From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Fri Aug 09 2002 - 08:39:39 MDT
Samantha Atkins asked:
If it takes a higher IQ to do a good job of designing laws then
why does it not take a higher IQ to decide which of the designs
should actually become law? Also, are there any limitations
on this process, say, certain individual rights that cannot be
legislated away?
### Good points. The reasons for having the non-geniuses decide which law
proposals should be accepted are as follows: Firstly, most people will
bristle and even go berserk at laws handed down to them, even if they don't
find that much wrong with them. Acceptance is much easier if the law is
first a proposal, something you can argue about and reject it. Secondly, for
the most part it's easier to understand ideas in the form of a lecture than
to develop the ideas independently in the first place. It is difficult to
come up with a smart legal solution, but it's easier to explain it, so the
average citizen should be able to follow the reasoning he is unable to
initiate independently. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, if a small,
select subset of the population had the final say, all kinds of biases might
too easily creep in, to the benefit of the small group and to the detriment
of the citizens. We want to test the honesty of the proposed laws rather
than merely their logic. It takes the 90% to keep the 10% honest.
Regarding the second question, I think only the meta-elements of the system
should be set in stone, changed only by a universal vote, with at least a
two-thirds majority, or something of that kind. This would include the
procedure for selection of MP's, the rules for voting on laws in both
chambers (e.g a proposal has to pass with a 2/3 or even 3/4 majority to
become a law, but only 1/3 to be a nonbinding advisory), automatic sunset
clauses on all laws, the structures for oversight of the MP's financial
dealings (to prevent kickbacks and special interest influence), the limits
on what they can legislate about themselves (e.g. no ability to pass laws
affecting only themselves, or exempting from laws affecting everybody else,
like the current Congress is doing all the time). But then I am not quite
sure here, maybe it might be useful to write down some fundamental ethical
principles, maybe even inalienable rights, except I can't imagine any
specific rights that would really need this kind of protection. I am not big
on rights, I prefer values and heuristics.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:58 MST