Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (49381)	6/7/2002 1:50:33 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 82486

Obviously you read the post you are responding to; but feel free to continue returning to the "fed storm trouper" rant. I never once questioned the need to protect children yet "you feel free to continue" suggesting that I'm soft on pedophiles or uncaring about the welfare of children or some such. I repeated and repeated my fed storm trooper rant because you didn't seem to be hearing my message that the feds should not be in that business. It seems to be moving the discussion nowhere, but you must have a reason for that. I do have a reason for that. My reason is that, while you're focused on the children, I'm focused on effective government policy. I'm an old policy wonk. It is important to me that government do things as well as possible. In one of your posts, you commented that most people would want to have the feds act to protect children in cyberspace. You're right. They probably would. But "most people" don't know enough about how government works to appreciate what is an appropriate distribution of functions so they don't think about where a function should be located. I do. I used to do that for a living. Most people just want to feel that someone is doing something to protect children and they are oblivious to the implications of how that is done. I'm not oblivious to how a function is organized. And I am giving you my best professional judgment that the role you're suggesting for the feds is not a good idea. The federal government works poorly if at all when given inappropriate tasks to do. So, my "storm trooper" message was simply that, although we all want to see children protected, what you are suggesting is not done best by the feds. I would, instead, support it being done by a more appropriate entity. That's my reason for that.