| From: | Joseph Hammer <parrhesiajoe(at)gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date: | Mon, 9 Nov 2009 19:31:02 -0800 |
| Subject: | RE: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree |
|
Good point. The removal of bad laws has proven tricky throughout history. What is a bad law? Should they be judged by their intentions or their outcomes? Or, does a law become “good” if it is supported by a majority of the people, or their representatives? If a people are unjust or immoral, should a democracy allow them to design an unjust or immoral social structure? For example, if 90% of the people in Seattle want to outlaw outdoor advertising… billboards, etcetera… is it a good law? It violates property rights, but those rights are DEFINED by the public in general. Certainly, other building codes already allow the liberty of an owner to be superseded by will of the public. If 90% of the people want to outlaw Muslim churches, should that be allowed? Please, take into account that this is already the case. Our representatives can effectively change any part of the constitution if they think it will gain them votes, and 90% means a politician would be suicidal not to take up the call. (Honorable, but politically, a loser). 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 our prejudices to work their way into law. As long as the people do not clamor for limits to government power, the representatives tend to give them what they want. Even when the public is 40% in favor of something, the government will latch onto it if it increases their scope and power (Health Care Bill, $700 Billion Bailout). When the people are highly in favor of a measure that limits power, however, the government is less responsive. For example, term limits for congress 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] And the repeal of those that have proven ineffective or that have outgrown their usefulness. B. Thomas Marking From: Joseph Hammer
[parrhesiajoe(at)gmail.com] A stable, fair and productive government should promote the formation of new laws and changes to existing ones. (To keep them fresh, one might suppose?) Parrhesia |