You have a good point that, historically, speed has had some correlation with legislation quality. But that's just a failure of the mechanisms.
It's like saying that communism works better than capitalism because if you create a bad economy you can damage a lot of people, so our mechanisms for organizing the economy should be deliberately inefficient. Capitalism achieved an economy that is really fast and efficient and low-friction.
But I agree this is a moot debate until the mechanisms are discussed. I'll do that in the future.
1jasoncrawford2yI'm not even sure that I would say that speed has a correlation with quality in
legislation. It's more that adding process, and especially requiring review and
broad agreement, helps avoid some of the worst outcomes.
The analogy to an economy doesn't hold: if someone creates a bad business, you
can choose not to patronize it; if someone creates a bad law, you can't choose
not to follow it.
… Unless you are in a choice-of-law regime, e.g., the way a new business can
choose what state to incorporate in, and is governed by the corporate law of
that state; or the way a merchant ship can choose what flag to fly under.
Maybe you are going to propose that kind of system? Looking forward to future
posts that get into the mechanisms!
You have a good point that, historically, speed has had some correlation with legislation quality. But that's just a failure of the mechanisms.
It's like saying that communism works better than capitalism because if you create a bad economy you can damage a lot of people, so our mechanisms for organizing the economy should be deliberately inefficient. Capitalism achieved an economy that is really fast and efficient and low-friction.
But I agree this is a moot debate until the mechanisms are discussed. I'll do that in the future.