Comments on: Republican Moron of the Week: WI Rep Jim Sensenbrenner

By: Mxopue

Mxopue — Sat, 30 Sep 2006 17:25:52 +0000

By: Yeah Boy

Yeah Boy — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 15:26:26 +0000

If over a million people in the U.S. strongly disaggree with a law, that is a problem. And it is worth going to some effort to try to change the law to get additional buy in.

Bruno – I couldn’t disagree more.

By: Bruno Wolff III

Bruno Wolff III — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 13:15:50 +0000

Dissenting votes in the legislature do not automatically translate in to people strongly disaggreeing with the law. The dissent can be about minor aspects of the law or it may be a law that has little effect on the vast majority of the population so that few people are strongly for or against a law.

The stop sign example was an example of a law used inappropiately in some cases and then further clarified when you claimed you had never seen them used in that manner.

If over a million people in the U.S. strongly disaggree with a law, that is a problem. And it is worth going to some effort to try to change the law to get additional buy in.

By: Yeah Boy

Yeah Boy — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 05:54:10 +0000

Bruno – you are not making sense. You say if 20% of people disagree with a law it is bad because that in itself is bad or something like that. Then you say a super majority is a good percentage to use to pass a law. A super majority is 2/3, so that means 33% of the people can still disagree with the law, which is over 20%, so by your definition means it’s a bad law. So that doesn’t jive. Then something about a stop sign!?!?

And another thing … 1%?!

By: Bruno Wolff III

Bruno Wolff III — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 03:55:33 +0000

I think that for a lot of bills that are passed by slim margins, most people won’t strongly object to the bills. Even so, I think we would be better off if it took a super majority to pass new laws instead of 50+ % of the votes cast.

I disaggree with your statement about good or bad laws. I think if 20% of the population strongly disaggree with a law, that in itself makes it a bad law. At the very least, this fosters disrespect for the law in general.

Unfortunately the current administration, at the federal level, thinks that the primary documents safeguarding minorities (not specifically in the racial sense) from a majority is tissue paper.

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 00:33:28 +0000

“20% is clearly too much disaggreement for a “good” law.”

Since we live in a representative democracy, then by this logic wouldn’t any bill that passes the Senate by an 80-20 vote be a “bad” law in your opinion?

A law isn’t “good” or “bad” based on the number of people who agree with it. It’s goodness is determined by its actual content.

But, just in case some “bad” laws were to gain majority support, we have a few safeguards built in. Unfortunately (I guess) there are no safeguards protecting people who aren’t citizens of this country.

By: Bruno Wolff III

Bruno Wolff III — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:28:37 +0000

I didn’t have a particular percentage in mind. But 20% is clearly too much disaggreement for a “good” law. I think 1% would be borderline.

There are definitely good aspects of having people obey the law. That is why having lots of unjust or just plain stupid laws or even unenforcible laws is a bad idea. If people see enough of those, they are not going to obey the law just because it is the law.

Drive through Shorewood some time. That have lots of 4 way stops that don’t have anywhere near enough traffic to justify a 4 way stop. These are used to slow down traffic, because people are less likely to run stop signs than speed. However this trains people to start rolling through stop signs.

By: Yeah Boy

Yeah Boy — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 18:33:06 +0000

If you pass a law that 20% of the population disaggrees with (not just a minor detail of, like the exact penalty) that is a bad law.

Not necessarily. I guess I still do not follow. So, you are saying that if “we” pass a law and 20% of the population disagrees with it, it is – by your definition – bad law? What about if 1% disagrees? What is your “cutoff” percentage as to how you define a law being bad or good?

When you pass laws that people believe are bad, it is harder to convince them that should obey laws in general, just because they are “the law”.

There are a million laws I obey simply because it is “the law”. It comes with being part of an oderly society.

Similarly, using laws incorrectly (such as using stop signs as speed bumps) has a similar effect.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

By: Bruno Wolff III

Bruno Wolff III — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 17:39:10 +0000

If you pass a law that 20% of the population disaggrees with (not just a minor detail of, like the exact penalty) that is a bad law.
When you pass laws that people believe are bad, it is harder to convince them that should obey laws in general, just because they are “the law”.
Similarly, using laws incorrectly (such as using stop signs as speed bumps) has a similar effect.

By: Yeah Boy

Yeah Boy — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 16:24:46 +0000

Bruno – If I understand you even a little bit, you are saying that if a fraction of the population disagrees with something it is bad to pass a law in opposition of that opposition?? So, you would ignore the 80% that agrees with the law to appease the 20% that disagrees with it?!?! How is that respecting laws “in general”?