> To be clear, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but I'm just looking for what I can learn. If someone can't cite chapter and verse on HN, it doesn

> To be clear, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but I'm just looking for what I can learn. If someone can't cite chapter and verse on HN, it doesn't make their point wrong, just temporarily inconclusive. Okay, I guess I've been burned in too many discussions by disingenuous people so I was reading in a motive that wasn't there. For a great example, think of the broadcast licenses and the FCC. Initially, they were just registrations to allocate spectrum. Over time, policies were put in place like the Fairness Doctrine, which added actual content requirements; diversity ownership; or diffusion of ownership requirements. This was all done through the renewal process, which is probably the mechanism by which the rechartering would occur. > I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that government does not have authority to regulate corporate behavior? My point is that they obviously do, and that a change in the rules is not a change in the fundamental power. The American government does not have the authority to regulate corporate behavior in the manner that Warren is proposing. That is why she is proposing this law. You're saying that government has this power, which is true because "government" can do anything to anyone anytime. The twentieth century has demonstrated the limitlessness of government power. But that's an equivocation. We're discussing the American government, which cannot do anything to anyone anytime.