Government

The US code is a massive, complex document requiring years to understand fully, and even so, it would take constant study to keep up on the changes once you did understand it. The sad thing is that as far as I can tell, the system is in this state only because lawmakers feel they must do something while in office. When there's no real work to do, there's plenty of time to add more twists and turns to the law, and the occasional loophole for friends. (And when too many loopholes accumulate, the need to Do Something About It results in random, weird solutions like the Alternative Minimum Tax: extra complexity just to punish people for trying to be smart.)

One of the things we learn from programming is that complexity always has cost associated with it. The "elegant" solutions are also simple, because experience of the complex gives an appreciation for the economy of simple things. For instance, today you can have a team of programmers update your tax program every year to reflect the ever-shifting tax code; while a flat tax would be representable by a single formula, and nobody would even need the software to begin with.

Therefore, if all continues on the current path, the law will continue to get more complex. Society will continue to pay a larger and larger price in complying with the law, but it's largely invisible, so too few people will notice to change the situation. Until one day, we will have spent so much time on compliance with this unnecessary law that some freewheeling country will have stolen our crown by the simple method of doing something useful.

Once upon a time, when I was a lonely teen rotting away in a rural high school, we spent a year grazing American history. One of the numerous events that were a mere side note on our speedy journey through time was the 17^th Amendment to the US Constitution, which provided for direct election of senators. Prior to the amendment, senators were elected by their respective state legislatures.

I have been thinking about this quite a bit of late, while watching a few recent political struggles. It seems truly odd that a law passed by the federal government could overrule and weaken an already-existing law instituted in a particular state. Especially since the 10^th amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This would seem, on its face, to provide two completely separate sets of powers, one for the federal government, and a different one for the states.

It seems to be the case that the current situation, where a federal law can overrule a state law, is a long-term result of the 17^th Amendment. Prior to 1913, the fact that senators were elected by the states provided an implicit check-and-balance against the popularly elected House of Representatives. If one party could influence the common man, they could sweep the House, but they would find stiff opposition from the Senate for any plans to expand federal powers at the expense of the states. After the amendment passed, influencing the opinion of the common voter was sufficient to gain control of the entire Congress. It's not completely easy, because only a third of the Senate is elected at a time. But with the current division in American politics, this is typically still sufficient to switch control between parties at any given election.