I have a fun idea about the process of passing laws, and as you can see I’ve written a ridiculously long post to explain it. Hopefully you’ll bear with me.
First, I’m going to discuss the musings that have led to this proposal.
1)Whenever there’s a problem, politicians pass new laws.
A couple years ago my city had a few highly-publicized incidents of stray dogs biting children. The city council decided that the problem wasn’t that the dogs involved were loose, but that they were intact males. In response, they decided to pass a new law requiring owners of intact dogs (male or female) to purchase a $100 “intact dog license,” which had to be renewed yearly. It went a long way toward filling the city coffers, but unsurprisingly did nothing to prevent subsequent bite incidents.
Frankly, it’s much easier to give the impression of “doing something” via passing a new law, than finding a way to properly enforce existing laws. There are already leash laws on the books. If those dogs had owners, said owners should have been held responsible. If there were no owners, the dogs should have been picked up by animal control. Either way, there were already measures in place that could have potentially prevented the issue.
2)New laws are passed every year, but old laws are rarely removed.
We all know about some of the silly old-fashioned laws on the books: “no eating squirrel on Sunday” kind of stuff. They just sit out there, forgotten.
This means that every single year, more things become illegal. With politicians constantly encouraged to pass new laws, the logical end result of this fact is that eventually everything will be illegal.
3)People can and do vote on laws that don’t apply to their circumstances.
I grew up in a town where most people left as soon as they graduated high school. Due to the nice weather, there was also a significant population of retirees who lived there. The result was a population where everyone was either “seventeen or seventy.”
During my high school years, I looked on in helpless frustration as a series of laws were passed that applied only to minors.
- As just one example: They made it illegal for anyone under 18 to purchase spray paint or permanent markers, because those things could potentially be used for graffiti (this despite the fact that the town didn’t have any kind of significant graffiti problems to start with).
I hated these laws, not just because of the restrictions themselves, but because the people directly affected were the only ones not permitted a say in the passing of these laws. Of COURSE all the old people were like, “yeah, keep those teens under control.” THEY weren’t the ones who couldn’t buy the stupid markers they needed for a school project and had to bug their parents to accompany them to the store for something moronic.
As an adult, I still see this in action. People who don’t own pets vote on pet regulations. Men vote on abortion restrictions, etc., etc., etc. And as always, it’s very easy for people to vote that THE OTHER (whoever the other is), should be subjected to inconvenience/ fees/ restrictions/ whatever for the sake of the greater good. And why not? It’s not like their own lives will actually be directly affected by the proposed change.
Now, living in a democracy, everyone is going to have a say in the laws that are passed, and that is as it should be. However, it seems to me that if someone is going to vote on a law, the change should affect that person in SOME way, no matter how indirectly.
This leads me to my proposed solution:
We need to format all proposed laws as a game of “Would you rather?”
For every new law proposed, the proposer must scour the books and find an old law to remove. The new and old law would be presented to the public as a paired set. “We propose such-and-such, but that means we’ll also repeal such-and-such.”
This would address every one of these issues.
- A politician trying to look good by passing a law would simultaneously have to look bad by repealing one. They’d have to consider the ramifications a bit more carefully.
- It would place a permanent cap on the number of laws on the books. Goodness knows we have enough already.
- it would make everyone look a bit more closely before checking the “yes” box, because even if neither law directly affected their lives, they’d still have to weigh the comparative benefits of the two laws and determine the wiser choice of action. “Yes, let’s absolutely keep those darn kids from buying markers” would become, “Hmm, do I want kids to buy markers, or do I want to permit squirrel-eating on Sundays?”
What do you guys think?
Would you Rather? – Political Edition
First, I’m going to discuss the musings that have led to this proposal.
1)Whenever there’s a problem, politicians pass new laws.
A couple years ago my city had a few highly-publicized incidents of stray dogs biting children. The city council decided that the problem wasn’t that the dogs involved were loose, but that they were intact males. In response, they decided to pass a new law requiring owners of intact dogs (male or female) to purchase a $100 “intact dog license,” which had to be renewed yearly. It went a long way toward filling the city coffers, but unsurprisingly did nothing to prevent subsequent bite incidents.
Frankly, it’s much easier to give the impression of “doing something” via passing a new law, than finding a way to properly enforce existing laws. There are already leash laws on the books. If those dogs had owners, said owners should have been held responsible. If there were no owners, the dogs should have been picked up by animal control. Either way, there were already measures in place that could have potentially prevented the issue.
2)New laws are passed every year, but old laws are rarely removed.
We all know about some of the silly old-fashioned laws on the books: “no eating squirrel on Sunday” kind of stuff. They just sit out there, forgotten.
This means that every single year, more things become illegal. With politicians constantly encouraged to pass new laws, the logical end result of this fact is that eventually everything will be illegal.
3)People can and do vote on laws that don’t apply to their circumstances.
I grew up in a town where most people left as soon as they graduated high school. Due to the nice weather, there was also a significant population of retirees who lived there. The result was a population where everyone was either “seventeen or seventy.”
During my high school years, I looked on in helpless frustration as a series of laws were passed that applied only to minors.
- As just one example: They made it illegal for anyone under 18 to purchase spray paint or permanent markers, because those things could potentially be used for graffiti (this despite the fact that the town didn’t have any kind of significant graffiti problems to start with).
I hated these laws, not just because of the restrictions themselves, but because the people directly affected were the only ones not permitted a say in the passing of these laws. Of COURSE all the old people were like, “yeah, keep those teens under control.” THEY weren’t the ones who couldn’t buy the stupid markers they needed for a school project and had to bug their parents to accompany them to the store for something moronic.
As an adult, I still see this in action. People who don’t own pets vote on pet regulations. Men vote on abortion restrictions, etc., etc., etc. And as always, it’s very easy for people to vote that THE OTHER (whoever the other is), should be subjected to inconvenience/ fees/ restrictions/ whatever for the sake of the greater good. And why not? It’s not like their own lives will actually be directly affected by the proposed change.
Now, living in a democracy, everyone is going to have a say in the laws that are passed, and that is as it should be. However, it seems to me that if someone is going to vote on a law, the change should affect that person in SOME way, no matter how indirectly.
This leads me to my proposed solution:
We need to format all proposed laws as a game of “Would you rather?”
For every new law proposed, the proposer must scour the books and find an old law to remove. The new and old law would be presented to the public as a paired set. “We propose such-and-such, but that means we’ll also repeal such-and-such.”
This would address every one of these issues.
- A politician trying to look good by passing a law would simultaneously have to look bad by repealing one. They’d have to consider the ramifications a bit more carefully.
- It would place a permanent cap on the number of laws on the books. Goodness knows we have enough already.
- it would make everyone look a bit more closely before checking the “yes” box, because even if neither law directly affected their lives, they’d still have to weigh the comparative benefits of the two laws and determine the wiser choice of action. “Yes, let’s absolutely keep those darn kids from buying markers” would become, “Hmm, do I want kids to buy markers, or do I want to permit squirrel-eating on Sundays?”
What do you guys think?
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire