[minor_nitwit]

What if laws are considered whitelists? If it's a whitelist then if not directly stated it's thrown out. This may slow the legislative process, but that's not necessarily a bad thing, it was actually the founders primary goal.

Agreed that it's not a fully baked idea by any means, humans will always attempt to circumvent any system. With that in mind, you may say that rather than designing a better system, we stick to the safe that was first cracked 200 years ago.

[krapp]

With that in mind, you may say that rather than designing a better system, we stick to the safe that was first cracked 200 years ago.

Half the people whose valuables are in that safe find it perfectly adequate and would insist that any attempt to change the locks is just a blatant attempt to grab their money.

[minor_nitwit]

Do those 50% believe the system is working as intended and is not being exploited by special interests? I don't think any republican or democrat agrees with that.

[krapp]

Sure. But special interests are only a problem when they're not dumping money into your district or your next election -- when they are they become a 'vital national interest'.

My point is, both sides have a say. If you get ten mathematicians in a room, they don't have to reach a compromise between ten different self-serving definitions of pi. The law is never going to be like that.