TED Conversations

bristol ozturgut

Me,

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

An institution devoted to reviewing and highlighting legislation that has exceeded a certain time frame.

Legislation is important under certain contexts. It's crucial, then, to keep legislation current. I think it a spectacular idea to commit a non-profit group to holding outdated legislation to current standards.

To quote the U.S. General Accounting Office report to Congress in 1990, through P.J. O'Rourke's "Parliament of Whores,"

"The government established a wool and mohair price-support program in 1954... to encourage domestic wool production in the interest of national security."

How is my proposal any better than the Government Accountability Office? Well, I'm not entirely sure and I suppose this is why I'm proposing it. I feel, though, the the GAO is entirely too big and that a program like this should have a lot more visibility - voters can access an archive of legislation, what it was written to combat, and what the general effects of it are now.

+1
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Oct 28 2012: Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion — when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing — when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors — when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you — when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice — you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that is does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.















    —Ayn Rand

    Do we really need to complicate the web of intrusive government? Man's responsibilites to his self should never be underwritten by a self serving government. If legislation is only good for certain purpose of a certain moment then it has no business being written into law. If a structure is failing let it fail. You will find that the system was fine but the drivers were corrupt. For man to grow, he must learn from his failures and not be propped up by the virtues of his fellow man.
    • thumb
      Oct 28 2012: I am really confused about the relation between your quote and my proposal. I understand that people are corrupt and things have gone bad but I choose rather to take action than to let the system fail so that a better one can take its place. We can be a touch more proactive than that. I am committed to finding the tiny slivers of things working the right way and promoting it. My promotion, while a small endorsement, can grow to affect those around me who can, in their own turn, promote what they think is outstanding.

      Do you think my proposal would "complicate the web of intrusive government?" I thought it a good idea to take the steps to expose corroded, rusty, decayed initiatives, subsidies, and grants that have gone unnoticed for decades. I agree that legislation voted in for a certain purpose is not helpful. If, in your last statement, you are comparing the government to a single man, then I will have to heartily disagree. For one man to grow, yes he must learn - as a child learns not to touch a boiling pot. But to simplify a system of millions of people to one person is ludicrous; the pain brought on from touching a boiling pot cannot smart the hand of every one of them. It is clear, then, that our government will continue to wearily trudge on, adapting and forever slightly corrupt and wasteful. I don't see any sense in waiting for the revolution to create a new system. My trying to generate a team to fight the excess of government is the very picture of growth. I've seen a problem here and now, so I am trying to implement a solution. Simple as that.
      • thumb
        Oct 28 2012: Yes we need expose the corruption. But expanding the Government to do so is kind of like having an alcoholic manage the liquor cabinet.
        • thumb
          Oct 28 2012: I wholeheartedly agree but I am not planning to expand the government. My proposed team would not be funded or managed by any governmental branch. All ties severed.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.