Hacker News Reader

Comment by parkaboy | Hacker News Reader

I wish there were a solution to managing whatever the equivalent of software-creep (law-creep?) in this space. Are there any examples of countries/governments that have successfully implemented such systems.

Either way, I don't like how things (hot takes from people, journalists, politicians businesses, whatever) are constantly framed as being pro/anti laws (or regulation). This seems to always at the end of the day serve "the elites" in one way or another: whether it's adding regulations to keep out competition from the little upstarts or getting rid of it to expand marketshare at the expense of consumer-harm.

Question should always be pointedly reframed as: do we have the "right" laws. Not as: do we have too many or too little. This ultimately means nothing and feels like a distraction from the bigger issues.

/end arm chair rant.

View on HN

That's the idea behind a constitution of enumerated powers, but those appear to lose their restraining force over a few generations.

I'd favor an amendment placing a sunset clause on every statute, and no omnibuses, such that the legislature only has enough time in session to keep a finite set of laws in effect.

> placing a sunset clause on every statute, and no omnibuses

Watch out, murder statute sunsets tomorrow and the Congress is gridlocked! Why are they gridlocked? They can’t string together broad compromises without everyone suing over what constitutes an omnibus.

Fair, but...

You get the Congress you vote for. If you need Congress to work together instead of acting like idiots, vote for people who will work together instead of acting like idiots. If you won't, this is the kind of Congress you get.

We haven't been feeling the pain because of the executive branch. But now Chevron is overturned...

(Also, murder is going to be against state laws even without federal ones, so this won't turn into the murder crisis that you suggest.)

> You get the Congress you vote for

You also get the people your country comes with ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

> murder is going to be against state laws even without federal ones, so this won't turn into the murder crisis

Fair enough. There might be truth to bills passed without a supermajority having an automatic sunset. The benefit there being it could be rolled back retroactively.

That said, Congress loves a crisis. Having the existence of every Department, agency and court subject up for grabs if the Congress (or any legislative body) falls into temporary paralysis sounds like a good way to justify a coup.

The US voting system doesn't give you the Congress you vote for. We saw that with Ross Perot in the 90s. 19% of votes and zero representation.

> US voting system doesn't give you the Congress you vote for. We saw that with Ross Perot in the 90s. 19% of votes and zero representation.

The President and Congress are separate things.

The same thing would happen with a party that receives 20% of the vote. No representation

Not very likely. Even "gridlocked" Congresses pass a lot of legislation, it just doesn't attract much attention.

Sounds like a fun idea. I think we should elect and hire a committee to delete laws. Make it a fork of the law making formula.

Let's get concrete here on the BS laws.

Does the law hope to prevent people from causing harm, physical, financial, etc, to others or their property? Keep it.

Does the law aim to prevent people from harming themselves, excluding suicide? Toss it out, freedom. [i.e. heavy taxes on soda; mandatory helmets]. Some jurisdictions try to enumerate every little possible way a bad thing could happen and make it a fineable offense, and it comes off as very much "invasive HOA" energy

Does the law aim to indirectly incentivize particular behaviors for political goals? Toss it [i.e. some parts of California have fully failed permitting systems which prevent any new houses from being built whatsoever, which is great for the environment since all development has been permanently halted. the faulted law is gladly allowed to persist with the hidden political reason behind it]

Now as for monopolies I think we have entered a bizarre system of mostly duopolies. The OS duopoly. the cell phone duopoly. search engine duopoly. Streaming duopoly. Social media duopoly. the stock markets is a duopoly. our political system is a duopoly. coke and pepsi. and so on. what we do need on the point of looking out for the "little upstarts" is a very careful investigation of these duopolies to see if they are truly competing for all their worth, or if there's a backroom agreement on things. I believe tech is a little thicker on the backroom agreements

Reply on news.ycombinator.com