[LINK] The net according to Cerf (at Davos)

[Stewart Fist]

Rick wrote:

> 
> I bet it took longer. The judge was alos eliminating laws
> that duplicated existing legislation. That is the tough part.
> There are alos a lot of antiquated laws dealing with tying up
> horses, bails of hay in taxis, etc. that should be struck off
> the books.

But the point is that this would take much bigger government, with many more
highly trained and expensive staff, to do anything of any significance.

If you have the urgent desire for make-work for rich lawyers, then you
decide to reform the legal code and simplify the legislation.

Like software bug removal, each removal of a bug or Y2K problem results in
new coding software mistakes -- which are then fixed by kludges, etc. etc.

Every time you decide to simplify or condense a law, you introduce new
problems in the interpretation.

The list of out-date laws being quoted are generally removed the next time
the parliament considers substantial changes, and looks at the bill as a
whole.  The presence of these anachronisms, just means that the law has
ceased to have much importance, and can safely be ignored.

I'm not arguing against this clean up.  I'm just pointing out that in needs
bigger government bureaucracies to accomplish the ends you desire.


-- 
Stewart Fist, writer, journalist, film-maker
70 Middle Harbour Road, LINDFIELD, 2070, NSW, Australia
Ph +61 (2) 9416 7458