It would be insanely great if we periodically had judges evaluating all such requirements and regulations to see if the government had a plausible cost/benefit analysis case for why they were restricting our freedoms, the same way this judge evaluated the mask mandate. Or even better, if it happened without the need for a lawsuit.
Some founding fathers, most notably Jefferson, advocated for a mandatory repeal-and-selective-reinstate of all laws (including the constitution) every 19 years. His reasoning was that each generation should only enforce the laws that the people of that generation believe in. If the laws of the previous generation are still enforced, it’s an act of force by that past generation and not just part of the social contract of the current generation.
It makes a lot of sense looking at the world today. At this point, very few people support the TSA, but no legislator can advocate for getting rid of it without being a scapegoat for any future terrorist attacks.
Many liberal jurisdictions will keep their transportation mask mandates around for a while
At this point, it looks like the only cities still requiring it are NYC and Portland, and I wouldn’t be surprised if one of them stops it today or tomorrow. I’m not surprised—public transit authorities have been spending a lot of capital on this.
I was not aware of that bit about Jefferson but have long thought that laws, and regulation, should have expiration dates when passed. That would be a structural balance against the ratcheting effect Higgs, in Crisis and Leviathan talked about.
I also think all regulations should be challengeable in courts to question if the implementation of the regulation is in fact producing the good outcome/preventing the harms claimed. That might get more cases before a judge than hoping judges will go looking for regulation deserving a review.
Some founding fathers, most notably Jefferson, advocated for a mandatory repeal-and-selective-reinstate of all laws (including the constitution) every 19 years. His reasoning was that each generation should only enforce the laws that the people of that generation believe in. If the laws of the previous generation are still enforced, it’s an act of force by that past generation and not just part of the social contract of the current generation.
It makes a lot of sense looking at the world today. At this point, very few people support the TSA, but no legislator can advocate for getting rid of it without being a scapegoat for any future terrorist attacks.
At this point, it looks like the only cities still requiring it are NYC and Portland, and I wouldn’t be surprised if one of them stops it today or tomorrow. I’m not surprised—public transit authorities have been spending a lot of capital on this.
I was not aware of that bit about Jefferson but have long thought that laws, and regulation, should have expiration dates when passed. That would be a structural balance against the ratcheting effect Higgs, in Crisis and Leviathan talked about.
I also think all regulations should be challengeable in courts to question if the implementation of the regulation is in fact producing the good outcome/preventing the harms claimed. That might get more cases before a judge than hoping judges will go looking for regulation deserving a review.