[LINK] The net according to Cerf (at Davos)

[Rick Welykochy]

Stewart Fist wrote:
> Howard writes:
> 
> 
>> We need the legislators - to impose serviceability requirements on
>> computer users and to enforce ISPs to police those laws.  It would have
>> a spin-on effect of generating service work in the IT industry, and
>> should be linked to the licencing of IT practitioners.
> 
> <large snip>
> 
>> Flatter government, not fatter government; abolish the Australian states.
> 
> 
> How do you reconcile these two statements ?

In Howard's defense, I would say that

(a) flatter government does not mean we do not enact further desperately
     needed legislation; and
(b) flatter government implies less bureaucracy imho, not less legislation; and
     finally
(c) flatter government could well mean less "unneeded" legislation.

Regarding point (c), a respected judge in Canada reviewed the Canadian Criminal
Code back in the 1970's (or so) and found it could be reduced easily to 1/10th
of its current size. It would take a lot of will and a lot of rewriting to do so.
Why for example is there a law outlawing the pilfering of lobster from lobster
traps?

cheers
rickw


-- 
_________________________________
Rick Welykochy || Praxis Services

People who enjoy eating sausage and obey the law should not watch either being made.
      -- Otto von Bismarck