alt Hacker NewsThis issue is symptomatic of an underlying problem for me: we do not regularly re-evaluate laws to see if they are having the intended effect.
American politics might have bigger problems at the moment, but under normal circumstances, I consider this pretty important. I'm not sure what the solution is, but an expiration date on nearly all laws comes to mind as a start to an interesting discussion on the matter.
Replies
> This issue is symptomatic of an underlying problem for me: we do not regularly re-evaluate laws to see if they are having the intended effect.
Even the Constitution. It was intended to be revisited for appropriateness and currency every 20 years.
Instead, a significant number of people, including some on the Supreme Court, believe that the Founding Fathers[1] could speak no wrong words and that the Constitution is the perfect document, to be taken at its word, with no deviation, until the end of time.
[1] Pop Quiz: "How old were the Founding Fathers when they signed the Declaration of Independence and crafted the Constitution?" You'd be forgiven for thinking they were world-weary, wizened old men. In fact, the majority were under forty. Indeed, it was also signed by a sixteen-year-old, a 21-year-old, two 26-year-olds, a 27-year-old, and a 29-year-old.
It would be great if laws worked like software deployments:
1. Roll out law to 2%, look for any obvious unintended effects (like we check for crashes)
2. Roll out law to 50%, study for effectiveness. Is the intended positive effect happening in the experiment population? Any effect on the control population?
3. Finally, roll out law to 100% and keep monitoring.
4. Be ready to roll back to 0% if failures seen at any stage.
5. Be ready to apply a zero day patch after it's at 100% if edge cases are found.
But, we don't do any of this! Lawmakers make a law and yolo it into production on a fixed date, and it's often impossible to roll it back or modify it.