Laws should be written generally to apply to many situations.
Yeah, so when they don’t, it would be a good thing to update them, no? Especially when it looks like new things in the world are going to skirt around them?
For instance emission laws already cover new technology because they simply regulate what comes out of the tailpipe rather than how it is created.
If your hypothetical country has laws that define what comes out of the tailpipe, and my hypothetical new engine generates emissions in the form of solid dust that accumulates in a container, then how is preemptively updating the law so that the container cannot be emptied onto the road as you drive a bad thing, as opposed to creating that law after the fact, in response to people getting poisoned?
Creating niche specific laws is fraught with problems because when new laws are custom tailored to specific situations the chances of negative externalities begin to skyrocket.
Yes. That’s why when niche specific laws don’t cover new technology, they should be updated to be more general, so that they also apply to the new situation. For example if my hypothetical country has meat storage safety laws, that define meat as coming from a dead animal, then how is making them more general so that they also apply to lab-grown meat a bad thing?
The concept of writing preemptive laws is much like the concept of preemptive crime prevention.
Yes, what’s wrong with it? I put a lock on my front door as preemptive crime prevention. Do you only put a lock on your front door after some opportunist already stole something?
It is definitely a situation of putting the cart before the horse. The kind of situation where special interests are pulling the strings to write a bad law. For instance the law in Florida banning artificial meat is an example of a preemptive and poorly devised one.
First the product has not even reached the market place. Second this laws bans it rather than just requiring proper labeling. It is not based on facts and likely is unnecessary and merely a partisan act to gather goodwill from entrenched industries.
You are bringing up an example of a bad law to suggest preemptive laws are bad. Tell me, would you agree with this law if it was made after artificial meat was already established in the market? If not, then it seems being preemptive is not the problem here, but all the other problems you yourself mentioned.
Yeah, so when they don’t, it would be a good thing to update them, no? Especially when it looks like new things in the world are going to skirt around them?
If your hypothetical country has laws that define what comes out of the tailpipe, and my hypothetical new engine generates emissions in the form of solid dust that accumulates in a container, then how is preemptively updating the law so that the container cannot be emptied onto the road as you drive a bad thing, as opposed to creating that law after the fact, in response to people getting poisoned?
Yes. That’s why when niche specific laws don’t cover new technology, they should be updated to be more general, so that they also apply to the new situation. For example if my hypothetical country has meat storage safety laws, that define meat as coming from a dead animal, then how is making them more general so that they also apply to lab-grown meat a bad thing?
Yes, what’s wrong with it? I put a lock on my front door as preemptive crime prevention. Do you only put a lock on your front door after some opportunist already stole something?
You are bringing up an example of a bad law to suggest preemptive laws are bad. Tell me, would you agree with this law if it was made after artificial meat was already established in the market? If not, then it seems being preemptive is not the problem here, but all the other problems you yourself mentioned.