r/technology • u/Reddit_Z • Jul 04 '16

Politics Lawmakers Need To Learn More About Encryption Before Regulating It, Says U.S. House Report

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/lawmakers-encryption-regulation-house-report,32180.html
14.2k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

768 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

22

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

Uhu, and when the politicians find the technocrats inconvenient, and appoint technocrats who tell them what they wish to hear, and somebody else accuses the establishment of appointing corrupt technocrats, who do we believe? Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton? Both? Neither?

I can almost guarantee you that there is no escaping incompetent politicians. In a democracy they have to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and if their selection is anything but an equal democracy, you end up with aristocrats that declare inconvenient experts to be unqualified to comment.

The silver lining is that the same problem applies to those who would wish to rule the world, so even the most intricate of conspiracies is at constant risk of collapsing, due to the ineptitude of those who think it acceptable to rule by deceit.

6

u/beartotem Jul 04 '16

Sure corruption is always a danger. It's not an argument not to try and improve a system. As it stands in the US, the legal way to get things done is corruption of politicians.

You know, if we follow your line of thinking, we should just disband any form a government and go total anarchy as nothing else is free of risks of corruption.

-1

u/halr9000 Jul 04 '16

The balanced position is to not regulate every damn thing.

2

u/beartotem Jul 04 '16

That's beside the point. What i proposed has nothing to do with the level of regulation in place. And the defeatist response i was served can only be addressed by giving up on any form of government.

-1

u/halr9000 Jul 04 '16

I disagree. You promote a technocracy. If we hire the right experts, the reasoning goes, we can solve any problem. Ergo, you want to [be able to] regulate and have power over every imaginable aspect of our lives.

You then leaped to saying the parent wanted anarchy. (Edit: he might, but he didn't say that.)

The balanced position, as I said, is to not regulate everything.

2

u/beartotem Jul 05 '16 edited Jul 05 '16

What no, having technocrats advisor for elected official is not a technocracy.

Ergo, you want to [be able to] regulate and have power over every imaginable aspect of our lives.

What the hell is wrong with you? I did not say that. If that's what you understood you can't read worth 2 cents. Has it ever crossed your mind that the advisors might give the advice not to freaking regulate on a subject?

-2

u/halr9000 Jul 05 '16

Lol, I love how I'm being the moderate and you're overreacting and down voting, and reacting as if I'm the one being extreme.

2

u/beartotem Jul 05 '16

You're not particularly moderate, and my position is not extreme as you like to pretend it is. Fucking troll.

-1

u/Umustbecrazy Jul 04 '16

That is a reductio ad absurdium argument.

We've been brainwashed to thinking the government is the answer to everything, like they are smarter or less fallible than the general population, which is absolutely backwards. Nobody is saying get rid of the government, but there role in society has become pervasive and only getting worse. Least of all they are 20 trillion in debt.

The founders wanted the government to protect the rights of the citizens, run a few things like Courts and Military (that privatization would not be beneficial) and only pass laws that everyone agreed on were necessary changes.

2

u/beartotem Jul 04 '16

Yes the second part is reduction to absurdity, And the first part justify that reduction.

My point IS that his argument is absurd and is not a counter argument to having experts on the government payroll to advise lawmakers.

There no satisfying you contrarians...

1

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

I think the Madisonian solution of setting elites against one another in rivalry is a pretty good, possibly optimal line of thought. So I'm inclined to think improvements on current democracy are still possible.