
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Code, Law, and Spontaneous Order</title>
	<atom:link href="http://techliberation.com/2008/04/24/code-law-and-spontaneous-order/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://techliberation.com/2008/04/24/code-law-and-spontaneous-order/</link>
	<description>Keeping politicians&#039; hands off the Net &#38; everything else related to technology</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:51:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adam Thierer</title>
		<link>http://techliberation.com/2008/04/24/code-law-and-spontaneous-order/comment-page-1/#comment-51271</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam Thierer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:19:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techliberation.com/?p=10708#comment-51271</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Great post, Tim. Broadly speaking, I think your Hayekian point about how &quot;it often will not be possible to even predict, much less control, how the technology will be used in practice,&quot; is probably the most over-looked facet of this debate on the pro-NN side of the things. That and the fact that many NN advocates seem to have a sort of blind faith in government bureaucracies to create &quot;simple rules&quot; for something as complex as the Internet; or their belief that these rules that won&#039;t have the witness the same sort of &quot;regulatory creep&quot; we&#039;ve seen in so many other arenas (ex: broadcast industry regulation). This is the &quot;leap of faith&quot; I always talk about when debating Net neutrality with friends on the Left. Any government agency empowered to control the technical infrastructure of a given media or communications medium will eventually seek to regulate the speech and commerce delivered over that platform as well.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great post, Tim. Broadly speaking, I think your Hayekian point about how &#8220;it often will not be possible to even predict, much less control, how the technology will be used in practice,&#8221; is probably the most over-looked facet of this debate on the pro-NN side of the things. That and the fact that many NN advocates seem to have a sort of blind faith in government bureaucracies to create &#8220;simple rules&#8221; for something as complex as the Internet; or their belief that these rules that won&#8217;t have the witness the same sort of &#8220;regulatory creep&#8221; we&#8217;ve seen in so many other arenas (ex: broadcast industry regulation). This is the &#8220;leap of faith&#8221; I always talk about when debating Net neutrality with friends on the Left. Any government agency empowered to control the technical infrastructure of a given media or communications medium will eventually seek to regulate the speech and commerce delivered over that platform as well.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adam Thierer</title>
		<link>http://techliberation.com/2008/04/24/code-law-and-spontaneous-order/comment-page-1/#comment-41299</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam Thierer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:19:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techliberation.com/?p=10708#comment-41299</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Great post, Tim. Broadly speaking, I think your Hayekian point about how &quot;it often will not be possible to even predict, much less control, how the technology will be used in practice,&quot; is probably the most over-looked facet of this debate on the pro-NN side of the things. That and the fact that many NN advocates seem to have a sort of blind faith in government bureaucracies to create &quot;simple rules&quot; for something as complex as the Internet; or their belief that these rules that won&#039;t have the witness the same sort of &quot;regulatory creep&quot; we&#039;ve seen in so many other arenas (ex: broadcast industry regulation). This is the &quot;leap of faith&quot; I always talk about when debating Net neutrality with friends on the Left. Any government agency empowered to control the technical infrastructure of a given media or communications medium will eventually seek to regulate the speech and commerce delivered over that platform as well.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great post, Tim. Broadly speaking, I think your Hayekian point about how &#8220;it often will not be possible to even predict, much less control, how the technology will be used in practice,&#8221; is probably the most over-looked facet of this debate on the pro-NN side of the things. That and the fact that many NN advocates seem to have a sort of blind faith in government bureaucracies to create &#8220;simple rules&#8221; for something as complex as the Internet; or their belief that these rules that won&#8217;t have the witness the same sort of &#8220;regulatory creep&#8221; we&#8217;ve seen in so many other arenas (ex: broadcast industry regulation). This is the &#8220;leap of faith&#8221; I always talk about when debating Net neutrality with friends on the Left. Any government agency empowered to control the technical infrastructure of a given media or communications medium will eventually seek to regulate the speech and commerce delivered over that platform as well.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Don Marti</title>
		<link>http://techliberation.com/2008/04/24/code-law-and-spontaneous-order/comment-page-1/#comment-51270</link>
		<dc:creator>Don Marti</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 01:03:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techliberation.com/?p=10708#comment-51270</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was law.  Many of the &quot;code is law&quot; design choices are similar: they can cause big effects without necessarily implementing the lawmaker&#039;s intent.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was law.  Many of the &#8220;code is law&#8221; design choices are similar: they can cause big effects without necessarily implementing the lawmaker&#8217;s intent.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Don Marti</title>
		<link>http://techliberation.com/2008/04/24/code-law-and-spontaneous-order/comment-page-1/#comment-41294</link>
		<dc:creator>Don Marti</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:03:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techliberation.com/?p=10708#comment-41294</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was law.  Many of the &quot;code is law&quot; design choices are similar: they can cause big effects without necessarily implementing the lawmaker&#039;s intent.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was law.  Many of the &#8220;code is law&#8221; design choices are similar: they can cause big effects without necessarily implementing the lawmaker&#8217;s intent.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

