Hacker News Reader

Comment by anigbrowl | Hacker News Reader

Thing is most of the regulatory infrastructure you describe already exists in employment law. The broad societal proposals you describe would necessitate a radical reappraisal of contract law and a lot of other things. To use the popular 'ship of state' metaphor, it would be sort of like dramatically reconfiguring an aircraft carrier while it's at sea.

View on HN

I guess that is what is happening here...fixing any problems using the existing model instead of trying to figure out new ways of fixing the problems to fix the new model of employment in some industries.

We elect lawmakers, not lawkeepers. It is their job to update the laws to keep pace with society, not restrict society so existing laws remain useful. In the 'ship of state' metaphor, we're never going to be closer to a drydock and we need a hospital ship not an aircraft carrier.

I heartily agree, but the 2 and 4 year timeframes and existing imbalances in the current electoral system (gerrymandering, wildly varying senatorial electorates etc), make that terribly difficult to achieve in practice.

That sounds like a very good argument for more reform, not less. The fact is those problems have always existed and aren't going away any time soon, so while waiting for better conditions before we tackle major societal problems might seem sensible in theory, in practice it just means letting the wounds fester indefinitely.

Sure, but how are you going to achieve that? I'd like an entirely different constitutional order (a federalized wikiocracy, in a nutshell) but that would require either a wholesale redrafting or recission of the Constitution.

Look at the current situation where there is a 50-50 tie in the Senate, but existing rules create a 60 vote threshold for most legislation. There are a whole lot of issues that I'd like to see reform on, but right now the votes are not there for either party to do so.

The constitution only requires a simple majority of the senate to pass a bill, and there is a tiebreaking vote. The 60 vote threshold is only because of a self-imposed extra-constitutional rule, one which can be abolished with a simple majority vote via the "nuclear option" [0]

Effective lawmaking is not some impossible feat under our current system, it was commonplace until very recently. All that has changed is that we've grown complacent and now continue to vote for those who refuse to do their jobs.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

Reply on news.ycombinator.com