4 ms·

Who would you expect to do better than Congress in making those decisions, and through what process would they jointly make those decisions? (I'm genuinely curi

Who would you expect to do better than Congress in making those decisions, and through what process would they jointly make those decisions? (I'm genuinely curious, because I can think of three or four different ways to go in policy-making to respond to your concerns, but I think I'll understand your point better if I thoughtfully read your suggestion about different approaches to making decisions about those issues.)

larrys 12y ago
I like the question you are posing. Parent comment is interesting given this regarding the internet: (per wikipedia) "In 1992, the U.S. Congress passed the Scientific and Advanced-Technology Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1862(g), which allowed NSF to support access by the research and education communities to computer networks which were not used exclusively for research and education purposes, thus permitting NSFNET to interconnect with commercial networks.[47][48] This caused controversy within the research and education community, who were concerned commercial use of the network might lead to an Internet that was less responsive to their needs, and within the community of commercial network providers, who felt that government subsidies were giving an unfair advantage to some organizations" Obviously Congress doesn't always get it right. Edit: This was a case where they did, right? But a blanket "that's the problem" make no sense either. I'm reminded of this every time I see a "man on the street" interview talk about the issue of the day in which is their opinion seems to be formed from something they overhead from someone in the coffee shop or something they read in the local paper. Because for sure we just want those people using their great data source to form policy. I mean why don't we just vote on each and every issue out there. Because ordinary people are definitely qualified to digest and come to the right conclusion. (Or better yet hey just crowdsource or wisdom of the crowds because it's the answer to everything).
j2kun 12y ago
Delegate to institutions populated with experts and actually listen to the advice of those experts.
- AndrewKemendo 12y ago
  Do you mean that congress and the executive branch should delegate? If so they largely do in the form of think tanks, policy centers and research groups like RAND. I know that there are a lot of big decisions that came from those organizations, one of the best examples of this is Team B [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_B http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_B
  - j2kun 12y ago
    Then why do I keep seeing Senate committee hearings where the Congress representatives are completely uninformed and challenge the people that come to speak to them? (about climate change, how the internet works, etc.)
    - AndrewKemendo 12y ago
      Because it is a show?
      - mpyne 12y ago
        It's exactly this. Congress in front of cameras is far, far different than Congress behind closed doors. The thing people sort of gloss over for politicians is the Cantor Effect: These guys normally actually need to get re-elected, or elected in higher offices. They have to appease their base, even if that means asking stupid questions they already know the answers to. FDR had a saying which I'm probably misquoting, "I like your idea, it's the right thing to do. I want to do it. Now go make me do it." You make politicians do stuff by convincing their base of support.
- A_COMPUTER 12y ago
  I believe both modern China and fascist Italy did something like this, with a "stakeholder" model (corporatism, social and commercial groups of interest to government have a seat at the table) of governance. I'm not slyly trying to bash the idea through negative connotations, but if it's similar I wonder if we could learn from them. I can think of a few downsides, but there are upsides too.

larrys 12y ago

I like the question you are posing. Parent comment is interesting given this regarding the internet: (per wikipedia) "In 1992, the U.S. Congress passed the Scientific and Advanced-Technology Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1862(g), which allowed NSF to support access by the research and education communities to computer networks which were not used exclusively for research and education purposes, thus permitting NSFNET to interconnect with commercial networks.[47][48] This caused controversy within the research and education community, who were concerned commercial use of the network might lead to an Internet that was less responsive to their needs, and within the community of commercial network providers, who felt that government subsidies were giving an unfair advantage to some organizations" Obviously Congress doesn't always get it right. Edit: This was a case where they did, right? But a blanket "that's the problem" make no sense either. I'm reminded of this every time I see a "man on the street" interview talk about the issue of the day in which is their opinion seems to be formed from something they overhead from someone in the coffee shop or something they read in the local paper. Because for sure we just want those people using their great data source to form policy. I mean why don't we just vote on each and every issue out there. Because ordinary people are definitely qualified to digest and come to the right conclusion. (Or better yet hey just crowdsource or wisdom of the crowds because it's the answer to everything).

j2kun 12y ago

Delegate to institutions populated with experts and actually listen to the advice of those experts.

AndrewKemendo 12y ago
Do you mean that congress and the executive branch should delegate? If so they largely do in the form of think tanks, policy centers and research groups like RAND. I know that there are a lot of big decisions that came from those organizations, one of the best examples of this is Team B [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_B http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_B
- j2kun 12y ago
  Then why do I keep seeing Senate committee hearings where the Congress representatives are completely uninformed and challenge the people that come to speak to them? (about climate change, how the internet works, etc.)
  - AndrewKemendo 12y ago
    Because it is a show?
    - mpyne 12y ago
      It's exactly this. Congress in front of cameras is far, far different than Congress behind closed doors. The thing people sort of gloss over for politicians is the Cantor Effect: These guys normally actually need to get re-elected, or elected in higher offices. They have to appease their base, even if that means asking stupid questions they already know the answers to. FDR had a saying which I'm probably misquoting, "I like your idea, it's the right thing to do. I want to do it. Now go make me do it." You make politicians do stuff by convincing their base of support.
A_COMPUTER 12y ago
I believe both modern China and fascist Italy did something like this, with a "stakeholder" model (corporatism, social and commercial groups of interest to government have a seat at the table) of governance. I'm not slyly trying to bash the idea through negative connotations, but if it's similar I wonder if we could learn from them. I can think of a few downsides, but there are upsides too.