# Proposal: The Anti-Legislature **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 17, 2009, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposal-the-anti-legislature/506731 "2009-08-17T15:58:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposal-the-anti-legislature/506731/21 "2009-08-19T16:35:26Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [I’ve got a better idea.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=264462) Suffice it to say “No.” Your idea would largely be like the nosense of supposedly “independant investigators” today, producing nothing and wastng a lot of time and effort. Actually, a lot of people seem to think that whoever had this body would simply (as they put it) erase all the opposition. That is not so, for the same reason that it doesn’t happen today: there’s a lot of personal difference of opinion, party lines are often weak, and any actors must answer to the voters who tend to favor the current status quo most of the time. The advantage of having a negative-only body is that its authority asnd place demands it attempt to get rid of obsolete and bad law. This will, of course, be politically charged, but that won’t be anything new. Call it political evolution in action: a new pressure forces change. It might or might not be a good idea regardless, of course, but this doesn’t seem to stand the test of logic. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposal-the-anti-legislature/506731/22 "2009-08-19T17:13:29Z")
> [@storyguide3](#): > > It may have escaped your notice, but to the best of my knowledgeat least, no UHC country has outlawed tobacco or any other unhealthy lifestyle. Perhaps your arguments would have more traction if they actually had something like a basis in reality. You would do well to look around and see what has actually happened in UHC countries before you pull out these ideas. Britain’s NHC already takes smoking into account with many doctors refusing to treat smokers. No surgery until you quit for a month, etc. Hell, New York wanted to tax fatty foods and sugary drinks. Imagine how much more popular these ideas will be if our tax dollars are “wasted” on these people. I don’t think it is outside the realm of possibility that tobacco could be outlawed. > [@storyguide3](#): > > On the other hand, perhaps the US i_s_ incapable of operating a UHC system without becoming what the right fears. If so it is not an inherent feature of UHC but some form of American exceptionalism at work. I would hope that Americans are, in fact, smart enough to be able to do what the people of every other industrialzed democracy has been able to accomplish. This has nothing to do with America. It’s about Americans that fear what is happening in other countries. The waiting times, rationing, etc. that people in other countries take for granted is still a foreign concept here. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposal-the-anti-legislature/506731/23 "2009-08-19T18:36:07Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > The waiting times, rationing, etc. that people in other countries take for granted is still a foreign concept here. No, it isn’t. Insurance companies ration care every day in the US. My wife’s doctor recommended a stem cell transplant for her auto-immune disease; the insurance company declined to pay. How is that rationing better than a government bureaucracy? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposal-the-anti-legislature/506731/24 "2009-08-19T18:46:53Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > I’ve argued with some loony lefties but how can one argue with a person who truly believes that the opposition party wants to imprison gays and segregate schools. They’d install a religious/corporate/racist dictatorship if they could. And as far as gays go the only question would be if they’d imprison them or kill them. > [@yorick73](#): > > What is freedom in your mind? Don’t you realize that we give up our freedom when we give up our responsibilities so the nanny state can take care of us? What YOU seem to want is a system where the feds can screw over it’s population without interference…AND we will have no place else to go. Where’s the freedom in that? More freedom than we have now. Dying because you don’t have enough money isn’t freedom; being forced to use inferior care because your insurance company demands it isn’t freedom. That “nanny state” you fear so much is the only reason we have any freedom at all; that’s why the Right hates it. There’s no such thing as a “rugged individualist”; individualists are by nature weak and helpless, which is why the right extols “rugged individualism” as a virtue. > [@yorick73](#): > > It’s fine with me if you disagree with the the very principles that this country was founded upon. You mean like slavery and genocide? Like the subjugation of women? This country was founded on a lot of things decent people oppose. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposal-the-anti-legislature/506731/25 "2009-08-19T19:53:30Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > They’d install a religious/corporate/racist dictatorship if they could. And as far as gays go the only question would be if they’d imprison them or kill them. CRRRAAAAAAAZZZZZZZYYYYYYY! > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > More freedom than we have now. Dying because you don’t have enough money isn’t freedom; being forced to use inferior care because your insurance company demands it isn’t freedom. That “nanny state” you fear so much is the only reason we have any freedom at all; that’s why the Right hates it. There’s no such thing as a “rugged individualist”; individualists are by nature weak and helpless, which is why the right extols “rugged individualism” as a virtue. How about the freedom to be left the fuck alone! Freedom does not mean freedom from responsibility…it means living your life the way you see fit. If you choose to live in a log cabin in the middle of nowhere, not work, and grow your own food then don’t expect to be able to afford such luxuries as quality healthcare. Having the government provide for your “needs” is not freedom…it is servitude. If you want the government to support you and make sure you don’t die or get “inferior” care then quit earning an income and get on the welfare/medicaid rolls but quit trying to ram this kind of shit sandwich down everyone’s throat. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > You mean like slavery and genocide? Like the subjugation of women? This country was founded on a lot of things decent people oppose. After you quit your job you should have some time to slip into a middle school somewhere and bone up on the founding principles of this country. What kind of dumb shit is this? Show me a civilization that does not have blood on its hands. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposal-the-anti-legislature/506731/26 "2009-08-19T22:07:42Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Actually, a lot of people seem to think that whoever had this body would simply (as they put it) erase all the opposition. That is not so, for the same reason that it doesn’t happen today: there’s a lot of personal difference of opinion, party lines are often weak, and any actors must answer to the voters who tend to favor the current status quo most of the time. The advantage of having a negative-only body is that its authority asnd place demands it attempt to get rid of obsolete and bad law. This will, of course, be politically charged, but that won’t be anything new. Call it political evolution in action: a new pressure forces change. > > It might or might not be a good idea regardless, of course, but this doesn’t seem to stand the test of logic. I said that an “ambitious” political party could erase the other side. And they could. I think your “a lot of personal difference of opinion, party lines are often weak, and any actors must answer to the voters who tend to favor the current status quo most of the time” stuff would be a _lot_ more convincing if it actually _was_ the reason that ‘erasure’ doesn’t happen today, but it isn’t. The reason is that it takes a long time to make laws, and once you _do_ make a law, it has institutional momentum. This ‘anti-legislature’ program seems explicitly designed to bypass that. And in my opinion if that happened the party in control of it would start slicing and dicing with glee, and using the _threat_ of slicing and dicing to push other legislation through. It’s like if the president is the opposite party from the legislature, writ large - and with no overriding of vetos. So, if the president doesn’t like something, it doesn’t pass, period. But also, if the president doesn’t like something that a previous president passed, then it’s _also_ gone. I think it would be a slaughterfest the _moment_ an ambitious party (ie: the republicans) got control of it. You have not convinced me in the slightest that this power would be used responsibly. (Feel free to try again, with different, possibly compelling arguments.) > [@yorick73](#): > > How about the freedom to be left the fuck alone! Freedom does not mean freedom from responsibility…it means living your life the way you see fit. If you choose to live in a log cabin in the middle of nowhere, not work, and grow your own food then don’t expect to be able to afford such luxuries as quality healthcare. Having the government provide for your “needs” is not freedom…it is servitude. If you want the government to support you and make sure you don’t die or get “inferior” care then quit earning an income and get on the welfare/medicaid rolls but quit trying to ram this kind of shit sandwich down everyone’s throat. I’m confused. How is it servitude to be given something with no restrictions or requirements on its use? Oh! Look! There are roads there! You can use them! YOU’RE A SLAVE! AAAAAAAAAAHH!!! (Runs around screaming in incoherent panic.) Is this some kind of tax thing? ---
**Author:** ![Never\_Say\_Dice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ee59a6/32.png) [@Never\_Say\_Dice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Never_Say_Dice)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposal-the-anti-legislature/506731/27 "2009-08-19T23:15:57Z")
My own suggestion, to be enacted to coincide with my term in the White House, is to let me remove all the clauses after the first one in every law. Each law has a main purpose, the one candidates brag about when they say they voted for it. And a dozen exemptions and loopholes to pay off the lobbyists. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposal-the-anti-legislature/506731/28 "2009-08-19T23:20:31Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > In the other thread on people wanting to change the Constitution, well, there really wasn’t a debate. Suffice it to say I think nearly every proposal a bad one, usually built around the author’s pet prejudices and whims. > > Also, I think they are thinking small. > > I propose a much mroe radical change: adding a fourth branch to the government. > > You’re probably thinking this is rather much, but hear me out. I think the executive is paradoxically too powerful and too hamstrung, while legislatures today increasingly create messes only. The solution? The Anti-Legislature. > > The Anti-legislature would be composed of one (yes, one) elected official from each state. The body ncannot propose any new law. Instead, all it can do is delete old ones. After a one-year period from adoption, it can erase any law from the books. It can also reject executive orders at any time. I like this idea. I had an idea similar to this a while back. A government body whose job it is to destroy old laws. Though personally I think if we could get rid of addendums to bills then we’d be making some progress. No more deal making on that level let the funding for the overpass come from its own bill. If a law is 1000 pages long then it’s too fucking long. You cannot have a free society if it is bound by laws the individual cannot possibly understand without expensive professional guidance. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2009, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposal-the-anti-legislature/506731/29 "2009-08-20T01:55:33Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I like this idea. I had an idea similar to this a while back. A government body whose job it is to destroy old laws. > > Though personally I think if we could get rid of addendums to bills then we’d be making some progress. No more deal making on that level let the funding for the overpass come from its own bill. If a law is 1000 pages long then it’s too fucking long. You cannot have a free society if it is bound by laws the individual cannot possibly understand without expensive professional guidance. Odd that we would agree. Interestingly, Adam Smith had some relevant advice here when he noted that government should be vulgar and obvious. Of course, he devoted his life to understanding how to improve the world for everyone, and his advice is rarely followed today (to our detriment, so…) ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2009, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposal-the-anti-legislature/506731/30 "2009-08-20T02:43:11Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > CRRRAAAAAAAZZZZZZZYYYYYYY! Ah; a stunningly irrefutable argument. :rolleyes: > [@yorick73](#): > > How about the freedom to be left the fuck alone! Freedom does not mean freedom from responsibility…it means living your life the way you see fit. If you choose to live in a log cabin in the middle of nowhere, not work, and grow your own food then don’t expect to be able to afford such luxuries as quality healthcare. Having the government provide for your “needs” is not freedom…it is servitude. If you want the government to support you and make sure you don’t die or get “inferior” care then quit earning an income and get on the welfare/medicaid rolls but quit trying to ram this kind of shit sandwich down everyone’s throat. Translation : Screw everyone else. If you think can personally save a few pennies by condemning thousands or millions of people to impoverishment, suffering and death while dragging the country down into collapse, you don’t care. > [@yorick73](#): > > After you quit your job you should have some time to slip into a middle school somewhere and bone up on the founding principles of this country. What kind of dumb shit is this? Show me a civilization that does not have blood on its hands. So; you use the “founding principles of the country” as a synonym for “good” and then excuse what the founders did with “everyone does it !” You can’t have it both ways. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2009, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposal-the-anti-legislature/506731/31 "2009-08-20T03:32:41Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > How about the freedom to be left the fuck alone! Show me where that is guaranteed in the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2009, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposal-the-anti-legislature/506731/32 "2009-08-20T04:22:10Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I’m confused. How is it servitude to be given something with no restrictions or requirements on its use? > > Oh! Look! There are roads there! You can use them! YOU’RE A SLAVE! AAAAAAAAAAHH!!! (Runs around screaming in incoherent panic.) > Is this some kind of tax thing? I’m sure you are aware that the federal government uses the highway funds to bully states into doing what the feds want. I remember Louisiana was almost denied highway funds because they refused to lower the legal BAC to .08. I’m sure there are more examples. Nothing free comes without conditions. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2009, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposal-the-anti-legislature/506731/33 "2009-08-20T04:34:00Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Ah; a stunningly irrefutable argument. :rolleyes: Do you have ANY evidence to back up your claims? I assume you would have provided a cite if one existed. Is it really necessary to argue against your absurd claims? > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Translation : Screw everyone else. If you think can personally save a few pennies by condemning thousands or millions of people to impoverishment, suffering and death while dragging the country down into collapse, you don’t care. I’m not sure how you come to this conclusion. I meant exactly what I said. I don’t need a translator. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > So; you use the “founding principles of the country” as a synonym for “good” and then excuse what the founders did with “everyone does it !” You can’t have it both ways. This is hardly having it both ways. The founding principles of this nation have nothing to do with genocide, subjugation of women, or slavery. These are sins of all mankind and not, as you like to imply, uniquely American. The two are not related. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2009, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposal-the-anti-legislature/506731/34 "2009-08-20T04:37:48Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Show me where that is guaranteed in the Constitution. That’s basically the gist of the constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2009, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposal-the-anti-legislature/506731/35 "2009-08-20T04:48:03Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > That’s basically the gist of the constitution. Really? The 16th Amendment pretty specifically gives the government the right to collect taxes on your income. And Article 1, Section 8 gives them the right to spend your taxes to promote the general welfare of the United States. So yeah, the gist of it is, the government can mess in your shit any number of ways, as the Framers intended. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2009, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposal-the-anti-legislature/506731/36 "2009-08-20T14:20:07Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Really? The 16th Amendment pretty specifically gives the government the right to collect taxes on your income. And Article 1, Section 8 gives them the right to spend your taxes to promote the general welfare of the United States. > > So yeah, the gist of it is, the government can mess in your shit any number of ways, as the Framers intended. Yeah…I’ll have to give you that one. That pesky general welfare clause and its interpretation has caused much confusion over the course of our national history. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2009, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposal-the-anti-legislature/506731/37 "2009-08-20T17:25:34Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > I’m sure you are aware that the federal government uses the highway funds to bully states into doing what the feds want. I remember Louisiana was almost denied highway funds because they refused to lower the legal BAC to .08. I’m sure there are more examples. Nothing free comes without conditions. Wow, I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware you were a state. My apologies. Putting aside the nonsense, to us **humans** , the use of the road _ **is** _ free\* and comes without conditions. Oh, dear, reality doesn’t agree with you. What a shame. \*Is this some kind of tax thing? ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2009, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposal-the-anti-legislature/506731/38 "2009-08-20T18:41:50Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Wow, I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware you were a state. My apologies. > > Putting aside the nonsense, to us **humans** , the use of the road _ **is** _ free\* and comes without conditions. Oh, dear, reality doesn’t agree with you. What a shame. Aren’t you CUTE…but not all that bright. Who do you think is affected by state mandates that are forced upon it by the federal government? If you said the people who live in that state then go to the head of the class! The feds can use highway money to coerce states to pass legislation that it cannot do at the federal level. Just a further expansion of the federal power over states AND those that live in those states. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2009, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposal-the-anti-legislature/506731/39 "2009-08-20T18:55:45Z")
Why not just require that all legislation include a sunset clause? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2009, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposal-the-anti-legislature/506731/40 "2009-08-20T19:01:11Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Aren’t you CUTE…but not all that bright. Who do you think is affected by state mandates that are forced upon it by the federal government? If you said the people who live in that state then go to the head of the class! The feds can use highway money to coerce states to pass legislation that it cannot do at the federal level. Just a further expansion of the federal power over states AND those that live in those states. At least I’m bright enough not to fall for this pathetic little attempt at distraction. The FACT is that there are roads. You don’t have to pay\* to use them and the use of them does, in fact, come without conditions. The fact that internal state politics _occasionally_ (but not usually) occur as the state jockeys in how to avoid having to pay for the roads for themselves is irrelevent - either way the state chooses to go, the roads would still be free\* to the people using them and come without conditions upon those people for the use of those roads. Yes, I know that you don’t like that this example blows the legs out from under your tenuous and absurd claim that “Having the government provide for your “needs” is not freedom…it is servitude.” However, it does. As does the example of fire departments. Are you a _slave_ to your fire department? How about your public library. Are you your librarian’s _servant_? Heck? They don’t even rob you of the ability to buy your own books! Face it. Your position is nuts. Roads _alone_ demonstrate that your position is nuts. Despite you trying to muddy the issue with irrelevecies. \*Is this some kind of tax thing? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposal-the-anti-legislature/506731.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposal-the-anti-legislature/506731.md?page=3)