3 ms·

I know more about the internet and web than the congressman who are regulating it, so why should they get to pass rules they know nothing about? The answer? Th

by socrates1998 13y ago

I know more about the internet and web than the congressman who are regulating it, so why should they get to pass rules they know nothing about? The answer? They shouldn't. Congress is less than useless. They are harming us. They are not governing, they are parasites living off the work of others.

dllthomas 13y ago
You may know more about the internet and web than Congress, but you are not typical. I would wager heavily that the staffers involved with these issues are in the top 15% in terms of their familiarity with the issues they work on. I'd wager a little that we can put a tighter bound. With direct popular vote, we'd be regulated by people around the median. This is not to say nothing else could be made to work, or mightn't work better, but your sophistry is unbecoming.
- socrates1998 13y ago
  >You may know more about the internet and web than Congress, but you are not typical. You are probably right about this, but why do the Senators WHO ARE IN CHARGE OF REGULATING not know more? It's a joke. A subversion of proper governance and democratic principles. Because like you said >I would wager heavily that the staffers involved with these issues are in the top 15% in terms of their familiarity with the issues they work on. So, did you elect these staffers? No. They are unelected and heavily corrupted by the influence of lobbyists and big corporate donors.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    "You are probably right about this, but why do the Senators WHO ARE IN CHARGE OF REGULATING not know more?" ... because they are also in charge of regulating workplace behavior and taxation and immigration policy and forestry and environmental protection and on and on... One individual cannot know more about everything than does a specialist in the field - that's why we have specialists! You're specializing in (I'm guessing) software and networking. They're specializing in legislating and management. If they're communicating well and properly doing their job, this is a better system than asking you to regulate the internet and treaties regarding overfishing off the Aleutians. "So, did you elect these staffers? No. They are unelected and heavily corrupted by the influence of lobbyists and big corporate donors." They are not themselves elected, but they are hired and managed by an elected official whose performance is - in large part - a proxy for the performance of the staffers. There is nothing inherently wrong with delegation and specialization - that's how we get shit done. Corruption - overt and otherwise - is certainly an issue. It is an issue whether it involves staffers or the politician directly, and it is probably a strong argument for a more democratized approach, but is unrelated to the question of domain knowledge.

dllthomas 13y ago

You may know more about the internet and web than Congress, but you are not typical. I would wager heavily that the staffers involved with these issues are in the top 15% in terms of their familiarity with the issues they work on. I'd wager a little that we can put a tighter bound. With direct popular vote, we'd be regulated by people around the median. This is not to say nothing else could be made to work, or mightn't work better, but your sophistry is unbecoming.

socrates1998 13y ago
>You may know more about the internet and web than Congress, but you are not typical. You are probably right about this, but why do the Senators WHO ARE IN CHARGE OF REGULATING not know more? It's a joke. A subversion of proper governance and democratic principles. Because like you said >I would wager heavily that the staffers involved with these issues are in the top 15% in terms of their familiarity with the issues they work on. So, did you elect these staffers? No. They are unelected and heavily corrupted by the influence of lobbyists and big corporate donors.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  "You are probably right about this, but why do the Senators WHO ARE IN CHARGE OF REGULATING not know more?" ... because they are also in charge of regulating workplace behavior and taxation and immigration policy and forestry and environmental protection and on and on... One individual cannot know more about everything than does a specialist in the field - that's why we have specialists! You're specializing in (I'm guessing) software and networking. They're specializing in legislating and management. If they're communicating well and properly doing their job, this is a better system than asking you to regulate the internet and treaties regarding overfishing off the Aleutians. "So, did you elect these staffers? No. They are unelected and heavily corrupted by the influence of lobbyists and big corporate donors." They are not themselves elected, but they are hired and managed by an elected official whose performance is - in large part - a proxy for the performance of the staffers. There is nothing inherently wrong with delegation and specialization - that's how we get shit done. Corruption - overt and otherwise - is certainly an issue. It is an issue whether it involves staffers or the politician directly, and it is probably a strong argument for a more democratized approach, but is unrelated to the question of domain knowledge.