Too many laws also hamper innovation. Trying to prevent something from happening that hasn't proven to be an issue yet can get in the way of things that are actually good but potentially get caught on a law that gets used against people in unintended ways.
Reactive law can work just as well too, it just needs to not be rushed. For example, Section 230 is a reactive law that allowed for the creation of the internet we have today.
I think your argument could be better made by saying that laws that are created quickly without lots of analysis and debate are bad. Interested parties on any given law need to be able to weigh in to provide insight about how it may impact them, and then it's up to lawmakers to find a good balance.
The public comment process that executive agencies have for rule changes could be nicely applied to our law making process as well.
Reactive law can work just as well too, it just needs to not be rushed. For example, Section 230 is a reactive law that allowed for the creation of the internet we have today.
I think your argument could be better made by saying that laws that are created quickly without lots of analysis and debate are bad. Interested parties on any given law need to be able to weigh in to provide insight about how it may impact them, and then it's up to lawmakers to find a good balance.
The public comment process that executive agencies have for rule changes could be nicely applied to our law making process as well.