Over time, doesn't that mean we just end up with more and more legislation about everything?
How do we reign in legislation? How do we say, hey you were elected, but it's possible there isn't any new legislation needed, or barely any?
> I note one proposal to make this Congress a two-house body. Excellent — the more impediments to legislation the better. But, instead of following tradition, I suggest one house of legislators, another whose single duty is to repeal laws. Let the legislators pass laws only with a two-thirds majority... while the repealers are able to cancel any law through a mere one-third minority. Preposterous? Think about it. If a bill is so poor that it cannot command two-thirds of your consents, is it not likely that it would make a poor law? And if a law is disliked by as many as one-third is it not likely that you would be better off without it?
Back before the internet, the UK Establishment (very much a cozy clique of old-school-chums, exactly as Yes Minister portrayed it) had a decent grip on the country. They could control most of what the media said, which was all of what the average Brit saw as news.
Then all hell broke loose and suddenly any dirty little oik could publish whatever they liked on the internet for anyone to read.
They've been trying to stuff this genie back in the bottle ever since. There's a whole plethora of controls over the internet in the UK [0] which do well for the general problem, but the bugbear is always E2E encryption - they can't read it! Any pleb can still say anything to anyone! This has to be stopped, clearly. So they keep trying.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_Uni...