Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 5th Sep 2011 22:26 UTC
Privacy, Security, Encryption So, people from within Iran have hacked the Dutch company DigiNotar, allowing them to issue fake certificates so they could listen in on Iranian dissidents and other organisation within Iran. This is a very simplified version of the story, since it's all quite complicated and I honestly don't even understand all of it. In any case, DigiNotar detected the intrusion July 19, but didn't really do anything with it until it all blew up in their face this past week. Now, the Dutch government has taken over operational management of DigiNotar... But as a Dutch citizen, that doesn't really fill me with confidence, because, well - whenever the Dutch government does anything even remotely related to IT technology, they mess it up. And mess it up bad.
Thread beginning with comment 488617
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by Berend de Boer
by Neolander on Tue 6th Sep 2011 07:10 UTC in reply to "Comment by Berend de Boer"
Member since:

Knowing your love of free market theories, I guess what you advocate instead is a public transportation network, without any form of government backing, or even regulations to make sure that they cover the majority of the inhabited territory with decent service.

Or perhaps no public transportation at all. After all, stuff which can't work well in a free market is not interesting, right ?

Reply Parent Score: 1

Berend de Boer Member since:

Neolander: After all, stuff which can't work well in a free market is not interesting, right ?

I wouldn't say not interesting, it might be. Certain things are necessary of course, i.e. the government has the monopoly on coercive force.

But for your particular example: if the free market doesn't provide it, it means it can't do it, either because it is forbidden by the government, or it cannot provide it at an acceptable cost.

So if the government provides that service, you incur a cost. At minimum the public should be aware that if the government steps it, the cost might potentially be draconian. If the government should do it, is obviously a political item.

A good reason to object is that the government uses coercive force to extract the money from its citizens. Coercion is generally bad IMO.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Neolander Member since:

Thanks for this more precise and open-minded comment. I owe you one, will try to do my best.

In my opinion, every service which at the same time is expensive to provide and requires a universal reach to be useful, needs some form of government backing and/or regulation to work in a fashion that is socially and morally acceptable. Services in this category include :
-Public transportation
-Postal service
-Telecommunication networks

If one of these services is left to a free market, then the laws of financial rentability will do their job and the areas of high wealth/population density will get a high-quality service while the areas of low wealth/population density will get little to no service.

If we consider that every human being in a country has a right to a minimal level of service in one of these areas, then regulation must be introduced, as a force that makes sure market actors will provide this level to everyone, even when it economically means a loss.

This does not mean that the government has to own the company and dictate every single decision. Only a limited number of objectives must be ensured, and the company is left free to take care of other aspects of the situation. It's not the color or brand of a bus that matters, it's how much people it can carry, where it goes, and how often.

The drawback is that as you say, sometimes governments may abuse their power. Which is why justice must work in a fashion that's roughly independent from the government (as is the case in many countries), and why governments must be regularly renewed through elections in order to ensure that they still match the demand of most.

Besides this "stick" side of things, governments also have a "carrot" at hand : they have a budget, fairly collected among the population, which may be used to provide backing when companies can't realistically meet an economic objective alone. As an example, high-speed trains are often operated at a loss, and require financial backing from the whole population to become profitable while still remaining accessible to most travellers.

Fundamental research is another example of service which requires government backing to be operated optimally. It's financially too risky for most companies to provide significant backing to it, even though in the end that work may benefit everyone.

Globally, government backing and regulation is necessary to meet demand for a higher quality of service than what is financially optimal.

Edited 2011-09-06 11:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

zima Member since:

Coercion is generally bad IMO.

In a truly free market, what's to stop somebody from coercion via economical domination?

IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED NUMEROUS TIMES, the economically advantaged group can use free market to enforce tyranny on others, for example: White Citizens Councils ('_Council ), you can't rewrite history. Fact: White people used the power of the free market to destroy the lives of middle class black business people without having to resort to violence.

Thankfully, the government stepped in and stopped the oppression. Do you want the clock turned back on that one?

Again, it actually happened, the free market was used to oppress and destroy people, you can't simply rewrite or overlook history to agree with your political/economic theories, to make your cherished ideologies seem more plausible. It's astounding that people can discuss "market forces" and, nearly in the same breath, deny that the market has any kind of ("bad") force.

Yes, yes, "harm" would be illegal, but what is harm? Does it harm me if you pollute? What if you use child labour and my moral code prohibits it, when you undercut me in the market, is that harm? What if you decide to form some White Citizens Councils and drive all blacks out of business? Certainly that would be considered harm, right? Or would it just be the free market at work? What would keep somebody from economically coercing and dominating others? Or is that considered OK, as long as that somebody uses market forces to oppress others, to destroy their lives?

Who regulates what is harm? Maybe, hm, we should form some central entities handling such stuff on our behalf?

Edited 2011-09-13 00:12 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2