4 ms·

That's an important point. I think (in general) a well-educated population, coupled with transparency of policy, almost certainly negates the possibility of lo

That's an important point. I think (in general) a well-educated population, coupled with transparency of policy, almost certainly negates the possibility of long-term nefarious action. Even bad decisions can be reversed in general (in a properly functioning government). So to a point I definitely agree, but would generally promote a more pro-active philosophy to help ensure slimy situations don't sneak up on you.

ci5er 11y ago
That's fair. I suppose that I am always looking for ulterior motives from the players that you can't see when it comes to massive government/regulatory action. Any large change is sold on a story that sounds about right, but I'm worried that something else is really going on with it. That probably makes me borderline paranoid, but an example would be what's happened with Net Neutrality. We all (mostly) want Net Neutrality - but the regulatory response seemed to be a huge change in regulatory scope. This in response to a problem that really hasn't happened yet, or was being sorted out anyway by the players in the market (Comcast/Netflix). And it leaves the door open for the FCC to weigh in on a lot of things that make me provisionally worried that what we were sold and what we will get aren't necessarily the same thing. Aaand, now I've gone way (way!) off topic of the thread. Thanks for the discussion.