As a matter of principle, I am for repealing any and every piece of legislation. As a matter of strategy, I think pushing for repeal is generally a waste of time. I say "generally" because a specific piece of legislation that inflicts deep and immediate harm may be worth the extreme effort of repealing in order to provide relief to the innocent people suffering under its enforcement. That's a judgment call.

There are many reasons to eschew an overall strategy of repealing laws, however. Some reasons have a moral tinge to them. For example, appealing to an inherently corrupt system -- the government -- to reform itself at the edges is tantamount to recognizing its authority; using the structures through which it controls society (e.g. the vote) only acts to legitimize those structures. The argument that "we are merely using the enemy's weapons against him" is flatly wrong; the legitimacy and respect being granted the 'enemy' and his weapons will be used against innocent third parties -- that is, average people.

Other reasons to eschew a strategy of repeal are logistic. Activists will spend months of effort and mega-dollars to repeal a law that can be reinstated -- sometimes in altered guise -- with ease and no personal expense at all by legislators. Moreover, a flood of laws will be passed for every one that is repealed; it is like sweeping back the ocean with a broom. IMO, repealing laws as a general strategy is a fool's gambit and I sometimes wonder if legislators snicker up their sleeve at activists who bankrupt themselves (in terms of both money and energy) in such efforts. In short, those who seek repeal are playing the politicians' game -- and the House always wins.

Instead of repealing laws, I seek to make them "dead letter." A dead letter law is one that is still on the books but it is not enforced. The non-enforcement can be due to several reasons. They include,

1) a swing in social attitudes can make enforcement laughable. A law against women not covering their ankles is an example. Changing such attitudes is a long process but it is a reliable means of creating dead letter law. Changing the hearts and minds of people, as opposed to legislating their hearts and minds, is the strategy that most accords with creating a civil society.

2) a sufficient number of scoff-laws make enforcement impossible: in short, civil disobedience. Benjamin Tucker estimated that if 10% of the population refused to obey any one law, then that one law could not be enforced. I don't know what constitutes the 'tipping point' nor do I know how it can be ascertained. I do know that many laws are not enforced simply because the population will be not respect it. Laws against polygamy in Utah are an example. If the polygamous community does not engage in child marriages, then the authorities usually turn a blind eye. Refusing to obey unjust laws is the opposite of working within the system in that it withdraws consent and legitimacy from not only the law in question but from the overriding political structure.

3) there is not enough money to enforce all the laws. A news item caught my eye this morning and, indeed, inspired this entire post. A headline from KMOX states, "Not enough funding to completely enforce drunk driving law, local judge says." The first thing that occurred to me was that 'vehicle offenses' of all varieties are fund raisers for the police. What the story pointed to, however, was not the problem of levying fines but the call for laws that throw DUIs in jail fo an extended period. Maintaining prisoners is a money-sink, not a fund-raiser, and so the money-grubbing system itself is balking at enforcement. I have no comment on this as a 'strategy' as I don't know how activists can influence the state's internal fiscal warfare. Nevertheless, I am not sorry to see it happen even though I am sure the police will cut back on rape investigations rather than on cash-machines like traffic tickets.

Ultimately, my point is that activists waste time and money in trying to repeal laws. They also provide credibility and support to the very system they should be dismantling. If a law is so unpopular that it can no longer be enforced, then it is de facto repealed...and in a manner that legislators cannot reverse at the stroke of a pen.