Good point. The removal of bad laws has proven trickythroughout history.
What is a bad law? Should they be judged by theirintentions or their outcomes?
Or, does a law become “good” if it issupported by a majority of the people, or their representatives?
If a people are unjust or immoral, should a democracyallow them to design an unjust or immoral social structure?
For example, if 90% of the people in Seattle want to outlaw outdooradvertising… billboards, etcetera… is it a good law? It violatesproperty rights, but those rights are DEFINED by the public in general.Certainly, other building codes already allow the liberty of an owner to besuperseded by will of the public. If 90% of the people want to outlaw Muslimchurches, should that be allowed? Please, take into account that this isalready the case. Our representatives can effectively change any part of theconstitution if they think it will gain them votes, and 90% means a politicianwould be suicidal not to take up the call. (Honorable, but politically, aloser).
So…
Should good law based on a defined set of virtues (if so,then who defines the set), or should it be based on the public will? Or both?Or neither? Or something else? Be very specific.
Parrhesia
P.S.
Our current system makes it very possible for ourprejudices to work their way into law. As long as the people do not clamor forlimits to government power, the representatives tend to give them what theywant. Even when the public is 40% in favor of something, the government willlatch onto it if it increases their scope and power (Health Care Bill, $700Billion Bailout). When the people are highly in favor of a measure that limitspower, however, the government is less responsive. For example, term limits forcongress have had over 50% public support for over half of the last 100 years,and no congress has ever acted on it.
From: wingsprd[wingsprd(at)goldenwest.net]
>Sent: Sunday, November 08, 20099:05 AM
>To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
>Subject: RE: [WDDM] Agree orDisagree
Andthe repeal of those that have proven ineffective or that have
outgrowntheir usefulness.
B.Thomas Marking
From: Joseph Hammer[parrhesiajoe(at)gmail.com]
>Sent: Saturday, November 07, 200910:52 PM
>To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
>Subject: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree
A stable, fair and productive government should promotethe formation of new laws and changes to existing ones.
(To keep them fresh, one might suppose?)
Parrhesia