<?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"
	>
<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>The real problem is not whether machines think but whether men do.</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jul 2008 02:32:33 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Adam Thierer</title>
		<link>http://techliberation.com/2008/04/24/code-law-and-spontaneous-order/#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>Great post, Tim. Broadly speaking, I think your Hayekian point about how "it often will not be possible to even predict, much less control, how the technology will be used in practice," 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 "simple rules" for something as complex as the Internet; or their belief that these rules that won't have the witness the same sort of "regulatory creep" we've seen in so many other arenas (ex: broadcast industry regulation). This is the "leap of faith" 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.</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-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>The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was law.  Many of the "code is law" design choices are similar: they can cause big effects without necessarily implementing the lawmaker's intent.</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>
