Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Congress Is Woefully Unprepared to Regulate Tech

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 44 posts

Re: Congress Is Woefully Unprepared to Regulate Tech

#21

Post by jojobaskins »

nh23423fefe wrote: post #18
lockhouse wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think current times are playing out at all as they intended. The federal government is much too large and too powerful, and Congress is too insulated from their constituents. This emboldens their corruption and playing to special interests instead of the people they are supposed to represent. This is more an indictment of 20th and 21st century politicians than it is the founders.

This is more of what I said I don't care about. I don't care what you imagine the 15th-generation ancestors, of some minority of the living population, think. I don't care if you want to blame someone else for "not implementing the obvious vision of the founders." They aren't here and can't make any decisions for us that we couldn't better make ourselves. They aren't wiser than us. Our present state isn't some deviat…

You're giving 0 credit where some is due. This is the other side of the extreme. Most government structures don't last that long, the fact that the one they made has lasted relatively in tact for a few hundred years means their ideas have some merit beyond the bounds of their time. Also I'm not sure who you mean by "us", the ruling class of today?

Re: Congress Is Woefully Unprepared to Regulate Tech

#22

Post by lockhouse »

lapcat wrote: post #20
gameman144 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Amendments to the Constitution have become practically nonexistent. It seems that you're taking this as a sign that the Constitution isn't still relevant. I'd ask you to consider that this might be a sign of the exact opposite, and that we can't get broad buy-in on the things that some groups see as obvious additions. If the MLB were trying to update the rules of baseball to make it more exciting, and one camp want…

> I'd ask you to consider that this might be a sign of the exact opposite, and that we can't get broad buy-in on the things that some groups see as obvious additions. Polls show that we do have broad buy-in on a number of issues, sometimes across partisan lines, but the way the system is designed, a small minority can block almost any action. Also, the leaders of both major political parties often act against the des…

How many of these issues need to be legislated on a federal level? Why not tackle these issues at lower levels instead where representatives are more beholden to their constituents?

Re: Congress Is Woefully Unprepared to Regulate Tech

#24

Post by lapcat »

lockhouse wrote: post #22
lapcat wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd ask you to consider that this might be a sign of the exact opposite, and that we can't get broad buy-in on the things that some groups see as obvious additions. Polls show that we do have broad buy-in on a number of issues, sometimes across partisan lines, but the way the system is designed, a small minority can block almost any action. Also, the leaders of both major political parties often act against the des…

How many of these issues need to be legislated on a federal level? Why not tackle these issues at lower levels instead where representatives are more beholden to their constituents?

Why? State lines are arbitrary. I've lived in 3 different states over my life so far, and many people have lived in more. I'd rather not have the laws change radically as I cross the border.

Moreover, leaving things to the states is how slavery was allowed before the Civil War, and how black people continued to be oppressed even after they were technically freed. (Remember that poll taxes for example were not prohibited until 1964.) So no, I'm not particularly interested in leaving things to the states. To take a much more recent example, why should a woman's right to get an abortion depend on where she stands relative to some arbitrary state line?

I think it's silly and counterproductive to behave as if we have 50 separate countries, united only by "national" defense, or whatever one thinks the minimal requirements are. And we can see how the UK shot itself in the foot by stupidly leaving the EU. Local rule is not necessarily better rule.

Re: Congress Is Woefully Unprepared to Regulate Tech

#25

Post by nh23423fefe »

jojobaskins wrote: post #21
nh23423fefe wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is more of what I said I don't care about. I don't care what you imagine the 15th-generation ancestors, of some minority of the living population, think. I don't care if you want to blame someone else for "not implementing the obvious vision of the founders." They aren't here and can't make any decisions for us that we couldn't better make ourselves. They aren't wiser than us. Our present state isn't some deviat…

You're giving 0 credit where some is due. This is the other side of the extreme. Most government structures don't last that long, the fact that the one they made has lasted relatively in tact for a few hundred years means their ideas have some merit beyond the bounds of their time. Also I'm not sure who you mean by "us", the ruling class of today?

I can't see what credit has to do with anything. Evaluating the quality of the government they created has nothing to do with us maintaining it. Its ours (the living) not theirs (the dead). We owe them nothing.

Monarchy existed for 1000s of years. Longevity is irrelevant. It is never relevant who had the idea. Invoking the founders as a justification for anything is error. They are an arbitrary group of non-extants.

Why are you trying to connect the two ideas.

Re: Congress Is Woefully Unprepared to Regulate Tech

#26

Post by gameman144 »

lapcat wrote: post #20
gameman144 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Amendments to the Constitution have become practically nonexistent. It seems that you're taking this as a sign that the Constitution isn't still relevant. I'd ask you to consider that this might be a sign of the exact opposite, and that we can't get broad buy-in on the things that some groups see as obvious additions. If the MLB were trying to update the rules of baseball to make it more exciting, and one camp want…

> I'd ask you to consider that this might be a sign of the exact opposite, and that we can't get broad buy-in on the things that some groups see as obvious additions. Polls show that we do have broad buy-in on a number of issues, sometimes across partisan lines, but the way the system is designed, a small minority can block almost any action. Also, the leaders of both major political parties often act against the des…

> but the way the system is designed, a small minority can block almost any action.

Again, this is a feature, not a bug. If over three-quarters of states or representatives can agree, then an amendment can get passed. If over a quarter of states or representatives don't want to codify something in the constitution, that is not a small minority.

> How exactly are you interpreting that?

I'm not interpreting that portion at all -- I disagree that the founders were only looking out for their own interests, but that's fine to disagree on that bit. I'm responding specifically to "The Constitution never benefited the country as a whole", which is the demonstrably false bit. Every single person in the US today has the benefit of freedom of speech, for instance (despite the fact that historically this was definitely not the case).

Re: Congress Is Woefully Unprepared to Regulate Tech

#27

Post by gameman144 »

lapcat wrote: post #24
lockhouse wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many of these issues need to be legislated on a federal level? Why not tackle these issues at lower levels instead where representatives are more beholden to their constituents?

Why? State lines are arbitrary. I've lived in 3 different states over my life so far, and many people have lived in more. I'd rather not have the laws change radically as I cross the border. Moreover, leaving things to the states is how slavery was allowed before the Civil War, and how black people continued to be oppressed even after they were technically freed. (Remember that poll taxes for example were not prohibi…

> I'd rather not have the laws change radically as I cross the border.

This is a fair preference, but many people prefer the exact opposite. For instance, people leaving high-tax states for lower-tax ones, or people leaving abortion-restricting states to less restrictive ones.

Re: Congress Is Woefully Unprepared to Regulate Tech

#28

Post by lockhouse »

lapcat wrote: post #24
lockhouse wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many of these issues need to be legislated on a federal level? Why not tackle these issues at lower levels instead where representatives are more beholden to their constituents?

Why? State lines are arbitrary. I've lived in 3 different states over my life so far, and many people have lived in more. I'd rather not have the laws change radically as I cross the border. Moreover, leaving things to the states is how slavery was allowed before the Civil War, and how black people continued to be oppressed even after they were technically freed. (Remember that poll taxes for example were not prohibi…

Many of these issues are not the simple binary choices that politicians and the media would have us believe.

Abortion is a great example, the issue isn’t as simple as banning it or allowing it. At how many weeks and under what circumstances should it be allowed? Should the father be part of the decision? What about if the mother is below the age of legal consent? Do her parents get a say?

Re: Congress Is Woefully Unprepared to Regulate Tech

#29

Post by lapcat »

gameman144 wrote: post #27
lapcat wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? State lines are arbitrary. I've lived in 3 different states over my life so far, and many people have lived in more. I'd rather not have the laws change radically as I cross the border. Moreover, leaving things to the states is how slavery was allowed before the Civil War, and how black people continued to be oppressed even after they were technically freed. (Remember that poll taxes for example were not prohibi…

> I'd rather not have the laws change radically as I cross the border. This is a fair preference, but many people prefer the exact opposite. For instance, people leaving high-tax states for lower-tax ones, or people leaving abortion-restricting states to less restrictive ones.

> but many people prefer the exact opposite

> people leaving abortion-restricting states to less restrictive ones

It's incorrect to claim that people leaving abortion-restricting states to less restrictive ones have the opposite preference to me. My preference, and I'd guess their preference in most cases, is to not allow any state to outlaw abortion. The idea that a woman leaving her own state to get an abortion has the preference of allowing states to decide to outlaw abortion sounds pretty absurd to me.

Furthermore, polls show that the majority of Americans support abortion rights, nationwide. "A record-high 69% say abortion should generally be legal in the first three months of pregnancy." "A 61% majority of Americans think overturning Roe v. Wade, thus ending constitutional protection for abortion rights and returning the matter to the states, was a “bad thing" https://news.gallup.com/poll/506759/broader-support-abortion...

Here's a funny thing (funny as in hypocritical, not funny as in amusing): I've seen too many instances where advocates of "local control" suddenly impose restrictions on local control when they happen to achieve broader power and are able to implement their policy goals. It was never really about local control, it was about winning by any means available.

Re: Congress Is Woefully Unprepared to Regulate Tech

#30

Post by lapcat »

gameman144 wrote: post #26
lapcat wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd ask you to consider that this might be a sign of the exact opposite, and that we can't get broad buy-in on the things that some groups see as obvious additions. Polls show that we do have broad buy-in on a number of issues, sometimes across partisan lines, but the way the system is designed, a small minority can block almost any action. Also, the leaders of both major political parties often act against the des…

> but the way the system is designed, a small minority can block almost any action. Again, this is a feature, not a bug. If over three-quarters of states or representatives can agree, then an amendment can get passed. If over a quarter of states or representatives don't want to codify something in the constitution, that is not a small minority. > How exactly are you interpreting that? I'm not interpreting that portio…

> If over a quarter of states or representatives don't want to codify something in the constitution, that is not a small minority.

I'd say that 25% of states is a small minority of states, but in any case that's ignoring the population of states, which vary dramatically (California 39M, Wyoming 580K). 25% of the states is not necessarily 25% of the US population; it's possibly much smaller than 25%.

> Every single person in the US today has the benefit of freedom of speech, for instance

Except that our beloved Supreme Court (which has been revealed to be blatantly corrupt) has decided that money is speech, thereby allowing the wealthy to simply purchase our elected representatives.

Post reply on HN