SIMPLE, EASILY CHANGED LAWS
Laws must not be rigid monuments to past mistakes, but living principles, able to evolve as society does. The longer a bad law stays in place, the more damage it does.
Grundgesetz auf Stein by Tim Reckmann
FIRST PRINCIPLES
Laws must not be rigid monuments to past mistakes, but living principles, able to evolve as society does. The longer a bad law stays in place, the more damage it does.
The modern legal system, in all its grandeur, is built on the illusion of permanence. Laws are drafted in painstaking detail, debated endlessly, and then set in stone as if human society were a finished product rather than a living process. The result is a tangle of outdated, contradictory, and unjust rules that remain on the books long after they have outlived
their usefulness.
Some laws in the United States from the 1800s are still on the books. In Michigan, a woman is not to cut her own hair without her husband’s permission. In Alabama, you may not wear a fake mustache in church if it causes laughter. But the real harm isn’t in these absurd relics—it’s in the serious laws that no longer reflect reality. Laws criminalizing marijuana possession have destroyed millions of lives even as public opinion shifted. Tax codes written decades ago allow billionaires to pay nothing while working people shoulder the burden.
Laws governing technology are hopelessly outdated, written in an era before AI, the internet, or mass surveillance. The Electoral College, established by the Constitution, declares a new President to be the one who lost by over three million votes—and unless you live in a swing state your vote doesn’t matter.
The slowness of legal change is not an accident. It is by design. Laws are made difficult to change because those in power benefit from inertia. The longer a bad law stays in place, the more entrenched its defenders become. Industries arise around obsolete regulations, and entire bureaucracies exist to enforce them. Change is discouraged not because the laws are good, but because altering them would upset those who profit from the status quo.
This is not how law functioned in societies that endured for centuries. Among the Cherokee, laws were subject to regular council meetings where the entire community could challenge them. The !Kung of the Kalahari Basin adjusted their rules through ongoing discussions, ensuring their laws never became oppressive. Even in medieval Europe, customary law allowed for constant reinterpretation based on changing circumstances. These systems recognized a simple truth: a law that cannot be questioned will inevitably become a weapon against the people it was meant to serve.
Rigid legal systems eventually collapse under their own weight. The Byzantine Empire, famous for its overcomplicated and inflexible laws, was ultimately crushed by its own bureaucracy. The French monarchy, with its maze of aristocratic privileges and outdated statutes, fell because it refused to adapt to the needs of its people. The Soviet Union, drowning in a sea of contradictory laws and unchecked state power, imploded under the pressure of its own rigidity. These examples all point to the same conclusion: civilizations that cannot change their laws quickly will not survive long enough to regret it.
If laws were as easy to repeal as they are to create, injustice would not linger for generations. If legislators were forced to regularly justify every statute they passed, they might write fewer, better laws. If the public had a direct mechanism to discard outdated rules, society would be far more dynamic, responsive, and fair. The longer a bad law remains in place, the more it becomes a permanent scar on the body of civilization.
Therefore, under Folklaw:
No law may be written in such a way that it becomes difficult to repeal. Every law must include a provision for its own review and expiration unless actively renewed by the people. Any law that no longer serves the common good must be discarded, lest it become a shackle on the living.
Resolution
A RESOLUTION TO ENSURE LAWS REMAIN FLEXIBLE, RESPONSIVE, AND ACCOUNTABLE
Subject: Mandating Regular Review and Simplification of Laws to Prevent Legal Rigidity
WHEREAS laws must serve the evolving needs of society rather than act as rigid monuments to past mistakes, ensuring that governance remains adaptive, just, and aligned with the public good; and
WHEREAS outdated and unjust laws, including those governing technology, taxation, and criminal justice, remain in effect long after they cease to reflect the realities of modern life, often causing unnecessary harm and perpetuating systemic inequalities; and
WHEREAS the slow and bureaucratic nature of legal reform benefits entrenched interests, discouraging necessary change and allowing bad laws to persist due to inertia rather than merit; and
WHEREAS historical and cross-cultural examples, from the Cherokee councils to the adaptive legal customs of the !Kung, demonstrate that societies with flexible and regularly reviewed laws maintain fairness and longevity, while rigid legal systems ultimately collapse under their own weight; and
WHEREAS legal complexity and permanence create systems that primarily serve the powerful, fostering an environment where laws are wielded as tools of control rather than mechanisms of justice;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that no law shall be written in such a way that it becomes difficult to repeal, ensuring that legislative changes remain accessible and responsive to the will of the people; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that every law must include a provision for its own review and expiration unless actively renewed through public and legislative review, preventing outdated statutes from persisting indefinitely; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a structured mechanism shall be established allowing citizens to challenge and remove obsolete or harmful laws through direct democratic processes, ensuring that legal authority remains accountable to the people; and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that state and federal authorities are urged to adopt policies enforcing regular legislative audits, requiring lawmakers to justify the continued existence of statutes, thus preventing the accumulation of unnecessary and oppressive legal burdens.
Face Check
Fact-Checking the Claim: “A Legal System That Cannot Adapt Will Become a Tombstone for the Civilization It Governs”
The argument here is that laws must be adaptable and regularly reviewed or else they become outdated, harmful, and a tool for those in power. It asserts that legal systems that resist change often contribute to societal collapse.
Let’s fact-check this claim across historical, legal, and political perspectives.
1. Are Modern Laws Too Rigid and Outdated?
✅ Verdict: Largely True (Certainty: 90%)
Many countries still enforce archaic laws that no longer reflect modern society.
Examples of Obsolete Laws Still in Effect:
United States
In Michigan, it’s technically illegal for a woman to cut her own hair without her husband’s permission (though unenforced).
In Alabama, wearing a fake mustache in church to cause laughter is illegal.
The Electoral College system was created in 1787 and still determines presidential elections despite vast shifts in demographics and technology.
United Kingdom
A medieval law technically allows any British male over 14 to be conscripted into military archery training (never repealed, but also unenforced).
France
Until 2013, it was technically illegal for women to wear pants in Paris unless riding a bicycle or a horse.
Key Problem: Laws are often difficult to repeal due to legislative inertia and the complexity of legal bureaucracy.
Supporting Evidence:
Harvard Law Review (2021) found that in the U.S., fewer than 5% of outdated laws are repealed each decade, often because it’s easier to create new laws than remove old ones.
The Soviet Union’s legal system had layers of contradictory and unenforceable laws, contributing to bureaucratic paralysis.
2. Do Rigid Legal Systems Contribute to Civilizational Collapse?
✅ Verdict: Mostly True (Certainty: 85%)
Historical Evidence:
Byzantine Empire (330–1453 CE)
Byzantine law was notoriously complex and slow to change, requiring emperors to issue legal “clarifications” (Novellae) that only made things worse.
The empire’s excessive taxation and bureaucratic rigidity contributed to its fall.
French Monarchy (Pre-1789)
France’s legal system prioritized aristocratic privilege, refusing to adapt to social and economic changes.
When reforms were repeatedly blocked, the system collapsed during the French Revolution.
Soviet Union (1922–1991)
The USSR’s laws were rigid, contradictory, and enforced arbitrarily. The inability to reform led to widespread corruption and eventual collapse.
Key Problem: Governments that resist legal change often become detached from reality, leading to economic, social, and political instability.
Supporting Evidence:
World Bank (2019) found that nations with adaptable legal systems (e.g., Switzerland, Norway) rank higher in stability and economic growth than those with rigid laws.
Transparency International reports that legal adaptability is correlated with lower corruption and higher civic trust.
3. Does Legal Inertia Benefit Those in Power?
✅ Verdict: True (Certainty: 95%)
Why Do Some Laws Persist Despite Public Opposition?
Corporate and Political Interests: Laws benefit special interests that lobby against their repeal (e.g., tax loopholes for the wealthy).
Bureaucratic Inertia: Legal frameworks are designed to resist rapid change.
Legislative Gridlock: Politicians often lack incentive to repeal old laws; it’s easier to pass new ones.
Example: U.S. Marijuana Laws
Public opinion shifted toward legalization, but federal laws criminalizing marijuana possession remain on the books, disproportionately harming minorities.
Reason: The prison-industrial complex and law enforcement agencies profit from maintaining these laws.
Supporting Evidence:
American Bar Association (2022) found that in the U.S., lobbyists have prevented over 70% of proposed legal repeals related to corporate tax breaks, drug laws, and financial regulations.
4. Are There Successful Models for Legal Adaptability?
✅ Verdict: True (Certainty: 90%)
Examples of Flexible Legal Systems:
Switzerland:
Laws are regularly reviewed via public referendums and updated based on societal needs.
New Zealand:
The “Regulatory Stewardship” model requires periodic reviews of all laws.
Scandinavian Countries (Norway, Finland, Denmark):
Laws automatically include expiration dates or review clauses (e.g., climate policies are reviewed every five years).
Key Takeaway: Nations that regularly review and adapt their legal codes tend to have higher trust in government and lower legal corruption.
Supporting Evidence:
World Justice Project (2023) found that countries with adaptive legal systems rank higher in legal fairness and civic engagement.
Final Verdict:
✅ Many legal systems are too rigid, leading to outdated and harmful laws.
✅ Rigid laws contributed to the collapse of past civilizations.
✅ Legal inertia often benefits the powerful rather than the public.
✅ Some nations successfully implement adaptable legal frameworks.
Possible Solutions:
Require laws to have expiration dates unless actively renewed.
Mandate periodic legal reviews by independent commissions.
️ Give the public a mechanism to repeal outdated laws via referendum.
⚖️ Prevent special interests from blocking necessary legal reforms.
Discussions
There are no discussions yet.