Hello there, it's me again 😁. I was musing over the weekend and I kept asking questions as to why laws don't exactly have the success rate that we expect them to have. Tech is still a hard-to-grasp area which is why lawmakers don't exactly know how to engage this sector. The last time things were this complex was when regulation was to be decided on how oil can be drilled. Because oil, unlike other mineral resources is liquid, and just the way we all share the same water that is found underneath the water table, one can't exactly say all the oil underneath their allocated piece of land is theirs.
LAWS AREN'T EFFICIENTLY MAKING THINGS BETTER
It was later decided that entities get to keep all the oil that they can extract while on their allocated piece of land, eventually, more regulations came up in order to regulate the mad scramble to take as much oil out of the earth as possible at the expense of the environment. I'm getting somewhere, things are a lot more slippery in other situations where the government makes laws and corporations hire lawyers to find loops holes which then creates a cobra effect where those laws make things worse not better.
LAWS NEED TO BE IMPACT BASED NOT WORD-BASED
This led me to the conclusion that we ought to have impact laws rather than making laws all about abiding by the words written on paper. What impact law would look like from my perspective is a situation where laws are built around the impact it is expected to create, not the law itself. If for example, a law is passed that the disparity between the salary of the highest-paid employee of an organization and the lowest-paid employee shouldn't be over 1000 times the salary of the lowest-paid employee.
A CASE STUDY
It would be more important to place emphasis on the impact of the law which is aimed at ensuring that the salaries of the lowest-paid employee can rise just in the same way that of the highest-paid employee does in order to reduce the growing wealth disparity which at times causes gentrification. By placing more priority on the impact of the law rather than the words written in the constitution, an organization that outsources all of the lower-paying roles just to mathematically remain within the confines of the law will still be punished.
A RELATABLE EXPLANATION
This is because, while they haven't mathematically disobeyed the law, by choosing to take on contract employees (who have now lost all benefits accruable to actual employees), they have acted against the true aim of the established law. Because we know that laws aren't made in a vacuum, but to address actual problems in society, it makes enough sense to ensure that those who try to counteract the expected impact of the law are just as guilty of breaking the law as those who directly disobeyed the law.
FINALLY...
The pages of constitutions and codes of conduct in most nations and entities are increasing, yet there's no direct correlation between more laws and less crime and this is because we're locked in a cycle of "technically" outsmarting ourselves. Technology has great potential to be a force for good, with slippery laws, anyone can weaponize technology. Laws need to be enforced based on the impact expected or as a species, we'll keep going in circles.