When should a law be passed?

[Kaylee]

I'm not aware of a law that obligates a casino to not let their customers bet while drunk. Perhaps there should be such a law**,
….
** This could be the subject of another thread. When should a law be created? How responsible are people obligated to be for other people's welfare

As a result of this thread: "Drunk man loses money at casino. Sues to get it back" (http://forums.randi.org/), I've been wondering if there is a general rule of thumb that most people can agree upon to decide when do we need a law vs. just leaving the matter to peer pressure or just each individual's own judgement.

I originally thought that this would be an easy matter to agree upon that wouldn't even require much discussion. But after participating in a few threads about casinos (there's one in the General Skepticism and Paranormal Forum also -- "Are casino owners better than psychics and homeopaths (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57885)?"), it doesn't seem that way to me anymore.

It's easy to agree that some laws should exist, the kind of laws that protect innocent people from dangerous people such as laws that make murder and theft illegal. Well, hopefully it's easy to agree upon those kind of laws. :)

But what about the laws intended to protect people against themselves such as some drugs can't be sold at all and other drugs need a prescription? I'm not sure what the reasoning behind this is as it seems to go against the widely held idea that people should be responsible for their own welfare. Perhaps these laws were passed because some thought that if they weren't, it would create a dangerous and out of control environment? If that is the case then the reasoning is still to protect innocent people against dangerous people, although some might think its a stretch. Is it a valid guideline, or should this be left to each person's personal responsibility?

What about laws that require bartenders to stop serving customers after they become drunk? Is that wrong? One could argue as to why a bartender should have to stop and figure out if someone else is drunk to avoid being liable for their behavior later. After all, it's not always obvious when someone is very drunk and the bartender could be extremely busy.

Your opinions please! :)

Note: To the powers that be, if this thread is in the wrong forum, my apologies. I'm not sure where it should go.

Edited to add a link and fix some words.

[Rob Lister]

Gambling in casinos. A tax for folks that

1) drink
2) are gullible
3) can't do math

I've got little problem with the education the tax teaches them, no matter what it costs.

[Beerina]

I'd require a 90% supermajority to pass a law. If you can't get 90% of the people to agree something should be illegal, it probably shouldn't be. This 50.01% majority rules with an iron fist stuff is crap and also not scientifically tenable. Being able to whip a bare majority of people into a brief frenzy is not even really a majority. It's jumping off a speeding car with power just as it crests at the top of a hill. Ha ha, see ya suckers!

[geni]

I'd require a 90% supermajority to pass a law. If you can't get 90% of the people to agree something should be illegal, it probably shouldn't be.

You realise this would raise pork barreling to unheard of hights?

90% is too high it it gives too much power to the akward squad. Wikipedia generaly works by 2/3rds majority (up to 80% majority for more important matters) and a determined minority voteing for emotional or unrelated reasons can still cause a real headache.

[Kaylee]

I'd require a 90% supermajority to pass a law. If you can't get 90% of the people to agree something should be illegal, it probably shouldn't be.

So by eliminating the simple majority and requiring a supermajority -- we can eliminate a lot of philosophical discussion as how to justify passing laws for some situations and not for others. OK. I'll bite, for now. :)

You realise this would raise pork barreling to unheard of hights?

90% is too high it it gives too much power to the akward squad. Wikipedia generaly works by 2/3rds majority (up to 80% majority for more important matters) and a determined minority voteing for emotional or unrelated reasons can still cause a real headache.

Does Wikipedia use a simple majority to pass anything? Or is a supermajority required for every change? Any links? Particulary on what issues require 60% and which ones require 80%?

I refreshed my memory as to when the USA Congress requires a supermajority (using various Wikipedia articles). There are two different supermajority percentages used:

Supermajority of two-thirds (67%) for:
* Congress to override a presidential veto
* Senate to impeach the president ( the House still needs only a simple majority
* Congress to introduce a congressional admendment (Just an FYI, if a congressional admendment is to be introduced by the state legislatures, then it must be passed by three-fouths (75%) of the state legislatures first.)

Supermajority of three-fifths (60% -- was originally two-thirds) for:
* Senate to end a filibuster** (anyone know if there is an equivalent rule for the House?)

I thought this bit of history was interesting, it explains why the supermajority required to allow the Senate to end a filibuster was reduced from two-thirds to three-fifths:

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture
A similar procedure was adopted in the United States Senate in 1917 in response to the actions of isolationist senators who attempted to talk out, or filibuster a bill to arm U.S. merchant ships. President Woodrow Wilson urged the Senate to change its rules to thwart what he called a "little group of willful men", to which the Senate responded by introducing cloture in the form of Rule 22. [1]

This originally required a supermajority of two-thirds of all senators (i.e. 67 out of 100). However, it proved very difficult to achieve this; the Senate tried eleven times between 1927 and 1962 to invoke cloture but failed each time. Filibuster was particularly heavily used by senators from Southern states to block civil rights legislation. In 1975, the supermajority was reduced to three-fifths (60 out of 100). Some senators wanted to reduce it to a simple majority (51 out of 100) but this was rejected, as it would greatly diminish the ability of the minority to check the majority.


Emphasis mine. So based on the above article, its easy to infer that a 90% supermajority requirement would never allow any bill to be passed!

For argument's sake, if we eliminated the simple majority and required a supermajority of 60% to pass anything -- would that increase the "tyranny of the majority"? Would we actually end up worse off instead of better?

Also a question in regard to pork barrelling. With today's electronics -- is there really any technical reason to continue to bundle various proposed laws into the same bill to be passed? Perhaps the best way to make pork barrelling harder to happen (it can probably never be completely eliminated) is to only allow one law per bill.

During election time, when candidate John says candidate Bob is a demon (or worse) because he didn't vote for the woo hoo bill, Bob won't have to try to explain to the voters that the reason he didn't vote for that bill was because it included the proposed rah rah law also. No doubt that would make life for the politicians harder because it would clarify where they really stand on the issues, but it would make it much easier for the voters for the same reason. (Hope that makes sense.)

---
** For non-Americans, filibuster is a delaying tactic to prevent a vote from being taken on a bill.

[Beerina]

> You realise this would raise pork barreling to unheard of hights?

I think the electorate is smart enough that at least 10% can band together to prevent this. It's the low threshold, 50%, that is the cause of this, not a high threshold.


> 90% is too high it it gives too much power to the akward squad.

Good. That is the point. You will still pass laws against murder or theft. You will not have massive boondogles like gigantic militaries, massive wealth transfer systems, and general loss of freedom through government growth decade after decade.

Yes, that is exactly the point.

[Kaylee]

> You realise this would raise pork barreling to unheard of hights?

I think the electorate is smart enough that at least 10% can band together to prevent this. It's the low threshold, 50%, that is the cause of this, not a high threshold.


> 90% is too high it it gives too much power to the akward squad.

Good. That is the point. You will still pass laws against murder or theft. You will not have massive boondogles like gigantic militaries, massive wealth transfer systems, and general loss of freedom through government growth decade after decade.

Yes, that is exactly the point.

It would be great if we could get one of the 50 states to test this for the rest of the country. :)

ETA: I would assume that we would have far fewer safety nets in place also, but predictions don't always match what actually happens -- which is why it would be interesting to see something like this in action.

[geni]

Does Wikipedia use a simple majority to pass anything?

No


Or is a supermajority required for every change?


Define change. Anything that comes to a vote requires a supermajority. Not everything comes to a vote thought.


Any links? Particulary on what issues require 60% and which ones require 80%?


AFD is basicaly 2/3s majority:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_1

RFA is 70-80% (depends on the descision of closeing buracrat):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFA

[Kaylee]

Thanks Geni. Those links were interesting. IMHO it was clever of Wikipedia to decide to use a supermajority vs. simple majority vote in reguard to writing and maintaining their encyclepedia.

[geni]

Thanks Geni. Those links were interesting. IMHO it was clever of Wikipedia to decide to use a supermajority vs. simple majority vote in reguard to writing and maintaining their encyclepedia.


There are dignifanct factions that dissagree. To start with those are not technicaly votes.

[Kaylee]

For argument's sake, if we eliminated the simple majority and required a supermajority of 60% to pass anything -- would that increase the "tyranny of the majority"? Would we actually end up worse off instead of better?

Correction: Implementation of a supermajority might create a tyranny of the minority (not majority). Would we be worse off?

[Kaylee]

There are dignifanct factions that dissagree. To start with those are not technicaly votes.

Why aren't they considered votes?

Also I was wondering, can any user vote -- or is it limited to the administrators?

Are quorums required for certain decisions?

For the most part, Wikipedia seems to be mostly accurate. I thought perhaps the system of simple majority may be a contributing reason.

I haven't been able to find out the definitive rules on contribution. Can any user post? And any other user edit? With no voting required for either a new contribution or an edit?

[geni]

Why aren't they considered votes?

Wikipedia is not a democracy.


Also I was wondering, can any user vote -- or is it limited to the administrators?

Pretty much anyone can vote although there are some informal sufferage requirements.


Are quorums required for certain decisions?


Not formaly. Verly low numbers of votes on RFAs can be a problem.


For the most part, Wikipedia seems to be mostly accurate. I thought perhaps the system of simple majority may be a contributing reason.

voteing on article content would be unusal


I haven't been able to find out the definitive rules on contribution. Can any user post?

Anyone who isn't blocked can edit. Of course that doesn't meant that your edit is garenteed to last more than 30 seconds.

And any other user edit? With no voting required for either a new contribution or an edit?

Voteing on article content is uncommon it does happen but is generaly a sign that something has gone wrong

[Kaylee]

Wikipedia is not a democracy.
Why not? Are there people higher up on the food scale than the administrators (the only positon I saw that can be voted on) who make a lot of decisions?

But I still think its interesting to see how they make use of a supermajority vote, and to try to relate what we can learn from their experience to govt.

Another possibly significant difference is that each article probably has the potential to only reflect the view of the last editor -- rather than truly be a collaberative result of all the people who had worked on that topic.

I'm guessing that is the case because of the way you described the Wikipedia system.

[Snide]

Gambling in casinos. A tax for folks that

1) drink
2) are gullible
3) can't do math

I've got little problem with the education the tax teaches them, no matter what it costs.4) in some rare cases, kinda enjoy the cheap entertainment it can provide

[geni]

Why not? Are there people higher up on the food scale than the administrators (the only positon I saw that can be voted on) who make a lot of decisions?

Most descisions are not made by voteing and of course there is this part of wikipedia policy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_experiment_in_democracy


But I still think its interesting to see how they make use of a supermajority vote, and to try to relate what we can learn from their experience to govt.


The akwarksquad become a real pain. Stuff can be defeated because of largly unrelated reasons.


Another possibly significant difference is that each article probably has the potential to only reflect the view of the last editor -- rather than truly be a collaberative result of all the people who had worked on that topic.

Rereighting a full sized article to reflect your POV is a signifcant effort. Very few long articles are the work of one person.


I'm guessing that is the case because of the way you described the Wikipedia system.

Genealy people who try to extrapolate from the system get stuff that doesn't reflect reality.