Proposal: The Anti-Legislature

[yorick73]

@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.

[yorick73]

@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.

[begbert2]

@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.

[yorick73]

@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.

[begbert2]

@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.

[yorick73]

@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.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@yorick73

Because that doesn’t discriminate between bad laws and good laws.

It’s unclear to me how the OP’s proprosal does, either.

[begbert2]

@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.

[yorick73]

@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!

[foolsguinea]

We already have one. Bicameralism is designed to stop reform.

[mswas]

@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.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@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.

[yorick73]

@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!