Matt Taibbi Quotes
Like wars, forest fires and bad marriages, really stupid laws are much easier to begin than they are to end.
Taibbi, Matt. "How Wall Street Killed Financial Reform." Rolling Stone, 10 May 2012.
Generally we make laws to try and stop bad actions. Without the bad actions, there would generally be no laws.
He was discussing “Stand Your Ground Laws” which were enacted to solve one problem, but then effected many other things negatively. The law, once passed, is the law regardless of whether it has adverse consequences that the legislators never anticipated. This is one of the reasons that drafting legislation is such a difficult skill.
This is one of the proverbs of King Solomon of the Jews, son of King David.
Many new laws have unintended consequences. In many cases the laws are not sufficiently effective to solve the problems for which they were passed. In other cases, the laws are too draconian and the public and the legislators have second thoughts. Almost all laws of significance require amendments and adjustments over the years.
There is an opposite school of thought which argues that because technology develops so fast, by the time you legislate about it of you understand it, it is too late to prevent major problems and abuses which can become institutionalized. Instead it is argued, legislate rapidly BEFORE you understand all the consequences and then repeal and revise very frequently as the technology develops. This school argues that Schmidt’s view is tantamount to not legislating at all as it will ALWAYS be too late if you wait till you understand the consequences.
At the time, Spain was one of the most backward countries in Europe. They were still executing people for heresy and blasphemy.
This is a very important historical and political quotation. The first clause shows us that earmarks and private bills for the benefit of individuals and their commercial enterprises are not a new form of corruption; they have existed ever since there have been legislatures.
The most important aspect of this quotation is the SECOND clause. Very frequently, this is quoted alone without the context of the first clause. Taken alone, the meaning seems to be that the more corrupt governments pass the most laws, and there is an implication that fewer laws mean less corruption. This interpretation fits perfectly with the conservative ideology of the late 20th and early 21st centuries that believed that the smaller the government, the better; the fewer the laws passed, the better. However with the context of the first clause, we see that what Tacitus was criticizing the legislature that passed many earmarks and bills benefitting special interests. The more of these that were passed, the more corruption he argued. So he did not object to laws per se. He was not opining on the relationship between the number of laws and a corrupt government if the laws are for general benefit and not for special interests. Out of context, it might appear that Tacitus was supporting the small government, conservative philosophy. In context, he is arguing against earmarks and special interest legislation and supports what we call “good government” which has been bipartisan in America with parts of each party agreeing with Tacitus and other parts of each party trying to pass earmarks and special interest legislation.
In America we do not have an official church that can morally speak for the society as a whole. As a result, we often use the law to make a moral statement even if the law is rarely enforced like prostitution. Sometimes we hear the expression, “There ought to be a law” as that is the only way we can express a societal moral value.
Matthew C. Taibbi is an American author, journalist, and podcaster. He has reported on finance, media, politics, and sports. He is a contributing editor for Rolling Stone, author of several books, co-host of Useful Idiots, and publisher of a newsletter on Substack.
