[lillecarl]

I don't get how the political system can work like this, we keep denying laws that are absolute dogshit. The politicians give them a makeover and try again. They only need a yes once and we need a no every time.

Makes me question democracy really, it seems fundamentally broken when the peoples voice is supressed over and over. Same stuff happens in Sweden, but with other kinds of laws.

[mkatx]

I've always felt like laws should be reviewed every so often, maybe even re-passed, to be sure they are still relevant, make sense, and to see if they worked as intended.

There are at least some laws that don't make sense anymore or just flat out failed, but have big implications. Like blue laws, adultery laws, inheritance/intestacy laws, mandatory minimum sentences, sodomy laws, drug laws, etc..

But I do see problems in revisiting laws, it's expensive and time consuming. It would be a never ending battle for both sides, and we would get even less done.

[ajmurmann]

In the current political climate in the US, I'd also be concerned that laws that we obviously need and agree on would be held hostage for negotiation purposes just like the budget. I also wonder if laws would just get bundled together for a single vote and then bullshit/pork gets attached.

[roenxi]

> It would be a never ending battle for both sides, and we would get even less done.

Heh, are you a Congressperson? Who is this "we"? The whole thread is people pointing out that "we" and the people doing the things are different. Congress has been on a quiet crusade against encryption since before Pretty Good Privacy in the 90s.

I remain confused about what people fundamentally see when they look at Congress. It would be a huge win for them to get nothing done and have nearly no laws, most of what they've passed for the last 30 years has been disastrous and encouraged the US in steadily unwinding financially and as a united political body. If the power isn't in Congress it'll get picked up by state and local governments where much more ordinary people will get a say on how they are governed. And do much less damage when they screw up.

[sneak]

Automatic expiration timers for all laws.

A bicameral legislature where one half needs 2/3rds majority to pass laws, but the other half only repeals laws and needs only 50%.

(The latter is not my idea, it comes from Heinlein.)

[immibis]

It would be an incentive to write laws succinctly and drop redundant ones so there's less to review.

[bombcar]

Democracy makes a lot more sense if you see it as an emergency escape valve to prevent violent revolution (because you assume anyone willing to violently revolt would be willing to vote).

[armchairhacker]

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others."

A monarchy of genuinely good rulers is a better government than a democracy, but it's hard to ensure a good ruler because whoever gets chosen, there's always a risk they're corrupt. Democracy gives the people more of a chance to prevent bad laws than a monarchy, even if it's a small chance.

Maybe one day we'll something better than Democracy, like an AI-controlled government, but nobody's come up with anything so far.

[midoridensha]

>A monarchy of genuinely good rulers is a better government than a democracy, but it's hard to ensure a good ruler because whoever gets chosen, there's always a risk they're corrupt. Democracy gives the people more of a chance to prevent bad laws than a monarchy, even if it's a small chance.

No, this isn't the problem with monarchies at all (or maybe I'm just disagreeing with your wording). The problem with monarchies is heredity: sure, you can get a great ruler like Marcus Aurelius, but the problem is the great ruler doesn't live forever, and eventually he dies (or is secretly murdered) and this his shitty son takes over. Then the Praetors have to murder him in his bathtub before he completely destroys the empire.

[lost_tourist]

It's impossible to have a benevolent dictator over the long term with something as big as a nation state.

[armchairhacker]

Ok, an oligarchy of genuinely good rulers for each region and specialty...which is exponentially harder to ensure, because it only takes one to cause problems.

The point still stands that we're better off with a democracy.

[HPsquared]

That's more an argument to keep states small, for optimal internal governance. Interstate conflict drives states to become larger though so it's a balance.

[immibis]

this does not prohibit its discussion as a theoretical ideal model. It's true that benevolent dictatorships outperform democracy as long as they remain benevolent, which is not long.

[flagrant_taco]

Why would an I-controlled system be better? How do we guarantee the alignment problem never rears it's head?

[Gud]

This is not an inherent problem with democracy but with representative democracy. These problems go away when the populace have actual power, in a direct democracy.

And why on earth e we liked i want to be ruled by a machine?

Come on dude

[lillecarl]

A problem I see with direct democracy is that "the common man" doesn't have time to get educated in everything they'd have to vote for.

The swiss model where things can be raised to referendum seems pretty reasonable to me (Swede). I'd love it over here, so we can tell our government (including the party I voted for) to kindly shove it sometimes.

[Gud]

The Swiss model is exactly what I propose. Local decision making, with referendums.

[immibis]

Does it really? you think the average man won't vote for the Everyone Gets A Free House Also Encryption Is Illegal Because Only Criminals Use It bill?

[Gud]

Switzerland has direct democracy and it works great. Your concerns are invalid!

[rpdillon]

This may be the wrong conclusion to draw. Larger populations present different governance challenges than small ones do, since decisions that affect fewer are easier to make. Switzerland has about the same population as NYC.

[Gud]

Yes, I believe these massive superstates(U.S., China, India, E.U.) need to be dismantled into smaller components - move the power closer to the people.

You can still have interstate trade, regulations etc.

[thayne]

Direct democracy has other problems. Perhaps the biggest is it just isn't practical to ask the entire population about every question of policy and law.

[Gud]

Look into Switzerland. They have found a great balance, with three levels of decision making(Gemeinde, Canton and Federal) and where everything is put to vote if a proposal get enough signatures.

[alistairSH]

Many of these "dogshit" laws make sense, when viewed with narrow enough lens.

The problem is twofold...

Politicians have limited capacity to research/understand potential side-effects of these laws. So they rely on lobbyists from the interested parties. Or their own staff, who have their own biases.

Additionally, politicians face re-election. So, they have to balance the whims of their electorate with what might be a better long-term view. "Think of the children" syndrome, if you will.

[flagrant_taco]

Suppressing the people's voice isn't democracy at all. At best you could partially attribute that to a representative system based on fear of the mob.

[dontlaugh]

That's because liberal democracy is indeed broken. The capitalist class use state power to advance their own material interests. Why wouldn't they pay for laws that give them an immediate advantage or at least divide the working class?

[bratbag]

Dropping democracy means they win the first time.