Regulation

A State Actually Eliminates Regulations? I May Faint.

|

Of course, there will always be more.
Oleksandr Marynchenko | Dreamstime.com

The state of Minnesota has actually struck down more than 1,000 old, obsolete laws. Imagine that! From the Pioneer Press:

It's no longer a crime in Minnesota to carry fruit in an illegally sized container. The state's telegraph regulations are gone. And it's now legal to drive a car in neutral — if you can figure out how to do it.

Those were among the 1,175 obsolete, unnecessary and incomprehensible laws that Gov. Mark Dayton and the Legislature repealed this year as part of the governor's "unsession" initiative. His goal was to make state government work better, faster and smarter.

"I think we're off to a very good start," Dayton said Tuesday at a Capitol news conference.

There's actually more than getting rid of those silly laws that make up occasional "listicles" of "24 Things You Didn't Know Were Illegal." A new law is supposed to streamline the state environmental permitting process for businesses, and the state is also cutting the amount of time businesses are required to maintain employment records. The Press says these efforts were a result of a bipartisan push. And there's also this:

Legislators launched an initiative that got rid of more than 30 advisory boards, councils and task forces that had outlived their usefulness.

It's possible to get rid of these? I didn't even know that. Knowing state government, though, that's probably less than 1 percent of the advisory boards, councils and task forces that have actually outlived their usefulness (or never actually had a real use to begin with).

NEXT: New Orleans Becomes an All-Charter School City District

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Unpossible. I have repeatedly been told there is nothing left to cut.

  2. What do you call the repeal of 1,175 obsolete, unnecessary and incomprehensible laws?

    1. Justification for a drone strike.

      1. Good one.

    2. A start?

    3. Hitler? Too soon? No?

    4. Draconian?

    5. The Holocaust?

    6. Ethiopia?

    7. What do you call the repeal of 1,175 obsolete, unnecessary and incomprehensible laws?

      Reset

  3. When I see something even close to this at the federal level, I won’t faint. But I will plotz.

    1. Honestly, this would be strategy if I got to the House. Bullshit that is probably going to pass anyway, but needs a vote in committee? Just tag on an equal or greater number of strike lines in a nearby statute. Do that for two or three terms, lull everybody down, and then strike some serious shit out and see if you can get it across the President’s desk before anyone notices.

      “Wait, we just struck down the Food and Drug Act?”

      1. Given the way we’ve effectively nullified portions of the constitution for all kinds of reasons, I’m astounded that this hasn’t happened already.

        I’m sure the NSA is monitoring food labels and is unable to provide that information to the FDA.

      2. That’s how that disgusting old skeleton Lautenberg got the MG supply frozen. Fucking cunt.

  4. Legislators launched an initiative that got rid of more than 30 advisory boards

    I hate to be a cynic. Actually, that’s not true; any chance that the advisers from these boards are now part of the initiative or haven’t just further enriched and entrenched themselves in the remaining useless bureaucratic attach?s?

    1. Either way, elimination of the boards themselves is very good.

      1. The same way killing straw men is very good, I guess.

    2. Perhaps, but what this means is that this stops with those individuals. Better than nothing.

  5. There’s a lot of hot hot action at the state level these days. Taxation levels are being revolutionized and all this will trickle up. So much for ‘the government never shrinks’.

    1. Meh. I had this same hope when Texas passed their Sunset Act. I no longer do.

      1. This is a lot broader than just Texas.

        1. The only thing broader than Texas is Hillary Clinton’s ass.

          Just puttin’ it out there…

          1. Better than puttin’ it in there.

            1. This is why…

  6. Hopefully other states will do this, too. That will remove disincentive for Congress to do that.

    I believe that in PA for instance the original 1890 (?) motor vehicle law, which basically required you to stop and send up a warning flair every few hundred feet, is still on the books.

    1. We’re still paying the Johnstown flood tax on liquor, too.

      1. We all know that getting them to cut their revenue stream is going to be more difficult. At least this reduces the number of bullshit offences with which the cops can charge you.

  7. it’s now legal to drive a car in neutral ? if you can figure out how to do it.

    Sure, your ability to accellerate is limited, but it’s possible to shift into neutral at say, highway speeds, and coast until friction takes off your speed and you need to get back in gear again.

    1. Also, it’s now legal to press the clutch in while driving a stick shift. So they got that goin for em.

      1. That was my immediate thought. What a stupid fucking law.

    2. That didn’t make any sense to me until I remembered how many people drive automatics. It’s still not that hard to shift to neutral, is it?

      1. I can swat my automatic into neutral without even pressing the normal shift button. To get out of neutral, I have to press the button.

    3. I do that all the time because I drive a car, I don’t steer an automatic. But my question is, how the fuck would it be possible to enforce that law? Were there cops on the stand saying, “I heard that this particular engine in this particular individual’s vehicle was running at an abnormally low RPM. I pulled over this particular individual and was forced to shoot him in self-defense.”?

      1. “I drive a car, I don’t steer an automatic.”

        Heh. I always feel like I’m driving a boat when I drive an automatic. And then when I want to stop I put both feet down hard on the brake.

        1. If you really want that boaty feel but can’t deal with the seasickness, you should get something with a CVT. What a boring way to travel.

          1. I think you might be the perfect candidate for the Royal Deluxe II. I’d link a video, but NBC is stupid and makes everyone take down SNL clips.

      2. I drive a car, I don’t steer an automatic

        I’m trying to get to point B, not perform a menial task that was properly automated decades ago.

  8. Also, no word on whether they wiped the “sodomy” statute, if any.

    1. Stay away from Minnesota, anyway. It’s too fucking cold.

      1. And in summer, you need a Stinger missile to bring down the mosquitoes.

        1. I know, what’s up with that? The winters don’t make it shitty enough already?

      2. “Cold Sodomy”. Good song title.

        1. Sounds like an unreleased Tool track.

    2. if any

      Is this a pro-gay jab at them for not repealing a law that you don’t even know if they have?

      Just so you’re aware, they didn’t repeal any implications created by any pro-religious laws either.

      1. Somebody’s all butt-hurt.

        At one time ALL US states (etc) had anti-sodomy laws.

        Sodomy statutes have traditionally been gender neutral in text, though enforcement has been heavily skewed to male/male encounters. Many sodomy statutes also prohibited oral sex, again gender neutral.

        1. Somebody’s all butt-hurt.

          Probably from all the sodomy.

    3. Also, no word on whether they wiped the “sodomy” statute, if any.

      Did that statute prohibit, or require, sodomy?

      1. Require, it was a tax bill. You did not get to pick the provider.

        1. Your feigned ignorance of the law is underwhelming.

          1. Sorry, that was for RC. Stupid squirrels.

    4. Turns out they already repealed (or struck down) their sodomy statute in the early 2000’s.

      1. It’s ass-fucking all the way down.

        BTW, May and September are why I live in Minnesota. Perfect weather, no skeeters.

        1. Why do you live there the other ten months?

            1. For reals. I know, I lived there for a year. It’s got some natural beauty, and the first snow is fun, but, well, it’s too fucking cold.

          1. Because the cold keeps the assholes out.

            A couple of nice weeks of weather here in Sunny Minnesota, the rest of the time is spent drinking alone in your fish house in peace and quiet.

            The best day of the year, by far, is the first day in spring when it is sunny and 45. Holy shit, people lose their minds after a hard winter.

            1. I knew some assholes there, so it’s not working.

              If I had to live there again, one key is finding some winter sport to make winter up there at all palatable.

              1. I blame global warming. We had a string of nice winters that made the assholes think it was safe to move in. Luckily the past few winters have been old fashioned humdingers.

                Choose ice fishing. You get to go sit in a nice warm fish house and drink by yourself. Truly a sport you can participate in for your entire life.

      2. Equality achieved!

        609.34. Fornication

        When any man and single woman have sexual intercourse with each other, each is guilty of fornication, which is a misdemeanor.

        1. Huh. Why just one woman? That’s kind of an odd loophole for them to leave in the law. It would seem to encourage multiple women being with the guy to avoid violating the law. . .say, just who wrote this, anyway?

          1. As far as I’m concerned either act; one man, many women or one man, unwed woman is afoul of the law by virtue of my fitting the definition of ‘any man’.

            My reading, in word and spirit, the only way to obey the (fornication) law is strict MSM or WSW.

            Suddenly, I feel very oppressed… then I remember I’m a straight white male and that no one, even myself, cares.

        2. What if she isn’t single? Or what if it’s multiple women?

          Which definition of “single” are they using? I’m…asking for a friend…

          1. Curious to know whether that term is defined in the statute or whether a court up there has ever had to rule on it.

      3. Sodomy – more proof that prohibition doesn’t work.

  9. The sad thing is, just prior to 9/11, congress was starting to look into just such an undertaking. Of course, on 9/12 all of that was forgotten and they started adding stupid laws, not clearing them out.

  10. “And it’s now legal to drive a car in neutral…”

    So I was breaking the law every time I came down the hill on I35 into Duluth? Good to know.

    1. That’s a misquote of the statute. What it really prohibits is driving cars “in natural,” or, in other words, naked.

      1. Wrong. It prohibits you from driving without a gender.

        1. No, that’s driving “in neuter.” Illegal in Idaho.

      2. “What it really prohibits is driving cars ‘in natural,’ or, in other words, naked.”

        Oh.

        So I was breaking the law every time I came down the hill on I35 into Duluth? Good to know.

  11. OT: Holy Shit! How have I, as a libertarian and a scientist, not seen this man speak or read his books?:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_PVI6V6o-4

    At 14,000 views in the past 5 yrs., I can’t be the only one to have completely missed the crystals of brilliance that he coalesces.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.