Your belief is utterly and without question wrong. Since it would require the action of congress to remove laws. Believing in something doesn’t make it true. Just because you can’t fathom how complex and interconnected running a nation like America is, is not an argument that doing it is simple.
Are you under the impression that we don’t elect representatives to govern? Do you think we should simply have the entire country vote on every issue?
As for calling it your side, I assume you are a lockstep devotee to your ideology. You don’t appear to be arguing for it based on careful reasoning, You’re arguing for it based on assertions of how right it is.
I said nothing of removal of laws. Please base your position on actual things I say.
Of course we elect those who govern in our stead. Does this then mean that they are free to propose bridges to nowhere and we are helpless to show our disapproval when they fund it?
As are you. We are all here arguing for what we feel is right, or moral or acceptable. So before you look too far down your nose, ask yourself if you are one of “those guys”
So we have the exactly correct number of laws right now? Additional laws will make things worse? Your position is incoherent.
They show disapproval by electing someone else. Bridges to nowhere may be bad, but some bridges are good. And the public at large may not have the information to assess a given project. A congress-person can listen to experts and get a level of understanding that wold be impossible for the public at large.
I’m arguing for basing things on reality and facts. You’re arguing based on axioms that are not necessarily true. Like your bizarre assertion that fewer laws is better. How about I buy you a one way ticket to Somalia? It must be heaven.