I really don't like all these business people in bed with government people, it isn't how countries should be run.
We're seeing more and more of this on this side of the Atlantic, where you are by government mandated to do business with certain parties (at prices you have no say in ), are forbidden to do business with other parties and in general are expected to be a good little consumer from the day you're born until the day you die.
The MPAA is one of the worst excesses of this in the public eye, but there are a great many more of them that are much better at keeping a low profile.
The degree of regulatory capture now inside the system is extreme and obvious.
Yet people continue to clamor for greater government control over a wider range of affairs. I simply can't fathom why my fellow citizens can simultaneously complain about the corporatism that government displays and hand the government the means to achieve even more of the same.
on this side of the Atlantic
I assume that when you say this, you're talking about my side of the Atlantic. Is that right?
Net neutrality is one aspect, but I hadn't been thinking about that specifically. One could also cite, in recent history, regulations governing lightbulbs and toilets.
Seriously, I challenge you to cite any business that one could safely enter, without any thought to the way government forces the companies in that field to do business.
Does anybody know the specifics of the interaction between treaties and constitutional law.
For instance if the senate ratifies ACTA and the president signs it, and then we pass a law implementing it in America can the supreme court disqualify the law or portions of the law for violating the constitution? Namely the first amendment's protection of political speech.
Wikileaks is as clear cut a case of political speech as has ever existed. If they can't be protected by the first amendment we're all more than screwed.
10 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 37.7 ms ] threadWe're seeing more and more of this on this side of the Atlantic, where you are by government mandated to do business with certain parties (at prices you have no say in ), are forbidden to do business with other parties and in general are expected to be a good little consumer from the day you're born until the day you die.
The MPAA is one of the worst excesses of this in the public eye, but there are a great many more of them that are much better at keeping a low profile.
Yet people continue to clamor for greater government control over a wider range of affairs. I simply can't fathom why my fellow citizens can simultaneously complain about the corporatism that government displays and hand the government the means to achieve even more of the same.
on this side of the Atlantic
I assume that when you say this, you're talking about my side of the Atlantic. Is that right?
Seriously, I challenge you to cite any business that one could safely enter, without any thought to the way government forces the companies in that field to do business.
For instance if the senate ratifies ACTA and the president signs it, and then we pass a law implementing it in America can the supreme court disqualify the law or portions of the law for violating the constitution? Namely the first amendment's protection of political speech.
Wikileaks is as clear cut a case of political speech as has ever existed. If they can't be protected by the first amendment we're all more than screwed.