individuals could not have accomplished without said governance? And in addition but separately, what those things that are to be accomplished are, is up to the individuals involved?

The alternative would seem to be presumptuous because any experimental evidence gained would have to be assessed with some notion of better or worse governance. Who would assess whether sample A accomplished better or worse effects than sample B? What would be their standard?

If you agree that making laws more rational for sake of the individual lives involved, meaning that they actually do accomplish their stated purpose, is the ultimate purpose, doesn't that mean that it is an issue of authorizing or empowering rationality itself over merely passion voting?

As long as passion (anyone's) is the greater authority, I can't see how you would get away from the same passion manipulation of hopes and fears that have always been used, and are still very seriously being used, so as to merely accomplish what someone else's passion happen to dictate, a "Master". That is the Master/slave paradigm even if something like majority vote was to be used as the arbitrator, there are always ways to manipulate what that majority is going to vote toward and thus producing a Master while everyone else serves as their slaves.

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).

Whether ensuring that each of many factions is small, yields the most rational end result is one of the purposes of the experiment.. and is dubious at that.

Realize that in order to ensure equality, because you can't make an ass into a thoroughbred, you must make the thoroughbred into an ass. Any attempt to keep a faction equal in strength to the others, will eventually require that it be medically, neurologically or genetically, oppressed so as to ensure that it doesn't overwhelm the others. Remove all colors so as to ensure that all are equally gray? And is gray really the most rational color to have all things be?

It is easy to simply presume that all peoples are to be kept equal in strength of body and mind so as to ensure that none become the Masters of the others, but look what happens when you attempt such a thing. First, one has to presume to be the one in charge of keeping the others equal in potential. But how rational is that one? Being rational implies that there is a purpose for the actions involved and that those actions will in fact accomplish that purpose. But what is that purpose and who decides upon it? Merely ensuring that all people are alike?

Anyone on top of the game carefully trying to keep the others equal must get his information concerning decisions from somewhere. What if the best idea concerning his methods, the most rational plan, was within those he is oppressing? Will he know? Can he judge better than they?

Out of 100 groups being oppressed into equality, one of those must necessarily have the best or most rational thought concerning any particular issue over the other 99. It wouldn't always be the same group, but given any one issue, there must always be one group that is closer to being rational than the others. How would the Master above it all know which one that was on any given issue?

But more importantly, because it is necessary to medically and/or psychologically oppress many within the collection, wouldn't the one potentially coming up with the best idea be oppressed into not being capable of thinking to his best potential or capable of proving his point? There is always a competition of one type or another determining best from the others. But if all are being oppressed, especially medically, are you ever going to see the actual best, the most rational come forth? Is the Master to just presume that he alone knows, without such advisers as the people themselves, what is best or most rational? What is to be his standard?

These issues are directly related to what I have mentioned as that better way. But I want to ensure that we are seeing things close to the same level of concern before I try to explain that method.

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 is Exactly what I would also propose, but merely by a different method than experimenting with the lives of others as though there is an all knowing Master who can decide better from best in the end. My method involves no Master above trying to gauge who is better or best other than Reality itself. Comment on the above concerns, and then I will reveal what I believe would get to the "most rational" result without presuming ahead of time or who is to arbitrate, what constitutes "most rational".

[MagsJ]

How did this whole conversation go to being about 9-11?

...that's not uncommon for here