[Analemma_]

This is a dumb and outrageously anti-democratic idea, and is a much worse cure than the disease it's attempting to fix. If 65% of the population supports a law it's favored by 30 points-- far higher than the margin of most elections-- and yet would not exist under this system.

[ryandrake]

There's nothing magical about 50%. The bar for "this policy should be inflicted on everyone" should be very high--I'd argue much higher than 50%. At the same time, the bar for "we should stop inflicting this policy on everyone" should be extremely low. I'd argue a 1/3 minority should be enough to repeal a law. If one out of three people feel they are harmed by something, maybe the government shouldn't be doing it.

[Arainach]

This doesn't work in practice. Look at how Senate Republicans have weaponized the filibuster in the last 20 years. A 40% veto is conceptually similar to your repeal process and it results in gridlock and nothing getting done.

It is harder to build than to destroy. If laws can be trivially repealed no one will be willing to commit to long term things. We're seeing that right now with the destruction of US soft power, economic power, and global leadership.

[thyristan]

There is a difference between long-term stability in foreign relations and long-term stability in citizens' freedom. The latter is supported by the absence of restrictions, i.e. the absence of laws and regulations.

The only people wanting stability in restrictive laws are those profiting from their legally guaranteed niche, typically of the rent-seeking monopolist kind.

[Arainach]

The absence of laws and regulations enables exploitation, not freedom. We've seen that over and over. Libertarianism gives us the "freedom" to have monopolies price gouging, locking the fire exits to ensure we don't leave before our 16 hour shift for pennies is over.

[nucleardog]

It's an interesting thought, but as presented that sounds fairly dysfunctional. If it takes 2/3 to pass and 1/3 to repeal, you may as well just say it takes 2/3+1 to pass, as otherwise anything passed can be, and likely will be, just immediately repealed.

[ncallaway]

I don't think the assumption that "law = things the government is doing" is a good one.

I could imagine a law that specifically restricts the government's ability to do things. For example, maybe the federal government passes a law that makes it easier to sue its agents when those agents violate individual citizens constitutional rights.

Perhaps 65% of the population feels they are harmed if this law doesn't exist, and 35% of the population feels they are harmed if the law doesn't exist. Should that law be repealed?

[account42]

> I could imagine a law that specifically restricts the government's ability to do things.

I fail to see how fairy tales are relevant to this discussion.

[ncallaway]

I mean, that's exactly what the first amendment of the United States Constitution is.

It's a codification of a specific restriction on government power. Should it be able to be overturned by a minority of the population?