Congress Is Woefully Unprepared to Regulate Tech
1–10 of 44 posts
Re: Congress Is Woefully Unprepared to Regulate Tech
#2Potential solutions mentioned in the article.
Re: Congress Is Woefully Unprepared to Regulate Tech
#3They're not much better at regulating anything else, for that matter.
Re: Congress Is Woefully Unprepared to Regulate Tech
#4On the edge of political rules for the site; and blunt cynicism.
Congress seems woefully unprepared to regulate X; Committees have limited effectiveness; even if some members carefully listened to all testimony; partisan gridlock at present would be a limiting factor over the last 10 years.
- Privacy Laws; Congress proposed laws including device manufacturers giving encryption certificates to the government; at a similar time where leaked NSA tools have become the primary tool of Ransomware.
- Agriculture; The conclusion is generally that farm subsidies, ethanol subsidies aren't based on what's good for the country or energy efficiency, but one of the first primary caucuses.
- Immigration; Decades of high numbers of h2b (migrant) visas with no path to citizenship for DREAMers; Inflation partly caused by lack of workers thanks to a large retiring generation (and lower average life expectancy), while legal immigration limits keep potential workers from legal jobs.
Re: Congress Is Woefully Unprepared to Regulate Tech
#5> Congress Is Woefully Unprepared to do anything
Fixed if for you.
Unless it's giving themselves a raise of course.
Re: Congress Is Woefully Unprepared to Regulate Tech
#6> Congress Is Woefully Unprepared to do anything Fixed if for you. Unless it's giving themselves a raise of course.
The founding fathers would tell you that this is a feature, not a bug. They really didn't want it to be easy for the federal government to do much. The states were meant to hold most of the power as they were closer to the people.
Re: Congress Is Woefully Unprepared to Regulate Tech
#7> Congress Is Woefully Unprepared to do anything Fixed if for you. Unless it's giving themselves a raise of course.
The founding fathers would tell you that this is a feature, not a bug. They really didn't want it to be easy for the federal government to do much. The states were meant to hold most of the power as they were closer to the people.
Which seems good to me. California has been leading the way on this, passing laws ranging from requiring diversity quotas on corporate boards to its own privacy legislation.
To me, it doesn't make sense to have very many laws that apply nationally because people lead such completely different lives depending on where they live in the country. e.g. a person living in San Francisco leads a wildly different life than someone in rural Montana, and passing laws that both people actually _want_ is difficult.
The more granular and narrowly scoped laws are, the better, in my opinion.
Re: Congress Is Woefully Unprepared to Regulate Tech
#8> Congress Is Woefully Unprepared to do anything Fixed if for you. Unless it's giving themselves a raise of course.
The founding fathers would tell you that this is a feature, not a bug. They really didn't want it to be easy for the federal government to do much. The states were meant to hold most of the power as they were closer to the people.
> The founding fathers would tell you
Why should we care in the 21st century? The founders weren't omniscient, benevolent gods. They were just wealthy landowners looking out for their own interests — it's crucial to note that they ignored over half the population of the colonies, i.e., women and black people — and they borrowed the majority of their (now long outdated) ideas from 17th century British philosopher John Locke.
The US Constitution is woefully unprepared for the present and future.
Re: Congress Is Woefully Unprepared to Regulate Tech
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
The founding fathers would tell you that this is a feature, not a bug. They really didn't want it to be easy for the federal government to do much. The states were meant to hold most of the power as they were closer to the people.
> The founding fathers would tell you Why should we care in the 21st century? The founders weren't omniscient, benevolent gods. They were just wealthy landowners looking out for their own interests — it's crucial to note that they ignored over half the population of the colonies, i.e., women and black people — and they borrowed the majority of their (now long outdated) ideas from 17th century British philosopher John…
I disagree. They had a lot of great ideas for the prevention of tyranny. They weren't perfect, and some parts of the Constitution as originally ratified were simply a product of reaching a compromise that both Northern and Southern states would both be on board with.
The beauty of the Constitution is that it can be changed via amendments, but it is intentionally resistant to change to ensure proper debate and compromise so that it benefits the country as a whole.
Re: Congress Is Woefully Unprepared to Regulate Tech
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The founding fathers would tell you Why should we care in the 21st century? The founders weren't omniscient, benevolent gods. They were just wealthy landowners looking out for their own interests — it's crucial to note that they ignored over half the population of the colonies, i.e., women and black people — and they borrowed the majority of their (now long outdated) ideas from 17th century British philosopher John…
I disagree. They had a lot of great ideas for the prevention of tyranny. They weren't perfect, and some parts of the Constitution as originally ratified were simply a product of reaching a compromise that both Northern and Southern states would both be on board with. The beauty of the Constitution is that it can be changed via amendments, but it is intentionally resistant to change to ensure proper debate and comprom…
> They had a lot of great ideas for the prevention of tyranny.
c/had/borrowed
> some parts of the Constitution as originally ratified were simply a product of reaching a compromise that both Northern and Southern states would both be on board with.
A compromise that didn't even work well or last, as violently evidenced by the Civil War.
> The beauty of the Constitution is that it can be changed via amendments
In the past hundred years, it's only been amended eight times. One of those was to repeal a previous amendment (alcohol prohibition). Three of the eight are related to Presidential terms and succession. Another one, the last amendment in 1992, was about Congressional salaries. The last substantial amendment, over 50 years ago, lowered the voting age to 18.
Amendments to the Constitution have become practically nonexistent.
> it benefits the country as a whole
The Constitution never benefited the country as a whole, as I already explained in my previous comment.