In the wake of a series of high-profile cyberattacks, the world has had to respond to concerns about security issues surrounding critical vulnerabilities.
The attacks have hit multiple sectors with far-reaching implications. CNA Financial, a major commercial insurance firm, was recently hit by a massive ransomware attack, crippling its operations until a ransom was paid. In a separate incident, ransomware infected Colonial Pipeline, a fuel pipeline supplying a large portion of the eastern United States, leading to fuel shortages and economic disruption. In an additional instance, hackers attacked the Irish Department of Health, and the system has yet to be restored.
It has become apparent that in a day of cloud computing, artificial intelligence, mobile apps, and automated industry, the economy and society are tied directly into the cyber world across every sector. Consequently, cybersecurity has become more important than ever as criminal actors work harder and harder to exploit the vulnerabilities of a digitally connected world.
Cybersecurity advancements are ultimately a question of who can innovate faster—the good actors versus the bad actors. On the one hand, bad actors exploit security vulnerabilities by using innovative methods to compromise security. On the other hand, cybersecurity developers have the task of trying to stay one step ahead of the cybercriminals. These innovations require aggressive and dynamic steps to beat the hackers at their own game.
However, cybercriminals have an advantage over their cybersecurity counterparts that can often be overlooked. When they run their criminal operations, it is needless to say that they do not generally subject themselves to government policies that might burden legitimate businesses, such as paying high taxes and complying with business regulations. This gives cybercriminals an advantage.
Much of this discussion is similar to the problems with restricting law-abiding citizens from gun ownership. If the law-abiding citizens are restricted from what guns they can defend themselves with, criminals will naturally just violate those same gun laws in order to arm themselves for criminal acts.
In the same way, it is important to note that many of these cybercriminals are members of sophisticated criminal organizations that freely leverage their illegal operating practices to get an edge over their cybersecurity counterparts. While cybersecurity firms are dealing with burdensome policy hurdles such as high taxes, long regulatory approvals, and red tape, cybercriminals can operate with reckless abandon as long they are able to evade law enforcement.
In the wake of cybersecurity compromises, it is easy for government policy to try to intervene and quickly provide short-term proposals for long-term problems by demanding that companies meet certain cybersecurity standards.
Nevertheless, it is unlikely that such standards will likely be able to solve the problem fully. Regulations cannot provide a lasting solution to the dynamic world of cybersecurity. Even those companies that may be fully “government compliant” can still be vastly compromised on the cybersecurity level if they are just trying to meet minimum government standards.
While there have been many calls for expanded government involvement in cybersecurity, the vast nature of the problem gives the government a very low chance of being able to fill the gap on its own.
From a public policy perspective, it is vital to look at the bigger picture. State and national policies should be implemented to encourage innovation itself through regulatory reforms like regulatory sandboxes.
From the business policy angle, policies should be enacted that make it easier for start-ups to launch than before -including start-up cybersecurity firms. This not only lowers the policy burdens placed on cybersecurity firms and expands the amount of economic growth. It catalyzes the variation that is essential to maintain a cybersecurity ecosystem that can quickly evolve and respond to emerging threats.
New companies bring new innovations and ideas to the table. This adds to the arsenal of available security tools.
Implementing policies that promote a business-friendly environment has true potential for greater growth and advancement that carries promises of a more secure cyber-ecosystem. While regulations, tax burdens, and other barriers to tech start-ups may have been overlooked as an issue that affects the United States' ability to have strong cybersecurity, the top-down effects can be felt across every sector.
When market forces are permitted to work freely, the free society will continually develop stronger means to protect itself. This is no less true in the cybersecurity sector. An unhindered free market has the real capability to bring even more strength into the cybersecurity sector and lead the fight to out-innovate malicious cybercriminals.
I’m Matthew Nicaud, the Tech Policy Specialist at MCPP, and your host for the Tech Talks interview series. In our Tech Talks, we engage with tech leaders, policy makers, and entrepreneurs to discuss the tech world in the Magnolia state and promote public thought on key tech issues.
I recently had the pleasure of interviewing Senator Angela Hill. We discussed a variety of engaging issues related to innovation and the promotion of free market policies. Senator Hill serves as the Chair of the County Affairs Committee and the Vice-chair of the Accountability, Efficiency, Transparency Committee.
Senator Hill recently introduced two bills, SB2976, and SB2975. These bills would create platforms for innovation. Known as a “regulatory sandbox,” these platforms would allow innovators to introduce their innovations to the market without being suppressed by heavy-handed regulations.
These bills would be among the first of their kind in Mississippi and would lay a pathway for innovators to increase opportunity in the state. We recently interviewed Senator Hill to discuss these bills and how they would impact innovation in Mississippi.
Senator Angela Hill: Innovation is a critical part of maintaining a competitive economy and expanding opportunities. An economy that stagnates will decline. If the state government regulates innovators so much that they can’t even grow and test their ideas, then there is little opportunity for growth. Measured deregulation is an economic development issue as much as it is a regulatory issue. Instead of setting up more state programs, the state should get out of the way and let hard-working Mississippians generate prosperity in an open economy.
By definition, innovation is new and disruptive to the status quo in a positive way. New innovations often allow for new job opportunities, solve problems, lead to greater efficiency, and generate business growth. This is incredibly beneficial from an economic perspective. Despite all these benefits, regulators sometimes misunderstand innovators. This can lead to companies being forced to fulfill complex and burdensome regulations that stifle innovation.
For instance, Vizaline is a prime example of the state of Mississippi stifling innovation through an overzealous regulatory board that brings suits against private companies in a crony protectionist fashion. Vizaline uses publicly available land descriptions to create a geospatial rendering of property parcels through computer software. After years of litigation, the suit against Vizaline cost state taxpayers and this innovative company a lot of money. Additionally, this same board unsuccessfully sued another company prior to Vizaline, and the taxpayer was on the hook for this large bill too.
The board eventually conceded the case and changed the regulations in favor of Vizaline. Vizaline now operates in multiple states across the Southeast, yet it is troubling that the legal battle had to happen in their home state of Mississippi. This speaks volumes about why we desperately need regulatory reform in this state. We have plenty of anti-competitive statutes on the books that we need to get rid of as well as a sound check on these burdensome regulatory boards. The regulatory sandbox is a step in the right direction. We need more small business innovators to be welcomed, not hindered. Government just needs to get out of the way of innovation.
There should be safeguards in place that allow Mississippi innovators to develop their innovations and build more successful businesses. To that end, I am advocating for practical solutions that lower the regulatory burden in our state. These practical solutions address the issue through policies such as regulatory repeal, occupational licensing reforms, and regulatory sandboxes.
Matthew: What is a regulatory sandbox?
Senator Hill: It is the key solution I am using to be proactive in making Mississippi innovation-friendly. A “regulatory sandbox” program grants a waiver to the program participants, allowing them to be exempt from any unnecessary regulatory requirements while developing an innovation. I introduced two bills that put this proposal forward.
The first bill was SB2975. This bill had a particular focus on allowing for innovation in the energy sector. This would include energy management software systems, energy trading via blockchain, energy efficiency development, and other energy innovations. Although energy sandboxes have been allowed under limited circumstances in other states, Mississippi would be one of the first states to implement a regulatory platform that accommodates energy innovators actively.
The second bill was SB2976. This bill takes a broader approach and allows any innovator from any industry to be exempt from unnecessary regulations over a specified period of time during the innovation development. This would be groundbreaking legislation. A similar measure was just successfully implemented in Utah, and it received a robustly positive response from entrepreneurs in the state. There are so many Mississippi innovators that have ideas to bring to the table. We should make it easy for them to put their ideas to work by not smothering them with regulations.
Matthew: How would regulatory sandboxes benefit everyday Mississippians?
Senator Hill: Regulatory sandboxes would help by encouraging innovation to happen right here in our home state. The people of this state want to see new businesses and ideas happening in their own communities and not just in faraway corporate offices. By having regulatory sandboxes, we are providing a platform for everyday Mississippians to have a chance at pursuing their bright ideas.
Another thing to consider is the small business angle. According to the Small Business Administration, 99 percent of Mississippi businesses are small businesses. When you look at innovation development from a small business owner's perspective, many don’t have the resources necessary to meet complex regulatory requirements. Sure, big companies can often afford to meet all the excessive regulatory requirements that it takes to get their innovations approved. But even big businesses are leaving states like California that make it difficult for their innovators. In order for innovation to expand in Mississippi, state policy has to protect innovators from unnecessary regulatory obstacles.
Matthew: Could regulatory sandboxes potentially make Mississippi more economically competitive with other states?
Senator Hill: Absolutely. Regulatory sandbox programs have been successful in several states across the country and around the world. States with regulatory sandboxes have seen a consistent track record of growth and development across multiple economic sectors. For instance, several states have instituted regulatory sandboxes in the financial technology sector. They have seen companies coming to do business because of that freedom to explore technology concepts without the burden of unnecessary regulation. Other successful regulatory sandboxes that have allowed for innovation include insurance, energy, and legal services. The model has been extremely popular with start-up companies that don’t have the amount of capital it would take to meet complex regulatory requirements.
When businesses consider whether they want to come to our state (or stay in our state), many will look at how friendly we are to innovation. Other states are welcoming them with open arms. Why should Mississippi be left behind? By allowing innovators to set up shop in our state, Mississippi has the potential to tremendously grow as businesses bring their talent to the state and build our economy with their skills. This is a commonsense policy. Let’s forge ahead to make Mississippi a destination for the best and brightest innovators by removing regulatory boundaries.
You can learn more about the Mississippi Technology Institute here: https://mspolicy.org/mississippi-tech-institute/
Prohibition was ended decades ago, yet it continues to leave a lasting legacy on the state of Mississippi.
Whether you prefer beer, liquor, wine, or no alcohol at all, most folks can agree that Mississippi retains a range of laws that unfairly hamper the free market when it comes to the alcohol industry.
A range of bills seeking to open the market and expand consumer options were introduced in the legislature this year. Here is a recap of what passed and what failed:
Delivery of Alcohol from Local Liquor Stores: (Success) One can now successfully order alcohol from local liquor stores. Using Drizzly, PostMates, UberEats, or any other delivery app that provides options for the purchase of alcohol, a new permit allows for individuals to bring alcohol right to your front door.
Direct Shipment of Alcohol from Out-of-State: (Failure) While you can successfully order alcohol and have it sent to your door via an app, don’t try to order wine or liquor from out of state. Mississippi continues to bar its citizens from enjoying alcoholic beverages from other parts of the country. If you think it’s a bit unreasonable that you can have alcohol sent to your door through an app but can’t have it delivered from another state, then we’re on the same page.
Distillery Sales Expansion: (Failure) This bill would have expanded the ability of distilleries to sell drinks on their premises. The adjusted permit would have empowered distilleries to more effectively compete by selling their products on site for consumption.
Ending State Prohibition: (Failure) Mississippi is technically still a “dry” state. However, policy allows for counties to have a vote and opt to become “wet” and allow for the sale of alcohol. This process is extremely burdensome and restrictive. This legislation would have switched the procedure and made Mississippi open to the sale of alcohol unless a county otherwise voted to be “dry.”
Removal of State Monopoly on Distribution: (Failure) An attempt was made to remove the state entirely from its monopoly over the distribution of alcohol. Unfortunately, this bill failed. You may have noticed chronic shortages and limited supplies at your local liquor store. This problem largely rests with the consistently delayed, backed up, and slow distribution system.
All of Mississippi’s liquor runs through one warehouse. The warehouse represents central planning at its finest. Local stores have difficulty getting more niche drinks and orders are constantly delayed. Why our state continues its failed attempt to compete with the market by crowding out all other potential distributors continues to astound me.
The bill would have ended the state’s monopoly over distribution and created a range of permits for private businesses to step into the gap and take advantage of the new economic opportunities which are currently being stifled by the government.
This would be a win, not only for the free market and those who oppose government centralized planning but also for small businesses and consumers. Liquor stores should face less delays and back-ups and also have a wider array of options as to what they would like to stock. Consumers are more likely to see their preferred drink on the shelves and also gain access to the larger variety of drinks that could be available.
Sale of Wine at Grocery Stores: (Failure) Unfortunately a bill that would have expanded the ability for grocery stores to sell wine failed. It is likely that this continued prohibition on the sale of wine is incentivizing some businesses from entering the state market entirely.
Authorization of Microbreweries: (Success) This newly passed legislation changes the state code to allow for the authorization of microbreweries. This is a win for the free market, especially since recent statistics show that Mississippi is last in the nation for microbreweries per capita.
When it comes to alcohol, Mississippi has a long way to go in order to end its command-and-control system and establish truly free market policies. While this year’s legislative session has brought about some success regarding microbreweries and alcohol delivery, true alcohol freedom remains elusive. Hopefully, next year, we will be able to raise a glass and cheer a wider set of policy successes.
The health of the free market in Mississippi, including the technical sector, is highly influenced by the education and ability of our state workforce.
Sustainable economic development cannot be driven sufficiently by the government picking winners and losers. True economic development is grounded in a skilled population that can generate real monetary value through smart, productive work.
Thankfully, many Mississippi leaders have an applied understanding of the real value of education to encourage sustainable economic growth. For example, in order to encourage lasting economic development in growing technical sectors, the Mississippi Economic Council (MEC) has established the Mississippi Scholars Tech Master Program for high school students.
The program combines a practical emphasis on career education and community service with an academic focus on mathematics and science. This reflects a well-directed market element in education that helps prepare individual students to succeed and provide for themselves.
The program has seen great success, with participants from all 82 counties. According to MEC Senior Vice President for Foundations, Vickie Powell, there have been over 68,000 graduates since its founding.
This success has been largely made possible through MEC’s partnerships with local school districts. These partnerships give students the chance to pursue unique opportunities, with many districts even providing scholarships for the participants. In a recent interview with the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, MEC president Scott Waller noted: “The program gives students the opportunity to gain skills that will fill the jobs that are currently available. We felt like this was important to meet the needs of the workforce.”
On the other hand, economic development pursued through government interference in the free market creates an economic atmosphere that only has the limited scope of government priorities. An economic development agenda based on redistributing taxpayer dollars does not have long-term sustainability.
This coincides with several studies that have noted the anemic effects of redistributive economic development policies. In one such study published in the Journal of the American Planning Association, the researchers noted that “the standard justifications given for incentive policy by state and local officials, politicians, and many academics are, at best, poorly supported by the evidence.”
Economic development policies for technology and other sectors must be driven by a perspective that prioritizes long-term success over short-term results. Rather than focusing on government priorities and corporate welfare, economic development should have a free-market driven focus grounded in the development of individual skills and productivity. This is the American way, and it carries with it the paradigm for greater success, innovation, and growth in the tech sector. Hats off to MEC for helping Mississippi students follow this model.
For the past century, the United States has been in a league of her own. From the first flight and the mass production of automobiles to the advent of radio and television through to the digital revolution, almost all the great innovations have happened in America.
Europe might have been home of the world’s first industrial revolutions, with the Dutch leading the way in the 18th century and the English in the 19th. But the United States has pretty much eclipsed any European achievement ever since.
Today those living in the United States have tended to live better, longer, and more prosperous lives than people anywhere else on the planet. For all the talk of income inequality in the US today, the lowest quintile of Mississippians enjoys a standard of living beyond the reach of the richest Americans 50 years ago. Even poor Americans generally live better lives than the richest Asians and Africans – and even middle-class Europeans.
America’s success has not happened by accident. The United States did not prosper because of geography or the uniqueness of the landscape. Still less was America’s economic advance a product of exploitation and slavery, as some of the radical left insist. America’s industrial take-off happened after, not before, the abolition of slavery.
No, the thing that puts America in a league of her own is her commitment to the ideas of liberty and limited government. Her founding ideals are her secret sauce.
Yesterday, however, President Biden set out a path that would take America in a very different direction. What Biden proposes is nothing less than the “Europeanization” of the United States. Instead of limited government, the new administration is looking to drive US government spending to the levels it is in many of those less happy lands across the Atlantic.
The radical progressives in DC are proposing a European style system of wealth redistribution. Under the guise of fighting climate change, federal fiat will command and control economic activity. There will be punitive increases in corporation and capital gains taxes.
“Don’t worry” the progressives tell us. “Only companies are going to pay higher corporation taxes”. Claiming that only companies pay for corporation taxes is a bit like claiming that it is my car, not me, who pays for gas tax.
As for the idea that only the super-rich will have to pay more personal taxes, that is what they once said in Europe. Today tens of millions of Europeans hand over almost half of what they earn in one form of tax or another.
Under Biden’s ‘American Families Plan’ the federal government is going to have a plan for your family. There is due to be a quasi-socialist expansion of federal oversight of childcare and education, with government taking control of nurseries and classrooms.
The Biden administration would make the United States less American and more European. As the federal government grows bigger, the economy will become less dynamic and innovative. The United States, rather like Europe has opted to do, would take a holiday from history - all at the moment China has begun to challenge the global order.
Fortunately, not all is yet lost. Thanks to the genius of the Founding generation, the United States is still a union of states, not a centralized province run directly from DC. The States – with their governors, legislatures, and courts – are the last line of defense against overbearing government. That is why we at the Mississippi Center for Public Policy are working to outline an agenda for economic freedom and limited government that can be delivered here in the Magnolia State.
What we are working towards is a national movement to restore and renew the American republic, and to make good the Founding Ideals that have made America such a success.
For the past century, the Western world has prospered and prevailed less because of Europe, but because of the United States. If the West is to flourish in the future, it will be because we make Europe more like America, rather than America more like Europe.
Just as technology has expanded access to – well, everything – technological innovation is a key to expanding healthcare access. One of the nation’s top experts in this area is Dr. Robert Graboyes, Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center.
In this article, I’ll give a brief summary of a fascinating interview with Dr. Graboyes, which highlights the changing nature of health tech. Dr. Graboyes discusses the ways that technology can be used to increase the quality of healthcare while simultaneously reducing costs.
The discussion covers technological innovations such as portable electrocardiogram (EKG) machines, telehealth, and medical drones. Dr. Graboyes also mentions the importance of conducting a risk-benefit analysis when evaluating innovative medical technology.
The portable EKG example Dr. Graboyes mentions regards a portable EKG machine that he has personally used. The machine has helped him determine if he needed to go to the emergency room due to a personal condition. The information that the portable EKG provides him has saved him tens of thousands of dollars by helping him avoid potential emergency room visits.
Dr. Graboyes also highlights the merits of telehealth through a story about how the technology impacted his own family. A physician was conducting a video conversation with Graboyes’ grandmother and determined that she had to go to the emergency room immediately because she was in the early stages of septic shock. Graboyes noted that the biggest barrier to more expansive implementation of telehealth practices that could help more patients is licensure restrictions. Since this interview was conducted in 2019, many states, including Mississippi, have relaxed their licensure restrictions as a reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Graboyes further discusses a story involving the use of medical drones to carry blood samples and blood supplies in Rwanda. He stated that the United States is researching the concept in North Carolina, and that its potential benefits are extraordinary.
Finally, he concludes the interview by seeking to quell the fears that many regulators have about embracing new technological innovations. It is important to measure the risks and benefits of each program. He recognizes that many people feel that we need to be more cautious about utilizing medical technology, but compared the technological advances in the medical industry to those in the information technology industry.
Graboyes notes that the IT industry has exploded in terms of advancements, but the healthcare industry has only made marginal advances by comparison. He believes that the reason for this is because of the regulations hampering medical technology growth.
There are risks that come with innovation in any industry, but if the benefits outweigh those perceived risks, then the pursuit is worthwhile. Graboyes compares the current healthcare industry to a fortress, focused on protecting the various professionals and industries dedicated to the current healthcare apparatus. He encourages innovation through a frontier model as an alternative to the fortress strategy. This model would encourage growth with less regulation, but with the potential for greater risk. However, as stated before, if the benefits outweigh the risks, it is worth pursuing the technology.
All in all, Robert Graboyes makes a compelling case for embracing new and innovative medical technologies that will potentially lead to higher quality care, and that will also reduce costs and reduce the frequency of hospitalizations. Instead of hindering these innovations, Mississippi should cut red tape to encourage the adaption of revolutionary medical technologies.
The 2020 Census results have arrived, and the facts are in. Mississippi was one of only three states (alongside Illinois and West Virginia) to lose population in the last ten years.
While we may not have lost a seat in the House of Representatives, we did not grow. When one looks around the country at the states that are prospering and expanding, it becomes quite clear that there is a plethora of natural economic growth driving their success.
In these states, new businesses are not just brought in on the back of taxpayer funded grants and subsidies. They are instead attracted to the strength of the workforce that is present, the friendly tax and regulatory environments, and the hubs of opportunity.
Patrick Gleason, the Vice President of State Affairs at Americans for Tax Reform noted that, “[t]he average top personal income tax rate for states losing seats in Congress is 6.5%, which is 46% greater than the average top income tax rate for states gaining seats (4.45%).”
The states that gained the largest share of the population, and with this, more congressional seats, have some of the best tax structures in the country. Florida has no income tax. Texas has no income tax. Montana has no sales or local taxes and low property taxes. Colorado has a taxpayer bill of rights that makes it very difficult to impose additional tax burdens on state residents.
Much of our population loss is driven by millennials departing the state. It has been reported that Mississippi is losing this generation of residents faster than any state in the country. The departure of our younger population is especially terrible as it reflects not only lost citizens, but a lost investment, as much of this population attended public schools and then colleges in Mississippi, only to take themselves elsewhere.
We will not be able to grow as a state, until we overcome the hurdle that we have in incentivizing folks to stay. After all, if many young people are trying to leave, why would new people be inclined to move in? This collective “brain drain” has left Mississippi less competitive in the long run.
I personally chose to move back to Mississippi. Many of my friends have at some point chose to come here, to stay here, or to return here. Mississippi is a warm, hospitable place with a unique culture, but if there is not a job here for you, then one is forced to move elsewhere.
We should be radical when it comes to ambitiously crafting an environment that fosters economic growth. Mississippi should be the easiest place in the country to start, maintain, and grow a business.
As the 2020 Census shows, we have little to lose. Now is the time to take courageous efforts to outpace others by making it easier to work, live, and thrive in our wonderful state. Only if we commit ourselves to establishing a foundation ripe for economic growth will the 2030 Census bring brighter news.
Of all the challenges associated with starting a business and launching a bright idea, perhaps there is no greater obstacle than gathering capital. But the power of the internet has revolutionized the way that individuals start and invest in businesses. The new funding methods are vast, with numerous new financial options available.
In the beauty of the free market, start-ups provide a catalyst for innovation, economic growth, and job creation. But with the often-high costs of starting a business, there is little debate that start-ups need capital. No matter how much potential a business idea might have, it must have capital investment to succeed. It would be a vast understatement to say that new businesses need as many options on the table as possible as they work to pursue their goals, and their options can sometimes be quite limited.
However, in the age of the internet and the smartphone, more and more funding options are opening up for start-ups. One innovative way to generate business capital through the internet that has emerged in recent years is an investment model known as “crowdfunding.”
Although crowdfunding has multiple forms, a particularly promising form is known as “equity crowdfunding.” Equity crowdfunding raises capital through a campaign that markets a company's potential and offers prospective investors equity in the company. When someone contributes to the crowdfunding campaign, they receive a percentage of the company's profits.
Since most of the investments are small and spread out across dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of investors, it allows new businesses to market their company's potential to the general public and garner more funding. Usually, online platforms market these campaigns, and many have been highly successful. The campaigns provide a funding mechanism for innovators to focus on developing new innovations that are well-funded and receive feedback from investors as they innovate.
For instance, Oculus, a virtual reality headset start-up, started in 2012 with a crowdfunding campaign goal of $250,000. The campaign ended up raising almost ten times the original goal, reaching $2.4 million. Just two years later, Facebook purchased the company for $2.3 billion.
Another campaign led to the launching of SkyBell, one of the first of the “smart doorbell” developers that raised its first several hundred thousand dollars in funding through crowdfunding. The examples are numerous. In fact, crowdfunding has been estimated to generate more than $17 billion a year, with projections for the amount to grow even higher in the coming years. Who knows when the next billion-dollar company will get its start from crowdfunding?
In a day in which the government heavily regulates so much of the financial sector, policymakers should review the potential reforms that could be made to increase the feasibility of crowdfunding as an innovative business funding model.
Although much headway has been made on the federal level with crowdfunding policy, there is a need to reform many of the outdated and ineffective crowdfunding policies in many states. Such reforms would increase the potential for state-based crowdfunding successes as well. By reforming regulations on crowdfunding, states can increase opportunity and encourage innovation by expanding the funding options available to start-ups and small businesses.
The beauty of the American experiment is the potential for each state to bring new ideas to the table to increase prosperity and expand opportunity. State crowdfunding policy reforms for the 21st century could be a way to do just that.
Matthew Nicaud is the Tech Policy Specialist for the Mississippi Technology Institute, a division of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy.
The mission of the Mississippi Technology Institute is to provide a principled analysis of public policy issues with a focus on technological issues.
In the principles contained below, MTI seeks to provide the foundational elements of sound technology policy. Good policies will always follow good principles, and policies will always become flawed when they depart from good principles. MTI seeks to further advance its mission by declaring the key principles that guide its vision, purpose, and actions.
- The free market, not the government, is the gatekeeper of technological innovation.
There is no greater force for technological innovation than the free market at work. With this in mind, it is imperative to recognize that the government is not in a feasible position to effectively act as the gatekeeper of technological innovation. If all innovations must answer to government regulators, there is less potential that innovations will reach their full potential.
On the other hand, the government is not in a position to effectively determine which innovations should be favored and privileged. Since the government’s authority and revenue comes from the people, it makes little sense for government to favor certain innovations if the people themselves have not already given that innovation a thumbs up in the free market.
2. It is not the government’s responsibility to solve every problem that arises from technology.
Personal responsibility under the rule of law is essential for a free society. Without personal responsibility, individuals are relegated to the control of a nanny state. It is essential to recognize that technology is a powerful tool with much potential for good, but individuals are ultimately responsible for how they use technology. The more powerful technological tools are, the greater their capacity for good or for evil. If a government were responsible for removing every technological avenue that could potentially be used in bad faith, we’d have very little technological advancement.
When a new business uses technology to create an innovative concept, the government should not require that the business prove its technology's merit to regulators. The burden of proof lies on the government to objectively demonstrate the harm brought about by a new innovation.
3. Technology is an essential tool for economic prosperity that facilitates new opportunities and expands horizons.
In the dynamic and fast-paced economy of the 21st century, it is essential that businesses are able to adapt to the needs of customers in effective and innovative ways. This can be done using technology. In many ways, technology has become the key to expanded economic prosperity. From a public policy perspective, it is essential that governments ensure that this creative economic activity is welcomed so that existing businesses can grow, and new businesses can launch.
When businesses can harness the power of technology, their economic horizons expand. This often leads to greater profits, more employees, and better services. It’s good economic practice for government to actively remove regulatory obstacles that hinder the implementation of new technologies for existing businesses.
4. The regulation of technology should be informed by objective analysis that reflects the dynamic nature of innovation.
Technological advancement proceeds at an incredibly fast pace. In light of this, objective analysis must inform the regulation of technology. There is little potential for the growth of technology if regulators are subjectively determining the extent of government regulation without the input of subject-matter experts and data analysis.
The assumption that all products and innovations are inherently unsafe until government regulators prove otherwise, presupposes the government is always informed enough to make such determinations. This is simply not the case. Until informed experience and good data demonstrate otherwise, government should exercise a light touch when it comes to new technologies.
5. Technology policy is a tool that should be implemented with public accountability and fiscal responsibility.
Despite the great potential behind emerging technologies, no government policy is exempt from the safeguards of public accountability and fiscal responsibility. Every technological public policy must be reviewed from the perspective of a well-reasoned analysis that starts with principles rather than pragmatism.
No matter how much potential a technological policy may carry, it is not to be exempted from the necessity of cost-benefit analysis. No technology is priceless. From electric cars to solar panels, there are countless developing technologies that have considerable implications on a public policy level. In a day in which many technologies and their corresponding policies are heavily influenced by shifting social or political factors, it is essential that public policy is grounded in a carefully measured understanding of the key issues.
Additionally, it is fundamental that the power of technology be harnessed to facilitate greater government accountability. While technology cannot replace the accountability that the people properly have over the government, it is a critical tool that can assist them in their efforts. Rather than technology being used by the government to monitor the people, technology should be used by the people to monitor the government.
6. Government should not interfere in the free market or free trade by giving special privileges to particular technologies or technology companies.
The free market is not free to the extent that government intervenes. In light of the dynamic nature of economies and markets, government should not give preference or privilege to certain economic players in the technological sector. Although certain policies may only be applicable to certain players, no government action should give preference to a particular technology through redistributive policies. No specific business or technology should be given redistributed dollars that come from the pockets of taxpayers.
Regardless of the perceived economic potential, technology companies shouldn’t be subsidized with taxpayer funds. Technologies should be economically sustainable enough to self-fund by garnering consumer adoption. To use taxpayer dollars is to go outside of the free market and artificially hold up certain technologies. This threatens competition and gives an unbalanced advantage to the politically connected.
7. Although impactful, technological advancement is not sufficient to build and preserve a society.
The defining element of a society is its core values. A strong society must be grounded in the core values of its families, churches, and communities. Technology is a tool to live out those core values in a practical way. In the American context, these core values include a recognition of the God-given basis of freedom, the foundation of the nuclear family as the basic social unit, and an adherence to an objective standard of right and wrong.
Technology by itself is not a force that can cause any meaningful societal improvement. Societal improvement is driven by the practical application of the core values of individuals who strive toward a positive goal. Neither big business nor big government can adequately institute these values.
8. The use and development of technology should be informed by moral principles that uphold the dignity of the individual and the sacredness of civil liberties.
Technology is an incredibly powerful tool. Like all tools, it can be used for good or evil. The proper use of technology should be informed by a moral compass that is grounded in the principle that the rule of law must be informed by moral order and stability.
Given that all individuals have an inherent dignity that is to be honored and respected, technology policy should seek to stop those who use technology for the violation of personal rights. Criminal actors must be discouraged through the enforcement of policies that protect life, liberty, and property. Additionally, any individual who seeks to use technology to exploit others does not provide any lasting benefit to society by these actions, regardless of the economic gains that might come about.
As such, technology in itself is amoral. It is the individuals who use technology that are the moral agents, and it is their actions that have moral consequences. It is the responsibility of civil leaders to acknowledge this distinction and address abuses that come from the immoral use of technology by individuals and institutions.
9. Technology policy should not be used by government as a tool to create or sustain an atmosphere of surveillance, “cancel culture,” intimidation, and censorship.
In recent years, technology has become embedded in our daily lives. Almost every individual action utilizes technology in some way. Thus, there is a real threat from governments and groups wishing to use technology to deprive their fellow citizens of freedom.
Technology policy should not be used as a means to advance governmental control. Additionally, technology policy should not enable the systematic control of ideas by providing unequal protections to the technology sector due its economic resources, academic prowess, social influence, and political capital.
10. At the same time, technological development should be subordinated to the government’s duty to protect liberty from foreign and domestic threats to national security.
Technological advancement is a lesser good as compared to the protection and promotion of individual liberty. The highest duty of the American government is to uphold the order and stability necessary to advance freedom and the core values that have made our nation great. Thus, if a technological development poses a risk to our national defense and security (such as certain kinds of drone technology), this development must be properly managed until an acceptable alternative is found.
In addition, if a violation of individual rights is required in order for technological development to advance, such development should be halted.
Matthew Nicaud is the Tech Policy Specialist at the Mississippi Technology Institute, a division of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy. The website for the Mississippi Technology Institute can be found here: https://mspolicy.org/mississippi-tech-institute/