>The idea that one must hire a lawyer just to be made aware of what the law is or is going to be ... is so warped and disgusting, I just don't know what to say.
Try this: The idea that one must hire an engineer to build a bridge, or even design one, is so warped and disgusting, I just don't know what to say.
The idea that one must hire a doctor to prescribe life-critical and potentially deadly medication, or even give a diagnosis, is so warped and disgusting, I just don't know what to say.
I'm not advocating keeping citizens in the dark. But there is a reason we don't leave this to amateurs. We have already seen the way small, out-of-context passages of law read by people who lack legal understanding can get blown out of proportion in the media and threaten the country's progress, if not well-being. Remember death panels? The anti-vaccine movement?
People participating too actively in processes they don't understand is a very real danger. It doesn't necessarily outweigh the benefits, but I wouldn't downvote someone just for bringing it up.
I don't go to jail if I don't build a bridge. I might go to jail if I'm not aware of the law...ignorance being no excuse, and all that.
Systems like this could actually help with the "death panel" problem, which was mostly due to people listening to propaganda instead of just reading the law for themselves. At the other end of the spectrum are bills like SOPA, a case where the citizens objecting were better informed than the legislators.
Ultimately, citizens are tasked to judge the legislators, so they're involved with the process anyway. The only question is how well they'll do the job.
Try this: The idea that one must hire an engineer to build a bridge, or even design one, is so warped and disgusting, I just don't know what to say.
The idea that one must hire a doctor to prescribe life-critical and potentially deadly medication, or even give a diagnosis, is so warped and disgusting, I just don't know what to say.
I'm not advocating keeping citizens in the dark. But there is a reason we don't leave this to amateurs. We have already seen the way small, out-of-context passages of law read by people who lack legal understanding can get blown out of proportion in the media and threaten the country's progress, if not well-being. Remember death panels? The anti-vaccine movement?
People participating too actively in processes they don't understand is a very real danger. It doesn't necessarily outweigh the benefits, but I wouldn't downvote someone just for bringing it up.