To many laws

...

5000 sounds low. Such are the heady joys of bureaucracy.

>that fb worthy meme
>having a picture make your point

I think this is bait, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt OP.
When a nation has about 4 million citizens, 13 states, and a developing economy, 4300 words of law is likely sufficient.
However, when a nation has 300 million citizens, 50 states, and the largest economy in the world, I think an increase in legislation is reasonable.

I love the good ol' days just as much as any American, but laws adapt to the circumstances of the nation.

I'd argue it is to the contrary.
A small nation can easily enact more laws since their scope of operations is so limited, there are not that many people to regulate and consider.

However, the more complex a society, the hardest it is for the legislator to effectively and accurately identify the issues which ought to be legislated, and then to craft the appropriate legal instruments to regulate them. It is much better in this case to make the law as general as possible, and to rely on the general principles of law to guide the Judiciary in their procedures.

This is specially true when dealing with administrative issues regarding the economy, the difficulty to regulate an economy by law increases as the economy becomes more complex, to the point where any specific attempt would be necessarily short-sighted and counter-productive.

This would mean that you can't regulate a large state. What would you propose as a limit in population and/or economic development?

I personally disagree with you, I believe laws are necessary in a more complex developed economy relying on new technology. New technology is always a problem for the legislator or the courts. There was a Dutch case in 1922 were someone "stole" electricity, however the dutch law said only tangible goods can be stolen, the guy argued they couldn't convict him for stealing, electricity wasn't a good. The judge has to solve this issue and in the end the legislator has to adopt new legislation. Sure we could abolish most rules and give the judges more discretion, but I doubt that people would be happy if judges have that much more interpretative freedom.

>This would mean that you can't regulate a large state.
Define 'regulate'

Agreement is universal that life is better now than in 1776, so what is your point?

Your question is like: Too many grains of sand on the beach? To many drops of water in the ocean?

Who cares? What difference? Why?

I only stopped by because the word "law".

A lot of legistlation was enacted by the judiciary throwing the ball back at congress.

>a larger population requires more laws
>therefore people should be violently kidnapped for inhaling a plant and beaten or even killed if they attempt to resist

Then again the ancient Germans had zero written words of law.

Gee, well maybe laws get more complex as society gets more complex.

I think people here are being a bit too dismissive of what the OP is talking about. Just about anyone in the US can be brought up on charges for violating at least one law. I.E we are all "criminals" and the security state only continues to grow.

>life is better
Yeah because of capitalism and innovations created by freedum, america advanced so fast because of great ideas it people came up with

>weed is illegal thus proving my argument that we have too many laws

Would you fuck off? The existence of a few arbitrary laws doesn't magically mean less laws is the magical problem-solver.

Many of those laws aren't even enforced or are barely applicable to daily life. It's a 2 month prison sentence in my county to milk another persons cow for example.

>>therefore people should be violently kidnapped for inhaling a plant and beaten or even killed if they attempt to resist
Am I being detained?

>I DO NOT LE CONSENT XD I DO NOT LE CONSENT XD I DO NOT LE CONSENT XD I DO NOT LE CONSENT XD

If you have so many laws that even a well-read and learned student of the law can't keep track of it all, how can a single citizen be reasonably expected to know what is and isn't illegal? Laws should provide fair notice to the citizenry so they do not accidentally violate them, especially considering that many do not require mens rea for conviction.

The fact that they exist allows for politically motivated prosecution when a suspect otherwise cannot be convicted for another crime the state initially had interested in them for. Do you really believe that prosecutors should have a backup plan when their original plan doesn't work? You don't think that defies the entire point of due process?

>Okay, so we didn't have enough evidence to indict or for the jury to convict on the original crime
>But I know he's guilty anyway so let's go after him on a totally unrelated (often harmless) charge that we can prove that no one knows or cares about until a situation like this comes up

Is there any reasonable basis by which you three can argue that marijuana should be schedule 1?

I'm either going to assume you're morons or that you're well aware the current situation is bullshit but that you either don't care by dint of its victims being poor or minorities (or degenerates as our least favorite board might add) or that you personally benefit from the failed war on drugs. Are you afraid your job won't be necessary once the charade ends? Worried about the end of those paychecks paid for on the backs, livelihoods, and blood of the innocent people fed through the meatgrinder? Concerned that your department won't have the cash for all those toys without civil asset forfeiture? What is it, my friends? By what moral and rational basis can you defend this mess? Spare me the memes and greentext.

Blame your state. Most of those laws are not at the federal level.

>life is better now

Is it? The wealth disparity is greater, so on average life must be worse.

Everything is "better" when you don't adjust for technological achievement.

That's not true

>defending your cuck state
the first step to a police state is to make everyone a criminal, and bealive me, you are ALL guilty of some US felony.
Of course we need more laws then we did before, but don't pretend it's not way out of hand.
anyways a common law system was better then coded law system