Too Many Laws

In one of my first postings I commented that we have too many laws. There are so many laws at the federal, state, and local levels of government that it is virtually impossible to enforce them all. As a result, most of us are, to some extent, lawbreakers. Sometimes the laws conflict with each other, creating a lose-lose situation for citizens. Laws that start out simple become complex and convoluted, in attempts to deal with all possible variations of a problem, and to provide exceptions for special circumstances.

There are two reasons for the surfeit of legislation--one systemic, and one philosophical. The systemic reason is that we have made the job of legislator a full-time job. As a result, lawmakers feel compelled to seek reasons to write new laws and to amend existing ones. We ought to consider having legislative bodies convene only 6 months out of the year, with special sessions for emergencies such as natural disasters and war. The philosophical reason is that too many people believe that is the job of government to solve all problems for us, to provide all basic services for us, to resolve all disputes for us, and to protect us from both the greed of others and our own foolishness.

Three examples of pending legislation serve to illustrate the sort of problems that this combination of systemic and philosophical flaws is producing:

• A California legislator drafted a bill that would prohibit parents from spanking their children. As soon as the bill was proposed, there was a public outcry against it. Radio talk show hosts derided the bill, and outraged parents called in to express their disagreement--apparently, many people still believe that spanking is a valid form of disciplinary action. Horror stories abounded about how an older sister might have daddy sent to jail for giving younger brother a swat on the behind, or how a supermarket clerk might call the police to arrest a mother who gave a swat to her misbehaving child. Most people who abhor the mistreatment of children also strongly resent the fact that someone wants to legislate the manner in which they discipline their children. The author is now re-writing the bill to outlaw selected forms of child abuse such as the use of belts and sticks, the shaking of infants and other acts of cruelty.
• Jet Blue airlines did not prepare adequately for a large snowstorm and stranded a large number of passengers on runways and in airports. Federal legislators immediately began to consider a bill called "the flyer's bill of rights," to force airlines to prepare for such situations and to handle problems with more consideration of their customers. But is such a law really necessary? Won't the ensuing loss of business force Jet Blue to correct the problem without federal intervention, and set an example that other airlines will be likely to follow? Why does the solution to every problem have to be "write another law?"
• California legislators are considering a ban on the sale of incandescent light bulbs beginning in the year 2012. The merits of the compact fluorescent lamps are obvious: for a given intensity of light they are cheaper to use, they last longer, and they reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas production. It seems simple, but it's not. What happens when (not if, when) the makers of incandescent lamps develop bulbs that produce comparable amounts of light with similar reductions in power? The answer is that we would have to amend this law, or write a new one. The other unadressed problem is that compact fluorescent lamps do not come in the wide range of sizes, shapes, and brightness that we have in incandescent bulbs. Where I can, I use the compact flourescents. But they don't make them in the small flame-shaped size that the chandelier in my dining room needs. I have a couple of 2oo watt reading lamps in one room--so far I have not found a fluorescent that bright that will fit in those lamps. Flourescent lamps don't work as well as flood lamps in the 'can lights' that are mounted in the ceiling. I resent the idea that some legislator arbitrarily wants to make those decisions for me in a way that does not consider the total costs of replacing the lamps in which compact fluorescents will not do the job, and you should resent it too. I can already envision folks in 2011 running down to the store and buying lifetime supplies of 200 watt incandescents, flood lamps, and teardrop shaped bulbs. Let's watch, too, as all of the auto manufacturers replace the incandescent lamps in brake lights and turn signals with compact fluorescents. Sure, it sounds absurd, but that's because the proposed law is absurd.

Since we are probably stuck with the concept of full time legislators, I propose that they impose a moratorium on new laws, except for true emergencies, and instead do the following:

1. Review the thousands of existing laws and eliminate those that are obsolete, or no longer enforced, or that deal with problems that are better solved by market forces, education, or common sense.
2. For each new problem that seems to cry for a law, consider carefully whether is imperative for government to solve the problem, or if normal market forces or consumer education might offer a better solution.
3. Concentrate on issues that are both big and truly urgent, where only government action can make a big difference--for example, controlling or eliminating street gangs. Instead of making it illegal for a parent to spank a child, institute a mandatory course for high school students on the "best practices" for raising and disciplining children. If an airline treats customers poorly, let the customers use another airline, the one with lousy service will eventually go out of business. Instead of banning the use of incandescent bulbs, legislators could provide incentives for using fluorescents, but they do not need to do that--the incentive is already there in reduced operating costs for some applications. It might be more beneficial to increase the penalties for polluting our waterways.

Governments, please let citizens solve their own problems when they can; limit your lawmaking to the really big problems that are beyond individual control; and if you finish early, just go home.