“Too little law and we’re not safe, and our liberties aren’t protected," Gorsuch told The Associated Press in an interview in his Supreme Court office. "But too much law and you actually impair those same things.”
This is overly simplistic. It’s not as though there is some universal threshold after which there is “too much law.” It’s not necessarily about the quantity of laws, but the necessity and efficacy of the laws. If all the laws on the books are necessary and effective at addressing some problem or achieving some goal, then the amount of law is sufficient even if the absolute number of laws is relatively high.
One of the main tenets of neoliberalism is: the government which governs least, governs best. However, this is not necessarily true. It is entirely possible for a government which “governs most” to also “govern best,” and for a government which “governs least” to “govern worst.” Again, the amount of governance does not necessarily determine the quality of governance, at least not by itself.
It is entirely possible, likely even, that we have at least some unnecessary and/or ineffective laws and regulations on the books here in the US, at the federal, state, and local levels. However, merely reducing the overall number of laws will not necessarily by itself make the government more efficient or effective. I am all for simplifying and streamlining our regulatory and legal systems, to improve efficiency where possible, but we should no more repeal laws merely for the sake of repealing laws than we should pass laws merely for the sake of passing laws.
It is not necessarily true that “big government equals bad and small government equals good,” nor is it necessarily true that “small government equals bad and big government equals good.” It’s not about the size of the government, it’s about the necessity and efficacy of the government.
This is overly simplistic. It’s not as though there is some universal threshold after which there is “too much law.” It’s not necessarily about the quantity of laws, but the necessity and efficacy of the laws. If all the laws on the books are necessary and effective at addressing some problem or achieving some goal, then the amount of law is sufficient even if the absolute number of laws is relatively high.
One of the main tenets of neoliberalism is: the government which governs least, governs best. However, this is not necessarily true. It is entirely possible for a government which “governs most” to also “govern best,” and for a government which “governs least” to “govern worst.” Again, the amount of governance does not necessarily determine the quality of governance, at least not by itself.
It is entirely possible, likely even, that we have at least some unnecessary and/or ineffective laws and regulations on the books here in the US, at the federal, state, and local levels. However, merely reducing the overall number of laws will not necessarily by itself make the government more efficient or effective. I am all for simplifying and streamlining our regulatory and legal systems, to improve efficiency where possible, but we should no more repeal laws merely for the sake of repealing laws than we should pass laws merely for the sake of passing laws.
It is not necessarily true that “big government equals bad and small government equals good,” nor is it necessarily true that “small government equals bad and big government equals good.” It’s not about the size of the government, it’s about the necessity and efficacy of the government.