To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Well, of course I'm not an anarchist, so you and I would agree that some amount of government regulation is necessary. What we will disagree on is what is considered 'necessary'
I remember when EA bought exclusive rights to make NFL games (which put all Madden competitors out of commission), and of course some people were screaming 'LAWSUIT!' Clearly, we have to draw the line somewhere, as a lot of this shit just gets superfluous. Personally, when it comes to companies being douchebags, I don't think 'it's going to suck if the government doesn't do something' is a good enough reason to get government involved. To me, anytime you ask for government interference is pretty serious, and should be reserved for dire situations. Why? As I said, the law of unintended consequences.
On a broader level though, I do believe government should be revamped. Instead of congressmen, what we really ought to have is a panel of experts in each field, that are elected by a majority, who probably have a vested interest in that particular field. For example, you probably wouldn't see many hardcore techies voting on matters of agreculture, and you wouldn't have people rejecting, for example, a candidate who might be an expert on economics, just because they don't like his/her stance on gay marriage. There wouldn't need to be 'hot button' issues anymore. Could you imagine when SOPA was brought up and we had a panel of technology gurus running that show, instead of a bunch of 60-something year-old geezers who probably couldn't manage to turn on a f**king iPod? It would've been laughed out of existence.
WorknMan,
"Personally, when it comes to companies being douchebags, I don't think 'it's going to suck if the government doesn't do something' is a good enough reason to get government involved. To me, anytime you ask for government interference is pretty serious, and should be reserved for dire situations. Why? As I said, the law of unintended consequences."
Well that's reasonable, I just think when one company is abusing it's position to block competitors, that is a dire situation. Not end-of-life dire, but the end-of-the-open-market dire. I find it ironic, yet true that unregulated corporations can choke the free market as much as government regulation.
"For example, you probably wouldn't see many hardcore techies voting on matters of agreculture, and you wouldn't have people rejecting, for example, a candidate who might be an expert on economics, just because they don't like his/her stance on gay marriage."
This is altogether a different matter, but absolutely. Voting granularity is a big problem resulting in idiotic compromises between completely unrelated issues.
Edited 2013-03-08 14:04 UTC




Member since:
2011-01-28
WorknMan,
I agree with most of that regarding DMCA.
We're not going to see eye to eye on having no government regulation at all though. Just because some laws are bad doesn't mean we should get rid of all of them - especially those like antitrust (do correct me if I'm mistaken, but that sounded like the logic you used to reject anti-trust law).