By "get out of the way where they can't" I mean that the government should simply forfeit its authority and say that this is a realm of commerce or activity whe

By "get out of the way where they can't" I mean that the government should simply forfeit its authority and say that this is a realm of commerce or activity where there is no need for government intervention. Not that they should "get out of the way" by creating technocratic bodies. I agree wholeheartedly that congress has completely abdicated their duty and actively refuses to wield power directly. Regarding deferring to the president, there are two approaches to that, one is to create rule-making bodies that are associated with the executive, and the other is to directly legislate to make clear what things are illegal. The former approach is flawed for many reasons, but most notably because a regulatory body will always focus its efforts on "pre-crime"; to try to guarantee that it is structurally impossible to commit a crime, rather than trying and convicting individuals or organizations with crimes. Once this process is captured, it serves only as a moat for existing players in the space, to prevent new organizations from arising that offer innovation in that space by forcing them to structure their businesses in the "industry-standard" way. And they will spend the remainder of their time trying to create structures within their realm to enforce legibility. The latter approach (laws -> enforcement) is fine. It allows discretion around the margins and forces accountability for causing harm, or, in some narrow cases, from dangerous recklessness in areas that have a great deal of potential harm in the tails.