2. Crazy Laws


“The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments.”

-William Edgar Borah

Home | Table of Contents | Next Chapter

When the Founding Fathers created the United States, being a member of Congress was a part-time job. Congressmen actually had a job outside of government. They were farmers or businessmen. This is an important contrast to people who are in Congress today, because a part-time legislature has three benefits.

  1. The forefathers had the insight of owning and running a business or farm. The politicians were in touch with the people, and they passed laws that sustained a strong private business climate.

  2. The forefathers had short-time dedicated to analyzing and passing laws, because it was a part-time job. The politicians would focus on important business and not waste it on frivolous matters.

  3. The forefathers were not career politicians. A career politician is a person who primary source of income is his job in government. If he is not re-elected, then he ends up in the unemployment line. A career politician may not show true leadership and always caters to the special interest groups. Thus, career politicians do not want to offend anyone, because the chance of losing an election.

Now look at today's Congressmen and state legislators. Many Congressman are lawyers and do not come from farms or businesses. They are out of touch with the working people and the meaning of capitalism. Also, being a Congressman is a full-time job and they employ an army of staff. So that is what they do. They keep passing laws and regulations. The legislators are not concern whether the law is good or bad, or more importantly, what the long-term consequences of new laws are. For example, legislators look at the news and see one heart-wrenching story, and then they instantly pass a new law with no regards to logic or long-term consequences. Even if the law achieves the opposite effect, Congress and state legislators rarely appeal these laws. They are too busy passing new laws. A legislator’s only goal is to pass laws, so he can provide feedback to their constituents, that indeed, he is working. Not only are new laws being passed at a furious rate, the laws are written in confusing and vague language. The current U.S. legal structure is disorganized and illogical from a large number of confusing laws. Here are some examples of ridiculous laws, where legislators did not think carefully of the laws they passed:

  • The State of Texas recently passed an anticrime law, which requires criminals to give their victims 24 hours notice, either orally or in writing, and to explain the nature of the crime to be committed. (If criminals are already violating a law, then why would they comply with this stupid law!)

  • The city council in Chico, California has two pages of ordinances for use of nuclear weapons within city limits. The law states, “No person shall produce, test, maintain, or store within the city a nuclear weapon…” The city attorney will file charges with the appropriate court for violations of this law [1]. This is a national security issue and domain of the federal government. If someone detonated a nuclear weapon within city limits, the city would no longer be there.

  • The city council in Pacific Grove, California passed an ordinance that makes it a crime for a person to molest or interfere with monarch butterflies [2] and can result in a $500 fine.

  • Los Angeles County passed a law that only allows taco truck vendors to park their trucks for an hour and then they have to move them to a new location. Officers could fine violators up to $1,000 or sentenced up to 6 months in jail. Apparently, the purpose of this law is to help local restaurants. Restaurant owners believe (and they are probably right) that taco truck drivers have a cost advantage [3]. However, Los Angeles has air pollution problems and enforcing this law definitely does not help lower pollution levels.

Governments passed these crazy laws, so someone has to enforce them. Does Texas add another criminal charge if a criminal does not give their victim a 24-hour notice? Does the City of Chico have enforcement officers with Geiger counters running around the city searching for nuclear weapons violations? Does the City of Pacific Grove have officers monitoring the butterflies and ensure that they are not being molested? Do police or inspectors in Los Angeles follow taco drivers around and ensure they do not park for over an hour? Do governments have so much resources and time that they can dedicate officers to enforce these crazy laws?

Legislators and Congress do not understand that laws can create the opposite behavior. For example, the public and politicians were disgusted by the profanity and explicit language in rap and rock music. So how did government fix this problem? Under threat from the federal government to pass a new law and give the Federal Trade Commission vast new authority [4], the music companies decided to self-regulate and place advisory labels on CDs and audiocassette tapes. No one under the age of 18 can buy music with explicit language. What is the true outcome of this self-regulation? Government drew attention to what kind of language is contained in music, so young people being naturally rebellious are drawn to the profanity-laced lyrics. Minors can also find adults that will buy this music for them. Further, some rappers were even competing who could get the most advisory labels on their music. These advisory labels became status symbols to musicians and rebellious teenagers.

Another bad law is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The law had good intentions. Some people are downloading pirated books, music, movies, and software from the internet; piracy on the internet is flourishing. Artists, authors, and software creators should be awarded for their creations, and not have people free load and enjoy the copyrighted material for free. Thus, Congress along with the President wanted to protect the artists and authors and enhanced the copyright laws for music, movies, and books. The law had two parts. First, it is illegal to defeat or circumvent any encryption system used in “electronic” media. Second, it is illegal to design, distribute, or sale technologies that allow circumvention. What is the impact of this law?

  • A person cannot buy a CD or DVD and make himself a copy. For example, what if he wanted to listen to his CD on a MP3 player or watch his DVD on his Iphone. This involves decrypting the media and changing its format.

  • A Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov was arrested in the United States in July 2001 for violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. His crime was he wrote a program that could convert Adobe's Advanced e-Book Processor to Adobe PDF files. He did not illegally distribute copyrighted material. The conversion eliminated the safety measures embedded in the e-Book Processor. Dmitry’s arrest created fear among computer programmers. Thus, foreign computer programmers may avoid the United States. Moreover, some computer companies and computer conferences relocated outside the United States with the sole purpose of escaping this bad law.

  • A student wrote a program, called Embed, which allows fonts he created to be embedded into a document. That way, computer users do not have to worry about a program switching fonts when they use their files on another computer. However, the student was sued because the program also works for copyrighted fonts. Thus, this law may hinder competition and innovation.

  • Sony sued competitors that were writing programs for computers. These programs allowed Sony Playstation Games to be played on computers. The Playstation, X-Box, and Nintendo are computers. Theoretically, all games could be on one computer system. Unfortunately, these companies want you to buy their console, enhancing their profits. Moreover, a company can sue a competitor by claiming that the competitor reversed engineered its product, thus violating this law. Thus, this law protects monopolies.

  • Anyone can threaten an administrator of a website to remove objectionable material, inciting violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Administers routinely comply, fearful of violating this law. Hence, this law is used to restrict free speech.

  • Finally, this law only applies to United States, while the internet is worldwide. Piracy through the internet is still flourishing. People still in the United States can illegally download movies, games, software, and music from Europe or Asia, like Pirate’s Bay in Sweden. Pirate’s Bay and other websites use torrents to download files. A torrent allows a user to download pieces of a file from different locations around the world. A program like Vuze allows users to find and download torrents, and pieces the file back together. Since the pieces are random, it is difficult for a third party to intercept and piece the files together. Technically, Pirate’s Bay does not contain copyrighted media; it only contains the torrents that allow users to find and piece together the copyrighted material.

Some of the new laws are anti-capitalistic. For example, the State of Washington is cracking down on house flippers. The state believes house flippers renovate houses with substandard work and are part of the underground economy. A new law requires a person who is buying a home has to occupy the home for at least one year in order to re-sell the home. If a person plans to flip the property, he has to register as a contractor or hire registered contractors. Any person found violating this regulation can be fined $1,000 per day per jobsite. Severe violations can result in criminal prosecution [5]. What is wrong with buying a home, fixing it up, and selling it for a higher price? That is capitalism! Government does not really need to protect home buyers in this case; the market has already taken care of that. A potential home buyer can hire an inspector who will thoroughly check the home for problems and spot any shoddy, defective work.

Legislators and Congressmen do not understand that strict enforcement of the law may create more criminals. For instance, many young people experiment with marijuana. During the 1960’s, government imposed fines for marijuana possession, and the conviction did not follow that person throughout his life. (This was the good ole days before the arrival of massive computer databases). Now, some states have really increased the penalties for marijuana use. If a court convicts a person of possessing marijuana, the defendant could be fined, placed on probation, or sentenced to jail (or prison). This strict approach causes four problems:

  1. This person now has a criminal record. Most employers, including minimum-wage jobs, perform criminal background checks. Even if this person quits smoking marijuana and can pass a drug test, he may have difficulty finding a job. Thus, this conviction follows him throughout his life. Further, this person is barred from careers in education, health care, and transportation [6].

  2. The government may bar people convicted of drug charges from federal financial aid for colleges and universities. With college tuition skyrocketing to the stratosphere, many young people cannot afford to attend college without some type of government assistant. Thus, this person may not be able attend college. Additionally, some colleges and universities even expel violators [6].

  3. The government could bar convicted people from federal contracts, grants, and licenses [6]. Further, government may not allow people convicted of drug charges to enter the military. Before the 1960s, judges gave young defendants, charged with minor crimes, a choice: Join the military or go to jail. The military tends to take young, rebellious kids and turn them into young, respectable men.

  4. Many landlords check criminal records and convicted marijuana users could be denied a lease [6].

A person, who is convicted of marijuana charges, may not able to find good work, obtain an education, a place to live, an essential government license, or join the military. What choices are left to this individual? Instead of being a drug user, he may now have to become a drug dealer. Even Texas has stepped up the insanity. Repeated offenders can have simple marijuana possession charge enhanced from a misdemeanor to felony charges. A felony charge in Texas is like a death sentence, because many institutions check the Texas Department of Public Safety’s database for criminal convictions. That should definitely help these people find jobs and become law-abiding citizens one day. Unfortunately, the State of Texas has a massive prison system that needs to be continuously fed inmates. The bad news is many government leaders believe they are above the law and exempt from their own rules.

Above the Law

Lawmakers and politicians are willing to pass thousands and thousands of laws, rules, and regulations and impose stringent penalties for any violations. They portray themselves as saviors that must lead the flock of sheep along the righteous path. Here is the kicker. These same politicians believe they are above the law and exempt from their own laws. Some of these politicians and lawmakers will flagrantly violate their own laws, rules, and regulations. If these same politicians are caught for a misdeed, then they believe they can apologize and asked the public for forgiveness. A wide variety of cases brings this message out:

  • The former New York Governor, Eliot Spitzer, was busted for setting up a clandestine arrangement with a prostitute. He is also a former New York State Attorney General and prosecutor. He was a tough prosecutor, and prosecuted Wall Street corruption and busted several prostitution rings [7].

  • The federal government indicted Rod R. Blagojevich, former Illinois governor, on 16 felony counts. The government believes Blagojevich tried to sell the U.S. Senate seat that President Barack Obama left vacant. Further, Blagojevich supposedly squeezed campaign contributions from everyone by withholding state contracts, granting regulatory favors, and filling state jobs with campaign contributors [8]. Blagojevich was a former prosecutor and helped author ethics laws for the State of Illinois.

  • William McCallum, a former assistant attorney general for the State of New Hampshire, is a kleptomaniac. He stole computers, paintings, and rare books from libraries, museums, and universities around the New England area. A court sentenced McCallum to prison in 1998 [9].

Why do some of our political leaders do things that are illegal, immoral, or just downright dirty? Two factors explain this. The first is greed. We live in a materialistic society, and thus, they want to elevate themselves to the top social class. Salaries for public servants are not that high; hence, they have to come up with other ways to elevate themselves. Moreover, political campaigns cost millions of dollars. Public servants have to get this money from somewhere. The second is psychological. Public officials are in a position of power. Our political leaders believe they are better than everyone else and above scrutiny. You probably did not realize this, but our Congressmen do not collect social security when they retire. They voted themselves a much better plan where they earn their full salary until their death. Further, Congress routinely exempts itself from its own laws? Congressional representatives do not have to abide by minimum wage, discrimination, and other laws. Here is how they did it. If you carefully read the federal laws, Congress lists all the parties that the law applies. However, Congressmen never list themselves, and thus, exempt.

Some politicians and political insiders are not dirty and not corrupt. However, they still tend to form good ole boy networks for two reasons. First, many issues in the United States are equally divided. For the politicians to get their agenda and laws passed, they have to form alliances with leaders and politicians from other groups. Politicians and political insiders form social clubs among themselves like college fraternities and sororities. Second, our laws, rules, and regulations are complicated. A complicated legal structure makes it complicated to bring in newcomers. Regulators and government officials have to spend a lot of time with newcomers to bring them up to speed. If a newcomer screws up the paperwork, projects and money can get delayed, creating headaches for government officials and bureaucrats. Life is simpler to work with the same people and organizations, thus forming these good ole boy networks.

Another problem is politicians and politically connected people do not like to pay taxes. Of course, President Obama illuminated this recent epidemic of tax evaders by simply filling positions in his government. The President has numerous candidates with tax problems. The first was Tim Geithner, the Treasury Secretary. He did not pay Social Security and Medicare taxes when he worked for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) [10]. What makes this egregious is the Internal Revenue Service collects these taxes and is a department within the Department of Treasury. The other nominations with tax problems were Tom Daschle, nominated for director of Health and Human Services [11], Nancy Killefer, nominated for chief performance officer nominee, Hilda Solis, nominated and appointed secretary of Department of Labor [12], and Ron Kirk, nominated for the U.S. Trade Representative [13]. The good news is President Obama is off to a good start for collecting back taxes.

A universal law is everyone hates paying taxes. However, politicians are in a unique position. They know they are not likely to be caught. How often does the Internal Revenue Service audit a President or Congressmen? Likewise, how often does a state tax authority audit a governor or legislator? These politicians pass laws that tax authorities have to follow and they also appoint the leadership of tax authorities. Consequently, these politicians know they can cheat on their taxes and not get caught. Heaven forbid a businessman or citizen tries to cheat a tax authority. Tax authorities can be quite brutal if the tax inspectors believe a citizen owes taxes. Now we understand why dead politicians easily win elections.

Division of People

The politicians deliberately passed laws giving preferential to one gender, race, or social class. The reason is to address a previous injustice and to cement an alliance between the politicians and the disadvantage group. However, the current U.S. legal structure is pitting the poor against the rich, women against men, minorities against white people, and children against adults, causing bitterness and rancor among different groups in society.

Government is pitting the rich against the poor. The common view of rich people in America is that somehow they unfairly, illegally, or immorally earned their wealth. Politicians espouse this view, because the rich are a source of tax revenue. For instance, many states are experiencing severe financial difficulties after the 2008 Financial Crisis. Tax revenues are falling, so what is government brilliant idea? Tax the Rich! This sounds like a simple solution, but it has three problems.

  1. The United States has a progressive tax system. The rich already pay a higher proportion of taxes on their incomes. Higher taxes on the rich only penalize them more.

  2. Rich people can move to states (or other countries) where their tax burden would be lower. A state over taxing the rich can be hurt more financially if the rich people flee.

  3. The states overly rely on the rich for tax revenue. For example, many states relied on the rich who earned their money from Wall Street. With the crash of Wall Street and the financial markets in September 2008, many rich financial people earned losses, causing New York to have a projected deficit of $13.7 billion for 2009-2010 [14] and California to have an estimated deficit of $42 billion for 2009 [15].

There is nothing wrong with being rich. Being rich is the ultimate reward for providing a valuable good or service to society. Where did some of our large computer companies come from? Bill Gates started Microsoft in a run down motel in New Mexico, Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs started Apple computers in their garage in California, and Michael Dell started Dell Computers in his dorm room at the University of Texas. Even if a person inherits his wealth, he still has to remain vigilant and still has to do some work. If he makes a wrong investment decision or hires an accountant that steals him blind, then this rich person could end up on the streets as a poor person. This is true social mobility and it works in both directions. Some poor people can become rich while some rich can become poor.

State laws for domestic violence are pitting women against men. Daily T.V. commercials inform women that all men are violent and if there is any violence, immediately call the police. Of course, states created special courts to hear domestic violence cases and encourage the police to arrest any and all males for suspected domestic violence. Therefore, a state can charge a person with domestic violence, even with the absence of physical contact. For example, in Oklahoma, a couple arguing in front of a child is committing domestic violence, but women are never the perpetrators. Police always arrest the males.

Domestic violence laws are not bad. If a partner physically hurts his mate, then he should be arrested. However, males should not be arrested for a scratch on an arm or the couple was verbally arguing. Some judges do not understand that some women will falsely accuse a man of domestic violence in certain cases. For example, if a woman wants to divorce her husband, then a false domestic charge swings the divorce decree in her favor. Many divorce attorneys in Colorado encourage a woman to file charges for anything that could be construed as domestic violence, which helps the women during divorce proceedings. Some men have the view that they become slaves to women. Once a woman is done with a man, she can call the state and have him removed and then the woman legally takes all his assets.

Another factor dividing men and women is sexual harassment. The theory of sexual harassment is employees in the workplace should not be constantly subjected to sexual advances or material if they do not want it. This applies to males too. Common sense dictates the following is sexual harassment.

  • Repeatedly asking a co-worker for a date or constant flirting and co-worker does not like it.

  • Forcing a co-worker to engage in sexual activity as a condition for employment or advancement.

  • Telling sexual jokes or displaying sexual material.

What is the official definition of sexual advancement? The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) defines sexual harassment as “verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature [that] unreasonably interferes with an individual’s work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.” This sounds broad and lawyers can interpret this broadly. For example, in California, men can be sued for staring at a woman. What about the converse? Can a man sue a woman, if she wears provocative clothes? Is the EEOC going to initiate dress codes to stop unwanted stares? Is this law broad enough where government can construe any conflict between males and females as sexual harassment?

Sexual harassment laws are dividing males and females in the workplace and have a negative impact on the work environment. Political correctness dictates that men sexually harass women. Thus, many men are afraid of asking a woman for a date in a workplace or make a joke that can be taken out of context. Further, some women can falsely accuse a male worker to get the male in trouble or fired. The problem is lawsuits. Not only can the woman sue the male, but also her employer. If a woman can show a company did not take her seriously, then the employer becomes liable. Thus, the easy solution is to fire any males if any conflict in the workplace arises between genders.

The current anti-discrimination laws are pitting whites against the minority groups. The United States was wrong for allowing slavery to flourish in the south and encouraging discrimination. The next step is to move society towards a system that does not look at a person’s race and eliminate all forms of discrimination. Martin Luther King stated it best, “my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” To eliminate racial discrimination, everyone should become color blind with respect to skin color. However, the federal and state governments went in the opposite direction. Federal and state governments require employers to collect race information on applicants.

The next step is statistical analysis. Businesses do not want to appear racists, so they may favor the hiring of minorities. Even though this may be against the law, a human resource department can find reasons to reject a white applicant’s application, but discount negative information in a minorities’ application. Further, businesses could be sued if they appear racists or denied a government contract. Minority workers who are fired can sue and claim discrimination. Further complicating the matter is a split in the law. Employers are not allowed to look at race, but the education system can. Many universities, like the University of Michigan, have favorable admission policies for minorities without being illegal [16]. It is not bad for an employer or university to always choose a minority out of an applicant pool if the applicants have similar qualifications. However, many white males feel as if they are at the bottom of the applicant pool, despite their qualifications and education, creating bitter feelings between white males and everyone else.

Laws are pitting children against adults. Rules and regulations have gotten so stringent, parents and school officials cannot spank children or if spanking is allowed in a state, many restrictions apply. Kids know this! If a parent, teacher, or principal lays any hand on them, they know they can call the police and have that person arrested. The law treats all kids as little darlings who can do no wrong. Moreover, teachers, and principals are getting arrested for restraining kids, when kids fight or cause food fights [17]. Giving children free reign in arresting parents, teachers, and principals will have three impacts on the education system:

  • Parents will discipline their children less, because of the constant fear of being arrested. It is no coincidence that behavioral problems in children are getting worse.

  • The laws will have a chilling effect on teachers [17]. Teachers are not going to breakup fights or get involved. Otherwise, they could be arrested. Kids know this and may become more disruptive.

  • Crazy laws and overzealous enforcement of laws will drive good people out of education or other occupations that deal with children. Why stay in an occupation that pays the lowest for college graduates, children are disruptive, and the state will go after you if they think you did something wrong. Thus, education will continually decline as kids become more disruptive and teachers flee the schools, searching for new occupations.

Education is a coercive process. Students must sit at a desk and study material that they would not normally study on their own. Kids usually have a favorite class, but they have to be forced to learn material for classes they do not like. Remember the old phrase “spare the rod and spoil the child.” Giving into or catering to children will not help them learn discipline or study difficult subjects. Unfortunately, children do not appreciate an education until they are 30 and beginning their career. That is when they wished they should have studied harder.

Complexity of U.S. Laws

The current U.S. legal system has evolved into an extremely complicated system. The U.S. federal, state, county, and city governments can all create and change laws. Unfortunately, all these laws at all levels of government can occupy volumes and volumes of books and literally span a whole floor in a public library. Unfortunately, here is where the real problem lies. We have so many laws in the United States; nobody can know them all! Further, if government catches you violating any one of these laws, the government can seize your property, impose large fines, and/or incarcerate you in jail or prison. This is the real travesty of our complex legal system. Not everybody can be lawyers, but with millions of laws, regulations, and ordinances on the books, anybody and everybody are potential criminals. Thus, government at all levels must continuously scrutinize their citizens. Do you think I am joking? Everyone has heard these cases:

  • Code enforcement monitors people’s property for violations. The government goes after a homeowner if he lets his grass grow too tall or has a home business, like a daycare or fixes a car on the side.

  • Child protective services immediately invade a family’s home, if someone reported any child abuse. Some people are vindictive and lie to investigators. Investigators do not know who is telling the truth or not. Therefore, the state could remove kids from innocent parents from a false accusation. Then the innocent parents have to spend money for a lawyer to file a court case to get the children back.

  • A person who is sitting on his couch, watching TV and drinking a beer is violating a law. If a cop can see this behavior through a window, then that person can be charged for public intoxication.

How did the legal system become so complicated? Let us start with the federal government. The premier document that establishes the federal government is the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Federal law changes from the following:

  • Creation of New Laws: Congress and the President can sign new laws, which are entered into the United States Code.  Supposedly these new laws should not conflict with previous laws or violate people’s rights in the Bill of Rights.  Some of these laws are lengthy.  For example, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is 311 pages with standard margins and 12 point font [18].  This is typical of the laws passed by Congress.  Maybe Congress should pass a law that requires them to read the law before voting.  That would definitely throw a wrench into the law-making machine, greatly slowing down the wheels of government. An organization called Downsize DC formed for this purpose.  They propose a new law requiring all Congressmen to read their own laws before they vote for them (More information about the organization is available at www.downsizedc.org).

  • Interpretation of Laws: All federal bureaucracies must adhere to the United States Code, but the problem is most of these laws are vague and are not defined well. Thus, each federal agency must interpret what these laws mean and their interpretations are recorded in their own law books, which are known as the Federal Code of Regulations (CFR). Every agency has their own CFRs and these different agencies may interpret the United States Code differently. State governments usually call this administrative code.

  • Modification of the Laws: The federal court system also interprets, defines, and modifies these laws and what these laws mean. Of course, the federal court system can put their own unique spin on the federal laws.

Unfortunately, the complexity does not stop here, but continues. The state and municipal governments also replicate the federal structure. Every state has a constitution and its own code of laws. Like the federal government, the state legislature and governor can sign new laws into existence, the state agencies interpret these laws, and the state court system can change and modify these laws.

The municipal governments are different from the state and federal governments, and usually have the most contact with its citizens. At the county level, each county has a board of commissioners that run a county government. The board can pass laws, which are known as ordinances and resolutions. An ordinance is a law that everyone in the county has to follow, while a resolution is something that the board wants done. Usually, the ordinances and resolutions are used for managing the county, because a county is a subdivision of the state. Furthermore, each county has government agencies and a court system. The court system is part of the state system and has at least two divisions: Criminal and civil. Criminal courts hear cases for violations of state laws, while civil handles disputes between two parties. Larger urban counties can have more specialized courts.

A city government is similar to a public corporation. When a community becomes large enough, the community writes a charter. If the state accepts the charter, the city legally comes into existence and becomes incorporated. The mayor is similar to a president of a corporation, the city council is similar to a board of directors, and the city residents are similar to the stockholders. The city council and mayor can pass new laws, which are ordinances and resolutions and all city meetings are supposed to be open to the public. Local government is supposed to be transparent and all its decisions involve the public. Moreover, many city governments created a municipal court. These courts usually hear violations of city code while criminal or civil cases are usually heard in the county courts. Usually municipal courts are not courts of records. Consequently, no stenographer records court proceedings. Some people refer to these courts as “courts of revenue,” because citizens are automatically found guilty with the judge assessing fines on the defendants. Many city governments post their municipal code on their website or on www.municode.com.

These legal systems are not independent from each other. Municipal governments have become a door mat for the state and federal governments. The higher-level governments continuously impose laws and mandates on the municipal governments. A mandate is the government tells the agency what to do, but does not provide funding to comply with the mandate. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) told city water departments in central Oklahoma that their arsenic levels were too high. These water departments now have more cost to remove the arsenic, and the EPA did not provide funding for the higher cost. Why is this so dirty? Nobody asked what the residents of central Oklahoma wanted. Many households drink filtered water or have filtering systems that could remove the arsenic. The EPA made its decisions and residents of central Oklahoma have to pay for it.

All levels of government are continuously creating new laws and re-interpreting old ones. How does government know that people are following the laws? The counterpart to laws is enforcers. As a legal system expands, government has to hire more enforcers to ensure the laws are followed. Unfortunately, government likes results. Therefore, enforcers have to find violators, thus providing proof to government that indeed, they are working hard and all these laws are making society a better place to live.

Conclusion

What has happen to us? How did government and politicians come along and think they can cure everybody’s problem or help protect us from all the evil in this world. Unfortunately, it is impossible to protect us from all the evil in the world. Bad, evil things happen to good, honest people all the time and will continue to happen to good, honest people all the time. Stacking law upon law will not help the economy, will not help businesses thrive, and will not help job growth. Continuously passing laws or continually increasing the complexity of the laws has a negative impact on an economy. Some of the consequences are:

  • Government must expand bureaucracies to enforce these laws. Consequently, bureaucrats employed in the federal, state and local governments will increase over time. Thus, society has to pay higher taxes, fees, and fines to pay for these bureaucracies, which could create hardship in the private sector.

  • More laws and more complicated laws mean more people may be found violating the law. Therefore, the criminal justice system could be continually expanding over time. The criminal justice system could divert public funds from other investments like education and infrastructure.

  • Businesses and citizens need to hire legal specialists and consultants to interpret laws and help them stay in compliance. Specialists and consultants are expensive, which businesses pass onto the consumers as higher prices for goods and services. A complicated legal structure expands the industries for compliance specialists while other industries contract, like the U.S. manufacturing industry.

Unfortunately, people who make their living directly from the legal system will fight against de-regulation or simplification of the rules. For example, the overly complicated tax code has given birth to a whole industry of tax accountants, consultants, and computer software companies. If government tried to simplify the tax system like imposing a flat tax, the tax industry would fight the change. Another example is if states de-criminalized marijuana use, then states would incarcerate fewer drug dealers and courts would hear fewer cases for marijuana. Thus, the court and prison systems would have to contract, because marijuana violations comprise a large fraction of court cases. The expansion of drug laws is what fueled the massive expansion of federal and state prisons since the 1960s.

Home | Table of Contents | Next Chapter

References

[1] Chico Municipal Code. “Nuclear Free Zone Law.” Division IX – Nuclear Weapons, Chapter 9.60. Accessed on (5/15/08) at ttp://www.chico.ca.us/municipal_code/title_9.pdf

[2] Pacific Grover Municipal Code. “ Monarch Butterflies.” Title 11 Health, Safety, and Environment, Chapter 48.010. Accessed on (5/20/08) at http://www.ci.pg.ca.us/

[3] Rogers, John. May 15, 2008. “In L.A., controversy sizzles over taco truck restrictions.” Houston Chronicle.

[4] Lieberman, Joe. April 26, 2001. “The Media Marketing Accountability Act.” Available at http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=208614 (access date 01/12/09).

[5] Howell, Parker, May 29, 2008. “House flipping now can draw hefty fines.” Spokesman Review.

[6] Aho, Karen. November 27, 2007. “The Basics: What illegal drug use can cost you.” MSNBC

[7] Arena, Kelli and John King. March 11, 2008. “Source: Spitzer investigated for link to prostitution ring.” CNN Politics.com

[8] Coen, Jeff. April 3, 2009. “Former Gov. Rod Blagojevich indicted.” Los Angeles Times.

[9] Associated Press. December 16, 2008. “Former NH lawyer stops payments for art thefts.” Auction Central News.

[10] Wolf, Bryon. January 26, 2009. “Senate Approves Geithner Despite Tax Issues.” ABC News. Available at http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/President44/story?id=6733907&page=1 (access date 05/15/09).

[11] Freking, Kevin. February 2, 2009. “Daschle apologizes for failure to pay $120,000 in taxes.” Houston Chronicle.

[12] Kelley, Matt. February 5, 2009. “Tax snafus add up for Obama team.” USA Today. Available at http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-02-05-solis-husband-taxes_N.htm (access date 05/15/09).

[13] Murray, Mark. March 2, 2009. “More tax problems for Team Obama?” MSNBC. Available at http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/03/02/1817065.aspx (access date 05/15/09).

[14] WBNG News. December 16, 2008. “Governor Paterson's Executive Budget.” WBNG.

[15] Christie, Jim. December 11, 2008. “California budget shortfall seen nearing $42 billion.” Reuters

[16] Trachtman, Michael G. 2003. “Is There Anything Wrong With Favoring Minorities To Promote Diversity In Your Workplace?” NewsletterAccess.com. Available at http://www.newsletteraccess.com/display_article.php?id=10099 (access date: 12/24/08).

[17] Pape, John. 2008. “Principal Claims Innocence, Says His Arrest Sends Wrong Signal.” Fort Bend Now. Available at www.fortbendnow.com (access date 07/03/08).

[18] U.S. Government Printing Office. 2007. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Washington, DC: Available at http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS94451 (access date 10/21/08)..