As a downside, though, this might lead to obfuscated and confusing laws as legislators try to fit as many ideas as possible into few words, rather like code with lots of three-way operators.
As we're all subject to all of the laws on the books, even though no one could possibly read or understand all of them, this would be a much more fair solution.
The Icelandic example has, in effect, a similar cap. There can be no more laws than the law-speaker can remember. Capping the size of the body of law would be more like the Icelandic example than sunset provisions. Also you wouldn't have to worry about important laws, e.g. murder, from expiring because no one noticed.
[edit - moved from top-level comment to this thread]
So either the total number of words of The Law goes up or some body of executive-branch regulation grows to have the same effect or (as you pointed out) courts read complicated legal doctrines into terse legislative text or the law is so ambiguous that citizens have no way to predict how a court will rule.
Of all these alternatives I think the first is the least bad.
You do make some good points about limiting the total size of the legal code but NOT limiting the size of the legal code, as we do now, also has some serious drawbacks.
Huh? Where do legislators read laws before voting? (US Congress critters typically don't.)
> If it's a bad or unnecessary law, this will cost political capital, which favours the "let expire" option.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Almost all laws are the threat or imposition of force to some end. We hope that the ends justifies the means, but the means are force, so the bias should be towards no law.
Yes, that includes spending, no matter what its on.
That's why my rule wrt laws is "is this something that I'd throw my mother into jail over?"
Everywhere, including the US. But everybody doesn't read everything.
> You say that like it's a bad thing.
It's bad to the GPs assertion that laws will just be reinstated. I'm arguing in favour of automatic sunsets.
Almost. But they will be read first, followed by a "reinstate" or "let expire" decision. If it's a bad or unnecessary law, this will cost political capital, which favours the "let expire" option.
Then there'll be committee hearings, where citizens affected by the law will get a say, and since the text is open anyway, motions for amendments can be presented.
And finally, it has to actually pass parliament, making the current parliament answerable for the passage, rather than a past one. It's a lot easier to say "yes, I agree that law is not the best, but I have prioritised other issues over fixing it" than "I voted for it, when I had the option of simply pushing the other button."
> Now, instead, imagine a boundary on the space the law may take up.
That sounds like a good idea. No text longer than 2000 words can be passed by a single vote.