Slashdot Mirror
Political Issues of the Tech Community?
DonJefe68 asks: "I'm planning to create a website which lists the political positions that US House and Senate candidates here in North Carolina have on issues of concern to the tech community. There are obvious issues like the DMCA and Fritz Hollings' CBDTPA as well as issues such as the effect of the economy on the tech sector and the USA PATRIOT Act's privacy concerns. What national issues other than intellectual property, privacy and jobs are we interested in?" Are there other sites that track politician votes, on technical issues, for other US States or on a national level? For those readers who do not live in the US, please feel free to speak your mind on this topic or on political issues that affect you as well.
I think it's great that you want to be more active. God knows that was my goal when I put together poliglut a couple years ago.
I started out with more of a tech angle, but decided that the problem with the country was a more general lack of education. The people who would seek out your site regarding DMCA and it's ilk are probably going to find out what's going on anyway. So you will be putting out a lot of effort for not so much return.
I would instead encourage you to find a way to put the word out about the importance of those issues in a mainstream web site. This effort is less likely to be wasted as there is an almost total vacuum outside of a few in the tech community concerning tech issues. (which makes sense of course or the legislation wouldn't be written in the first place).
And, of course, you are welcome to write stuff, or republish stuff at poliglut.
Rather than random invective, perhaps you can present a rational argument (any rational argument) why we would possibly consider the opinions of people in other countries in deciding what to do within the US?
How about: because this planet isn't all that large, because we have to live with the rest of the world and because our actions affect the rest of the world and theirs affect us?
Note that "considering the opinions" of someone is not the same as "taking orders" from them.
Actively seeking to understand the world's view of us and our policies and trying to choose courses of action that will allow us to live harmoniously with the rest of the world, where possible, is good policy. And it doesn't preclude us deciding to do something no one else likes -- it just keeps us aware of the implications of those one-sided decisions.
After all, the best, and most rational approach to taking care of your own includes serious consideration of how others will react to your actions. My kids may think it would be really nice to have a swimming pool, and robbing a bank would be a quick and easy route to raising the money, but I'd be well-advised to consider the opinions of a few others before I go do it...
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
If you believe you have an obligation to fund it, cut a check to the Treasury of whatever government you choose. Most tax-collecting agencies have means through which citizens can say "Here, in addition to the money your laws already tell me I owe you, I'd like you to freely give you some more." Research them and pay whatever you think they deserve.
> The more tax-free money spent on the internet = less money to fund services that affect your daily life.
The more tax-free money spent on the internet, the less money to fund pork-barrel programs that don't affect your daily life.
> Taxes are always a necessary evil.
Fair enough, but who defines what level of taxation is "necessary", and how to ensure that every tax dollar collected goes towards necessary expenditures? Do you seriously believe that every dollar collected goes towards fixing potholes and protecting you from crime?
Frankly, given the number of state employees involved in $DUMB_IDEA (At the municipal level, Republicans would find "diversity initiatives" a dumb idea, Democrats would find "shutting down nightclubs due to Ecstasy scares" dumb idea, and Libertarians would find both to be dumb ideas :), I'd say the less tax money the government - any government - has to waste, the better.
The way to cut down on government waste is to starve it at the source. Anything less is like giving a 40-oz bottle of Stoli to a lifetime alcoholic every day, and expecting him to kick the habit.