The necessity of “ignorance is not an excuse” also leads to a necessary standard that laws must be straightforward, reasonable, and not capricious. I shouldn’t be surprised that I’ve broken a law.

Even worse is the number of contradictory laws. There are so many on the books that I have taken to Richard Maybury’s idea that we need a president who will be largely blind to the types of bills passed. He should require several times the legal wording of new bills to be repealed before he puts his signature on the new one. DownsizeDC’s idea of One Subject at a Time is a great start as well.

It is dangerous to not give attention to the moral content but the purpose is really to shift the burden of thought to the men drafting and passing on the bills. How much do they really want this new pet of theirs? They will have to weigh the consequences more seriously and we would clean up the legal code at the same time.

Having worked with a state legislature, it’s plenty popular to revise old statute…in general when you’re trying to get something added when you want. That would also go for Regan’s tax reform (which we’re now worse today in complexity by far then what he reformed). I can’t think of any example I’ve encountered where you could merely say “have to eliminate more laws than you make”...that smacks of the overly simplistic Libertarian stuff that I take issue with. It’s sounds good and doesn’t lend itself to anything that one could actually implement.

I think I’m missing something in the “largely blind to the types of bills passed” statement…I think I get the gist from the following sentence, but I don’t get the one I quoted no matter how I try.

I think that will help me with the last paragraph as well…not sure how we’re endowing people with the burden (but I haven’t read the link which I will do now).

Yes, I have read a number of bills as well. Most make an attempt to modify current laws (“strike,” “insert,” etc. are common words). The problem is that there are still far too many laws to keep this straight.

A friend of my dad’s read legal codes for fun when he was school-age (so figure ~35 years ago). He found a law for his city (not town) that required everyone to stop at road intersections, honk three times, walk into the intersection to look for traffic, honk three more times, and then they could proceed to drive through the intersection. He decided to follow the law when a police officer was behind him.

We have to reduce the complexity somehow. Unfortunately people have been taught to think that the laws, as they sit now, are how we need them, so there would be a correction movement after any attempt to simplify. You’re right about that.

“Largely blind” is a reference to Libertarian thought. They are partially right that tighter purse strings would correct a lot of ills.

I make it my point to be relationship focused rather than law focused. Generally that keeps me out of trouble by not making me obsessed with the law.

Governments—at least our government—does not operate that way. I am with you that we should punish for intent.

You hit on a good facet here that shows how hopeless man-created government and law is. Man doesn’t have the necessary information to create heaven here on earth.