Ants and Entrepreneurs

Too many laws, inconsistent laws, contradictory laws.

It seems to me that most laws don't appear out of some hypothetical concern,
but from bitter experience, and from a desire to protect. Somebody figures
out a new way to shaft the consumer, so we have to make a new law covering
that scam. Somebody does a study and determines that a disproportionate
number of auto accidents involve cars changing lanes without signaling their
intentions, so we have laws making it a traffic violation to change lanes
without signaling (which BTW is the law most cops cite as being the one they
could pull over just about anybody on).

Now in a very homogenous society, say an O'Neill cylinder full of Sopranos
fans, there would be considerable sharing of cultural values and norms. You
would know you would get your head knocked in if you scratched somebody's
car, so it would be unnecessary to make an ordinance covering that. And
there would perhaps be a tighter definition of what constitutes "common
sense," that amorphous body of knowledge which is assumed everyone has,
further reducing the number of necessary laws. In the extreme, a very
closely-knit group (like a small town) knows each other so well, and shares
so many inputs in common, one might perhaps get by with almost no laws at
all, since there is near universal agreement on what is right and proper.

Meanwhile, back in the present, a proliferation of laws is partly a
by-product of diversity. You can't be so sure what a Haitian or a Swede or
an Australian puts in the heading of common sense, so you have to be more
explicit. There is less agreement about right and wrong, so you have to
spell it out.

One other thought--laws restrict power, too. Specialization of jobs,
skills, etc., is perhaps one of the earliest organizing impulses of humans,
and in the course of specializing into millers, tanners, farmers, and
computer repairmen (and civil servants), some will, by the nature of the
society, of wealth distribution, native intelligence or charisma, become
more influential, more powerful, than others. Once there, a social contract
(let's call it, hm... a Constitution?) spells out what the powerful may and
may not do, before they have a chance to develop rule by threat, violence
and whim. Spooner aside, I can't image modern humans willingly abiding by
an unstated social contract. Even driven the speed limit for a day? How
many drivers around you are willingly abiding by that social contract?

Dad astra