Lawmakers (smart ones, anyway) don't break laws; they make what they want to do legal, and then just do it. Give a person a hammer, and everything's a nail; give a person a lawmaking ability and suddenly everything's illegal. Even when inaction is the wisest course, it looks too much like indecisiveness to be politically feasible.
One of the problems is that we can't figure out a better system of using humans to govern humans. Do you think we'll ever develop the fabled Sci-Fi computer overlord to govern us? Will it end in the traditional "disaster of ignorance", where the members of society return to a child-like state, and are unable to maintain the great machine we've built?
One of the problems is that we can't figure out a better system of using humans to govern humans.
There are a lot of things we can improve, though. First past the post voting systems mathematically guarantee polarized two-party systems aligned on emotionally charged but relatively inconsequential issues. So we should switch to approval voting.
Having the same person purport to represent our interests in everything from which soda sizes we're allowed to drink to whether we can make our own end-of-life medical care decisions leads to incompetent science denialists running the government's science committee, gross ignorance of the consequences of their actions w.r.t. encryption, etc. So we should design a system with separate representatives for each technical domain, combined with an optional directly democratic override on a vote-by-vote basis.
It's like you're describing the separation of governance by domain. For instance, instead of having a mayor for a city, we'd have a mayor of telecommunications or technology, along with a mayor of transportation, a mayor of housing and civil engineering, and a mayor of commerce.
These problems pop up with my example:
* You still need someone to centralize the execution; people are going to want a hierarchy and to have one person at the top.
* Having 5 mayors means paying 5 times as many people (but they'll be able to work much more in depth in their subject area)
If you reduce those mayors down to city council members, and have another mayor, it resembles the system in place in many layers of bureaucracy.
One of the problems is that we can't figure out a better system of using humans to govern humans. Do you think we'll ever develop the fabled Sci-Fi computer overlord to govern us? Will it end in the traditional "disaster of ignorance", where the members of society return to a child-like state, and are unable to maintain the great machine we've built?