Too many laws
December 16th 2007 00:42
If there's too much dog shit on the streets, should you make a law against it?
(Or should people be required to make art out of it?)
In general, to fix a problem, should you legislate?
Let's assume that the laws in question are good laws -- they're not stupid, they don't violate fundamental rights, they're not draconian...
Well, there might still be objections.
Here's ten (and I'll list some more in a future post).
1. At the broad level, there are claims that an unregulated (or less regulated) system performs better (according to this or that measure) than a regulated one (ie, even if the laws are individually good, their combined mass is somehow burdensome).
With respect to economies and markets, it's even suggested, sometimes, that laissez-faire generates better social solutions (eg capitalism as a model for third world development).
2. Relatedly, where individual businesses are concerned, more laws means extra things to make sure you're in compliance with, which can require additional paperwork, time, energy, wages, and legal and accountancy fees.
Since we're assuming the laws are good laws and not meaningless red tape, presumably someone who makes this argument (or, in fact, any of these arguments -- in a sense they're all variants of one another) is worried that downsides outweigh upsides, or that there are alternative ways to achieve the upsides without the downsides.
3. More laws means additional costs for all branches of government, particularly in terms of enforcement -- and perhaps this cost isn't always worth it. For instance, it might be that more good could be achieved by allocating the budget elsewhere.
4. There's an increasing likelihood that everyday people, without the resources of businesses, won't know the laws to which they're subject, and will unwittingly break them -- whether because there's simply too many laws to know, or due to the uncertainty of interpretation that arises under complexity.
5. At any rate, they might well worry constantly and live beneath the oppressive weight of arbitrary power (their "freedom from domination" is damaged).
You might call freedom from domination the "Kafka problem":
6. There are potential undesirable psychological effects of enforceable laws, particularly in relation to threat, coercion, and punishment.
7. Each law is an extra limitation of the intrinsic and instrumental good of individual freedom, and an additional opportunity for executive abuse.
8. Hugh Mackay once gave a speech at my high school, years and years ago (he was the father of a student), and I think one of his arguments was to the effect that laws can erode civic virtue. I think he claimed, for whatever psychological, sociological reason, that increased legislation somehow gives rise to the mentality that mere compliance with letter of law is all that's expected of people.
9. It might even be suggested that more laws can incline people towards being more litigious -- if, for instance, they now have more ways to further their interests by using the system, or if, because of the particular competitive environment, it becomes necessary so to use the system.
10. A complex system of laws will advantage the rich, who are better equipped to navigate it.
(Or should people be required to make art out of it?)
In general, to fix a problem, should you legislate?
***
Let's assume that the laws in question are good laws -- they're not stupid, they don't violate fundamental rights, they're not draconian...
Well, there might still be objections.
Here's ten (and I'll list some more in a future post).
1. At the broad level, there are claims that an unregulated (or less regulated) system performs better (according to this or that measure) than a regulated one (ie, even if the laws are individually good, their combined mass is somehow burdensome).
With respect to economies and markets, it's even suggested, sometimes, that laissez-faire generates better social solutions (eg capitalism as a model for third world development).
Since we're assuming the laws are good laws and not meaningless red tape, presumably someone who makes this argument (or, in fact, any of these arguments -- in a sense they're all variants of one another) is worried that downsides outweigh upsides, or that there are alternative ways to achieve the upsides without the downsides.
3. More laws means additional costs for all branches of government, particularly in terms of enforcement -- and perhaps this cost isn't always worth it. For instance, it might be that more good could be achieved by allocating the budget elsewhere.
4. There's an increasing likelihood that everyday people, without the resources of businesses, won't know the laws to which they're subject, and will unwittingly break them -- whether because there's simply too many laws to know, or due to the uncertainty of interpretation that arises under complexity.
5. At any rate, they might well worry constantly and live beneath the oppressive weight of arbitrary power (their "freedom from domination" is damaged).
| There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear [...] Paranoia strikes deep Into your life it will creep It starts when you're always afraid You step out of line, the man come and take you away ---- Buffalo Springfield, "For what it's worth" |
You might call freedom from domination the "Kafka problem":
| Franz Kafka wrote in The Problem of Our Laws that "it is an extremely painful thing to be ruled by laws one does not know"... Who of us feels confident that we understand the anti-terrorism laws and how they might affect us? I certainly don't understand them and I follow these things quite closely... Anyone who is politically active in Australia, especially if they are critical of the Federal Government, must live with low-level anxiety about what might happen to them or their families if some unknown threshold is crossed. It is not just the politically active: just to know someone who might be active could land you in hot water... The laws remind us of Walter Benjamin's distinction between "the foreseeable punishment that accompanies the disobedience of the law, and the harsh, unpredictable and generally violent retribution that comes about for transgressing secret or unwritten rules that are unknown to us".
---- Clive Hamilton, "Fear the creeping powers of the state", Sydney Morning Herald, Friday 7 September 2007, Spectrum, p 26 |
6. There are potential undesirable psychological effects of enforceable laws, particularly in relation to threat, coercion, and punishment.
8. Hugh Mackay once gave a speech at my high school, years and years ago (he was the father of a student), and I think one of his arguments was to the effect that laws can erode civic virtue. I think he claimed, for whatever psychological, sociological reason, that increased legislation somehow gives rise to the mentality that mere compliance with letter of law is all that's expected of people.
9. It might even be suggested that more laws can incline people towards being more litigious -- if, for instance, they now have more ways to further their interests by using the system, or if, because of the particular competitive environment, it becomes necessary so to use the system.
10. A complex system of laws will advantage the rich, who are better equipped to navigate it.
| 62 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Damo
80% of laws are crap
20% make sense.
80% laws are only there to control the 20% of society that will do anything that is not illegal.
80% of laws are trivial.
20% of law are not.
80% of people making laws shouldn't
20% of people breaking the law shouldn't
Just a bumch of crazy numbers.