• LesserAbe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    5 hours ago

    We should reduce as much as possible laws that make something illegal but aren’t enforced. It creates uncertainty about your position and allows authorities to threaten citizens for unrelated reasons.

    • 21Cabbage@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      5 hours ago

      That’s true but I imagine doing so would quickly become tedious and that initiative would inevitably be used for nefarious purposes.

      • LesserAbe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        5 hours ago

        What would become tedious, eliminating crimes from the books? I’m not saying we need to go on some campaign, just here’s a law that isn’t being used, isn’t just, and they’re getting rid of it. That’s good.

        • 21Cabbage@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          IIRC correctly the process for striking a law is more or less the same as making a new one, so for every single little antiquated thing and protest bill somebody got passed you’d have to do the same thing with all the associated foot stomping and bitching from anyone and everyone motivated to either stop you or do something else.

      • njm1314@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        42 minutes ago

        Remember that’s why a whole slew of anti-abortion laws were able to put back into place recently because they were just left on the books. Same for a lot of other laws involving interracial marriage, gay marriage, gay relationships in general, freedom of religion, Etc… these laws are usually left on the books because people hope they can be used again one day. Getting rid of them protects us all. I don’t care if it’s tedious.