For a long time, I've had the idea in the back of my mind that all laws should have expiration dates, and the maximum duration shouldn't be very long (12 or 18 years would be two or three senate terms in the US). Ideally, it would be combined with something to keep the scope of each bill narrow.

Sunset provisions are popular actually. Jimmy Carter put that idea on his platform in '76, and it was carried out to some extent, and his own state was the example that sold people on it. I sense that they have waned since.

I believe there are restrictions on the breadth of laws but they are not honored very effectively.

It wouldn't work because what would happen would be a mass reapproval of all regulations.

What I'd like to see is a constitutional amendment that the total body of federal laws and regulations can't be any longer or more complicated than a person of average intelligence can be taught in a week.

I used to think a limit on the total size of the law like that would be a good idea, but some areas of regulation are inherently complex. I still hold a related position: an adult of reasonable intelligence should be able to easily learn all the laws that they're likely to encounter, and learn which fields are subject to detailed regulation.

To give an example, the regulations governing design of commercial aircraft can almost certainly be simplified from their current state without killing people, but probably cannot be simplified to the point that someone who isn't already an expert on aircraft design can learn them in a week without killing people. Knowing that field is subject to special rules is enough to avoid accidentally violating the regulations.

Currently there's no limit to the complexity that governments can inflict on us. Since there's no garbage collection process for laws/regulations, we wind up with an enormous body of legislation and regulation which almost nobody understands or adheres to. It's terrible for the rule of law.

Or simply require that they be read in the house / senate before a vote. Not "read" but actually read, word for word out loud, by the sponsor.

> It wouldn't work because what would happen would be a mass reapproval of all regulations.

Sunset provisions are an idea I tentatively like until I consider what happens with the fucking stupid, pointless "debt ceiling" crap Congress has decided to make themselves do. I imagine how fun it'd be watching months of idiotic brinksmanship over keeping murder illegal, because one group of legislators wants to grand-stand about abortion. Then repeat for practically everything else.

No thanks.

Worse, there is an incentive to keep them going as there are entire industries and associated careers built around them.

That's actually evidence they're good, since nobody's built a country with so many successful industries and no regulation. They wouldn't be able to solve the coordination problems.