h a l f b a k e r yNot just a think tank. An entire army of think.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
The Law Of Unintended Consequences is well known.
Its basic principle is that an action taken in good faith and with the best of intentions can have unforseen outcomes that may be worse than the original problem.
Mandatory wearing of helmets by motorcyclists has reduced the number of fatal accidents;
as a result, more kidney patients die through a lack of organ donors.
Roads with speed bumps have markedly higher particulate pollution, as drivers brake (producing brake dust) and then accelerate again (burning more fuel).
All legislation should have a mandatory fixed term sunset clause, probably five years. At the end of this period, the effectiveness of the legislation must be debated - if it isn't, the law is automatically repealed. If it turns out that there is a significant unintended consequence, then the legislation must be redrafted to address that consequence and re-approved within a fixed timescale - or again, it is repealed automatically.
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
This certainly looks like a good idea that would be beneficial, but... |
|
| |
... it might have unintended consequences ? |
|
| |
Not exactly WKTE, but a common sentiment. I'd think you'd get more support with a twenty year window, but I'd add the caveat that you could do no group approvals - each law must be individually reviewed and approved. |
|
| |
Make government as difficult as possible and we might get less of it. |
|
| |
How many people do you want to have working for
government again? |
|
| |
None. We advocate staffing reductions by the alternatives of immediate early retirement or assassination, whichever proves more effective. |
|
| |
All of us already work for the government. |
|
| |
No, you just acquiesce to a morally very dubious form of extortion. |
|
| |
Get a gun. Give in to your hate. KILL 'EM ALL .... |
|
| |
No. I am a Jedi, like my father before me... |
|
| |
We've been expecting the Loony Tunes theme, actually ... |
|
| |
... or possibly the Wacky Racists ... |
|
| |
The motorcycle riders need those kidneys more than the
would-be recipients. A not-gain is not a loss. |
|
| |
//The motorcycle riders need those kidneys more than the
would-be recipients.// |
|
| |
Motorcycle riders do need kidneys, bowels and a liver or
two. The type that does the donating though, isn't a
motorcycle rider. Granted, they were often enthusiastic
riders up until very very recent times. It seems the rapid
rider-non rider change of heart often encourages a...
change of heart/lungs/kidneys. That gives me an idea... |
|
| |
That's just a possible real-world example ... |
|
| |
1. Bad Thing "X" is happening
|
|
| |
2. A law is enacted to reduce the occurrence of "X".
|
|
| |
3. As a result of the law, "X' is reduced, but "Y" starts to occur much more frequently.
|
|
| |
4.(a) The status quo continues until "Y" has catastrophic consequences.
|
|
| |
4.(b) The law is non-optionally reviewed to consider the relative impact of "X" against "Y".
|
|
| |
OK, this explains the decline of rationality, although it has
supposedly survived since the Hellenistic era, Plato and
Aristotle. |
|
| |
I have always wondered how it is that the rational people
have fewer children, don't defend themselves, and in the
end support irrational regimes set out to destroy them,
ultimately leading to their own demise. It seemed to
make no sense evolutionary-wise. |
|
| |
I think I get it now. Rationality brought about wild and
destructive radical ideas like Ayn Rand's capitalism and
Carl Marx's or Mao Tse Tung's communism and then we get
Nazism, Pol Pot, Greenpeace, PITA, UNESCO and VHEMT. |
|
| |
It seems that rationality actually SURVIVED through the
rule of unintended consequences, being adopted by Islam
at one stage, and by the French revolution at a different
time. |
|
| |
We think science gave us longer and better lives, but let's
wait and see what happens with NK, the new human
migration and WWIII around the corner. |
|
| |
It makes sense, allowing all kind of reactionary laws to be rapidly passed in reaction to current events. |
|
| |
Over time, this results in a body of short-termist, reactionary laws backed by a legislature who believe that each individual law would only be temporary. |
|
| |
Oh no, here comes an unintended consequence (you could smell it coming anyway)... |
|
| |
Oops, suddenly an individual swoops into power, flings in some wall-expedition clauses allowing the govt to seize land (say) or to temporarily remove travel rights for (say) people who read a particular book. Later, a targeted repeal of *only* the Unintended Consequences Law is enacted and boom, you've suddenly got a host of poorly drafted, short-termist legislation polluting your statute books. |
|
| |
No change there, then ... |
|
| |
We also wish to make very clear that there ain't no Sanity Clause. |
|
| |
People are voting for the joke here? Reassure me, please. |
|
| |
[calum], you live in a world where one of the major power blocs has recently handed control of their economy and armed forces to Donald Trump, and a red-headed whey-faced witch is running Scotland. |
|
| |
Sorry, no reassurance to be had. The best we can offer is a case of Buckie, half a dozen joints, a random assortment of prescription medication, and a subscription to Netflix. Put the local pizza delivery shop on speeddial, close the curtains, turn the TV on, and hope for oblivion. |
|
| |
[8th]...This is SO good. +
My life has been full of *unintended consequences lately... |
|
| |
Oh? How many kids do you have? |
|
| |
[+] Yet, it's fundamentally wrong, as it's foundational
assumption is that laws are enacted for the common good. |
|
| |
Laws are, in fact, enacted most commonly for the good of
the sponsors of the legislators who are voting for the law
that was written by the sponsors, for the benefit of the
sponsors, to ensure at least a 100:1 ROI on their lobbying
expenditure. |
|
| |
So, in the 5 year sunset review, the same legislators would
be reviewing it strictly based on "has it returned >100:1 to
our sponsors?" And, then, after their sponsors decide, they
spend another rounding-error on propaganda to justify/spin
the decision to the barely caring, barely noticing populace
(if / as needed). |
|
| |
Too skeptical? Well, sorry, I live in the USA. |
|
| |
This is brilliant. Miss ya 8th. |
|
| |