[4ntonius8lock]

Is there any law/legal mechanism which could put automatic expiration on new laws? Is there anything I could suggest to my lawmakers for this to happen?

I mean, we seem to be following a pattern:

Big power wants something that directly and negatively impact the quality of life of the majority of the populace.

Populace rises up against this.

Big power 'loses'.

Big power makes the push again next year. People rise up, but a little less.

Big power 'loses'.

Repeat until popular power is worn out and big power gets what they want.

Once passed, popular outrage won't remove it, it's way harder to get support for repealing than for approving.

So...

I'd like to support something that changes that system from working that way.

I'd think an expiration date would due... but I'm open to supporting anything that would break this pattern.

[JohnFen]

> Is there any law/legal mechanism which could put automatic expiration on new laws?

It can be (and has been for some laws) done. In the past, it's been done by including "sunset provisions" in the law itself, where the law must be periodically confirmed by a new vote or it automatically ceases to have force of law.

It would also be legally possible to create a law that places sunset provisions on all subsequent laws. I have been in favor of this approach for a very long time. Practically, it's not going to happen, though.

[4ntonius8lock]

It's like when you suggest that maybe getting rid of lobbying is a solution to political corruption.

Practically it might not happen, but if enough people move in the direction of supporting something like this, the pressure will build. Just as it was not practical to make marijuana legal in the 60s.

Remember that the people in power are mostly old dinosaurs who will die soon (they are old already)

They will be replaced and the vision of those replacing them will shape the future.

[JohnFen]

Yes, you make an excellent point and I agree.

[ace_of_spades]

I have had similar ideas and would love to propose something even more radical. Treat laws like theories and model the expected/desired effects that a law should have at certain time points/intervals. If the observed outcomes diverge too much from the intended outcomes there would need to be an automatic review of that legislation.

There are obviously huge challenges associated with this as we are living in a dynamic world but I would love to see a push towards more evidence based politics and more rational discussions around the often implicit assumptions underlying specific legislation.

INAL and maybe there is something like this going on internally in politics but I think there is more to be done in making this accessible to the public and giving it more room in political discussions.

[DyslexicAtheist]

the slow pace of how this all plays out is even worse. it's designed to be invisible to the naked eye. nation states have all the time.

I can't recommend Jacques Ellul and his "The Technological Society" any higher. He traces it back to the early stages of the industrial revolution. Also his "Propaganda, The formation of Mans attitudes"[2] is unfortunately not wide enough known in the English speaking world.

[1] https://archive.org/details/JacquesEllulTheTechnologicalSoci...

[2] https://archive.org/details/Propaganda_201512

[cmurf]

Law makers do this all the time, they're called sunset clauses. If you're saying it should be automatically applied to all laws, well the idea of automatic anything sounds nice if it actually works as intended, the problem is it so often ends up not working as intended.

The problem with your cited pattern isn't the duration of laws. It's the founding principle of the "big power" to only serve its own interests. With that founding principle, it can only ever require constant vigilance to push back. One possible alternative founding principle is the "benefit corporation" that requires by company charter, to have social benefit in addition to seeking profit.

[function_seven]

I've always wondered if we could scale the term of the law with the vote total.

For example, lets say your state legislature has 100 representatives. You could require sunset clauses as follows:

    51-55 votes:  2 years
    56-60 votes:  5 years
    61-80 votes: 10 years
    81+   votes: No expiration

Then those bills that are narrowly passed would result in a law with a limited shelf-life.

[cmurf]

This can be done voluntarily in the bill at the time it's written. If you want to make it compulsory, it'd need to be a city charter amendment, a state constitutional amendment, or a federal constitutional amendment. Doing something like this doesn't just magically happen. It's in fact a kind of law that would be much harder to pass than it just being what it is, which is sometimes used and sometimes not used, on a case by case basis.

[function_seven]

Sure. I’m not asking for magical intervention here :)

It’s a thought experiment to see how our lawmaking might change under such a regime. California’s constitution can be amended by ballot propositions, and it's not too crazy to think that such a prop might pass.

I can see a scenario where a city, state, or other political division sees volatility on the horizon, and enacts just a change as a kind of defense against future laws being ossified

[4ntonius8lock]

I love the experiment. To quote a great song:

...Some things will never change

That's just the way it is

Ah, but don't you believe them...

[heavenlyblue]

Democratically speaking, the only reason Big Power wins is due to the fact that it's incredibly inefficient to stand behind interests of many parties investing small amounts against single players investing huge amounts.

One would think we need interest groups more.

[luckylion]

> One would think we need interest groups more.

Would love to see more of those, especially in the EU, and the way they have them in the US. I'd love a privacy focused action group, but I don't want to buy a host of unrelated political issues with that. The EFF and similar organisations do a pretty good job at that, would love if we had more groups like that over here.

[AWildC182]

I love the idea, especially as a way of un-bundling beliefs so we're not all beholden to one of two massive and far reaching belief systems.

That said, I worry that it's too easy for small advocacy groups to get steamrolled by bigger interests if they prove to be a problem. Even if they're popular with the public, it just takes a payment to a PR firm of your choice to roll a story that they're selling dead babies and suddenly everyone is confused.

[luckylion]

True, but EFF and others managed to get past that as well, I think mostly by not overreaching, always being fact-based and consistency. It would certainly take quite a while to gain enough trust and support if you're not ideologically aligned.

I worry that it's just hard to do. It takes a special kind of person (and lots of them) to keep general politics out, even more so when you're successful and advocating your personal politics would be easy and effectful. Oh, and being vigilant so you don't get co-opted by a political movement.

[mr_toad]

> One would think we need interest groups more.

Just put tighter limits on campaign contributions, like most democracies do.

[420codebro]

Yup it is possible. See the Assault Weapon Ban from 1994 to 2004.