3 ms·

Two words: Regulatory capture.

by kiba 16y ago

itistoday 16y ago
If you honestly believe that the phenomenon of regulatory capture means we shouldn't attempt to regulate anything at all, then please hand over your Freedom of Speech Card. While you're at it, I could also use an indentured servant... Maybe, one day, regulatory capture will be a thing of the past if The People wake up and learn what that is.
- kiba 16y ago
  What you're doing is avoid analyzing the regulatory system's incentive system. The regulatory system is wholly connected to the failure and success to protect "net neutrality". All I am telling you is my grim assessment that the government is no confidence as protector. Check and balances doesn't do anything if government is simply hostile as a whole. Democracy is tyranny. The whole idea of an educated electorate is a laughingstock. Well, forgive me when I think people in general are just hostile to the idea of liberty and that democracy have no intrinsic protection against tyranny.
T-R 16y ago
So rather than take the risk that a part of government may become corrupt, and attempt to manage that risk with a system of checks and balances, we shouldn't give the government any power whatsoever, and instead leave any other organization that gains any form of power free to use that power without restriction?
- judd-hustlebear 16y ago
  Precisely. As long as that power was obtained through voluntary cooperation in the market, there is no concern. Power in a free market sense is only gained by being valuable. No longer valuable to your customers, no longer powerful. Government Power and Market Power are pretty much opposite.
  - T-R 16y ago
    So in a free market, all entities inherently act in the best interest of their customers, regardless of whether or not there's competition? And they wouldn't use their position to do anything anticompetitive to maintain that position and keep the "free" market effectively closed? My point is, without some entity establishing rules of fair play, the market isn't a free one, because one player can gain enough power to effectively close the market to any competitors.

Two words: Regulatory capture.

by kiba 16y ago

Two words: Regulatory capture.

If you honestly believe that the phenomenon of regulatory capture means we shouldn't attempt to regulate anything at all, then please hand over your Freedom of Speech Card. While you're at it, I could also use an indentured servant... Maybe, one day, regulatory capture will be a thing of the past if The People wake up and learn what that is.

kiba 16y ago
What you're doing is avoid analyzing the regulatory system's incentive system. The regulatory system is wholly connected to the failure and success to protect "net neutrality". All I am telling you is my grim assessment that the government is no confidence as protector. Check and balances doesn't do anything if government is simply hostile as a whole. Democracy is tyranny. The whole idea of an educated electorate is a laughingstock. Well, forgive me when I think people in general are just hostile to the idea of liberty and that democracy have no intrinsic protection against tyranny.

T-R 16y ago

So rather than take the risk that a part of government may become corrupt, and attempt to manage that risk with a system of checks and balances, we shouldn't give the government any power whatsoever, and instead leave any other organization that gains any form of power free to use that power without restriction?

judd-hustlebear 16y ago
Precisely. As long as that power was obtained through voluntary cooperation in the market, there is no concern. Power in a free market sense is only gained by being valuable. No longer valuable to your customers, no longer powerful. Government Power and Market Power are pretty much opposite.
- T-R 16y ago
  So in a free market, all entities inherently act in the best interest of their customers, regardless of whether or not there's competition? And they wouldn't use their position to do anything anticompetitive to maintain that position and keep the "free" market effectively closed? My point is, without some entity establishing rules of fair play, the market isn't a free one, because one player can gain enough power to effectively close the market to any competitors.