# 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:** 13\ **Page:** 3
**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, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposal-the-anti-legislature/506731/41 "2009-08-20T19:27:20Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > 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.? Of course you pay to use roads…it’s called tax dollars. And, yes, there are conditions on the use of the roads…as there should be. There are direct conditions placed on you by the state and the indirect ones placed on you by the feds. There are always conditions on things that are given to you. Are they all bad? Of course not! Most of them are very good. Can they be REALLY bad? You bet. > [@begbert2](#): > > \*Is this some kind of tax thing? What’s your obsession with taxes? Do you think I’m opposed to taxes? I’m much more opposed to the federal government running every aspect of my life. ---
**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, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposal-the-anti-legislature/506731/42 "2009-08-20T19:38:44Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Why not just require that all legislation include a sunset clause? Because that doesn’t discriminate between bad laws and good laws. Of course this may be the outcome regardless. I guess there are some great laws that are truly bipartisan and enjoy huge public support. ---
**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, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposal-the-anti-legislature/506731/43 "2009-08-20T20:10:18Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Of course you pay to use roads…it’s called tax dollars. And, yes, there are conditions on the use of the roads…as there should be. There are direct conditions placed on you by the state and the indirect ones placed on you by the feds. There are always conditions on things that are given to you. Are they all bad? Of course not! Most of them are very good. Can they be REALLY bad? You bet. > > What’s your obsession with taxes? Do you think I’m opposed to taxes? I’m much more opposed to the federal government running every aspect of my life. Oh, so it _is_ a tax thing! 😃 I have no problem with taxes. After all, they’re not “servitude”. They’re _rent_. ---
**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, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposal-the-anti-legislature/506731/44 "2009-08-20T20:23:11Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Oh, so it _is_ a tax thing! 😃 > > I have no problem with taxes. After all, they’re not “servitude”. They’re _rent_. Clever…but at least you are starting to catch on. ---
**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, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposal-the-anti-legislature/506731/45 "2009-08-20T20:41:03Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Clever…but at least you are starting to catch on. I’m confused as to what you think you’ve enlightened me about that I was not aware of previously. Regardless of all this, I still believe that there is at least one political party currently operating in the US that is ‘ambitious’ enough to use control over the proposed anti-legislature to annihilate laws and government programs that they’re ideologically opposed to, and/or to use the _threat_ of annihilating laws as a heavy bludgeon to control what laws are passed by the non-anti-legislature. (Not entirely unlike how the feds on occasion use highway funding as a Big Stick, coincidentally.) I’m not impressed by the argument that the political parties aren’t _really_ nutty enough to do this; I think there’s ample evidence that there in fact _are_ political ideologues in governmental positions, and that such unchecked power as this anti-legislature would offer would not go unused. Personally, I think there already _is_ an effective anti-legislature. It’s called the legislature. They already _do_ have the power to reverse laws, and on some notable occasions have. (The big flashing neon example of this is how prohibition went down.) That this doesn’t happen very often merely suggests that laws aren’t being made so capriciously that the legislature as a whole regularly ‘changes its mind’ about them. This isn’t really a problem. ---
**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, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposal-the-anti-legislature/506731/46 "2009-08-20T21:26:45Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I’m confused as to what you think you’ve enlightened me about that I was not aware of previously. I think you should have ended that sentence after ‘confused’. 😃 > [@begbert2](#): > > Regardless of all this, I still believe that there is at least one political party currently operating in the US that is ‘ambitious’ enough to use control over the proposed anti-legislature to annihilate laws and government programs that they’re ideologically opposed to, and/or to use the _threat_ of annihilating laws as a heavy bludgeon to control what laws are passed by the non-anti-legislature. (Not entirely unlike how the feds on occasion use highway funding as a Big Stick, coincidentally.) I’m not impressed by the argument that the political parties aren’t _really_ nutty enough to do this; I think there’s ample evidence that there in fact _are_ political ideologues in governmental positions, and that such unchecked power as this anti-legislature would offer would not go unused. You could be right, but even I wouldn’t go THAT far in describing the Dems. > [@begbert2](#): > > Personally, I think there already _is_ an effective anti-legislature. It’s called the legislature. They already _do_ have the power to reverse laws, and on some notable occasions have. (The big flashing neon example of this is how prohibition went down.) That this doesn’t happen very often merely suggests that laws aren’t being made so capriciously that the legislature as a whole regularly ‘changes its mind’ about them. This isn’t really a problem. The problem is that it’s not nearly as popular to get rid of old laws as it is to “fix” some new problem most likely caused by an existing law. I think the idea of not getting rid of old laws is much like the old idea of junk DNA…plenty of stuff to play around with when the time comes. ---
**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, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposal-the-anti-legislature/506731/47 "2009-08-20T21:35:28Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Because that doesn’t discriminate between bad laws and good laws. It’s unclear to me how the OP’s proprosal does, either. ---
**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, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposal-the-anti-legislature/506731/48 "2009-08-20T21:50:05Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > I think you should have ended that sentence after ‘confused’. 😃 I think you have mistaken this forum for the Pit. > [@yorick73](#): > > You could be right, but even I wouldn’t go THAT far in describing the Dems. Funny man. I _would_ go that far in describing the Dems - at least regarding using the threat of wiping out laws as a big stick. Why wouldn’t they, if they could? It’s more political leverage. Heck, they might not do a clean sweep of things they don’t like - they might keep some things around just to use as blackmail-fodder. (‘Oh, you _like_ the second amendment, eh? EH? What would you do to KEEP it?’) Or they might write up an ‘improved’ version of some old bill, and then tell the others in the legislature they’d better pass it or else - because it’s that or **nothing**. I can _totally_ see this happening. Unchecked and unbalanced politicking at its best! And yes, obviously if I think if the Dems would be willing to do this, I think that the Pubs would go positively apeshit. When the pubs had control of the Prez and houses they were _much_ more aggressive about using that power than the Dems are now in a similar situation. > [@yorick73](#): > > The problem is that it’s not nearly as popular to get rid of old laws as it is to “fix” some new problem most likely caused by an existing law. I think the idea of not getting rid of old laws is much like the old idea of junk DNA…plenty of stuff to play around with when the time comes. I think the idea is that the politicians only worry about things that actually seem to be problems. And, uh, that are hot-button issues for the voters. The idea of the Anti-legislature appears to be to annihilate the countr–er, I mean, to sidestep the institutional reluctance to go back and rethink old laws. But the thing is, we’re talking the same politicians here. If they’re not willing to reverse laws in the normal legislature, why would they be any different in the anti-legislature? I can only see three reasons to expect any change in behavior/results:1) they have nothing better to do with thier time than hack-n-slash, 2) it’s easier to create than to rewrite, so there would be less deliberation and less debate, and 3) they are unconstrained by checks and balances. Personally I don’t think that an increase in reversed laws for _any_ of those reasons would be a good thing, because none of those reasons relate to the merit of the laws being wiped! If you think there are too many laws, then vote in a party that will prioritize reversing bad laws. But just because you can’t find a party that will steer the car the way you’d like it doesn’t mean that taking the brakes off is a good solution. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2009, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposal-the-anti-legislature/506731/49 "2009-08-21T03:18:14Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I think you have mistaken this forum for the Pit. I think you skipped over the little laughing head I left after the statement. C’mon, I was just kidding. > [@begbert2](#): > > And yes, obviously if I think if the Dems would be willing to do this, I think that the Pubs would go positively apeshit. When the pubs had control of the Prez and houses they were _much_ more aggressive about using that power than the Dems are now in a similar situation. This is because the Dems don’t have the courage of their convictions. They realize that if they ram something through, and it fails miserably, there will be hell to pay in 2010 and 2012. The Dems probably believe they are doing the right things but they also know that paying for all this will mean a significant tax hike for everyone in time. > [@begbert2](#): > > I think the idea is that the politicians only worry about things that actually seem to be problems. And, uh, that are hot-button issues for the voters. Agreed > [@begbert2](#): > > The idea of the Anti-legislature appears to be to annihilate the countr–er, I mean, to sidestep the institutional reluctance to go back and rethink old laws. But the thing is, we’re talking the same politicians here. If they’re not willing to reverse laws in the normal legislature, why would they be any different in the anti-legislature? Because this is their mandate. Legislators are sent to DC to create. Anti-Legislators are sent to destroy! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2009, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposal-the-anti-legislature/506731/50 "2009-08-21T03:31:40Z")
We already have one. Bicameralism is designed to stop reform. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2009, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposal-the-anti-legislature/506731/51 "2009-08-21T11:18:50Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Why not just require that all legislation include a sunset clause? Because that would then require Congress to actually focus on which laws are expiring. As we all know they can’t even be arsed to read the bills that come before them as it is. A dedicated body whose job it was to eradicate bad laws would be great. Perhaps combined with a Sunset clause. ---
**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 21, 2009, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposal-the-anti-legislature/506731/52 "2009-08-21T14:12:39Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Legislators are sent to DC to create. Anti-Legislators are sent to destroy! 😃 Fuck, if you’re gonna send something to Washington to destroy, it should be at least 400 feet tall and breathe fire. Hmph, kids today. No ambition. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2009, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposal-the-anti-legislature/506731/53 "2009-08-21T14:18:38Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Fuck, if you’re gonna send something to Washington to destroy, it should be at least 400 feet tall and breathe fire. > Hmph, kids today. No ambition. I would agree with you if I didn’t live so close to DC! 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposal-the-anti-legislature/506731.md?page=2)