3 ms·

It's true that governments can overreach, and frequently do. What I'm saying those is that when it comes to enforcing standards, the basic ability of a governme

It's true that governments can overreach, and frequently do. What I'm saying those is that when it comes to enforcing standards, the basic ability of a government to do so is fine as it's commonly used for immensely beneficial reasons (as in, industries often want the government to regulate a standard and to sign international agreements regulating certain standards because it often makes it way easier to sell and transfer between regions). The standard should be evaluated on its own merits as opposed to a generic opposition to the government setting standards at all, which I see as deeply flawed.

worrycue 4y ago
What concerns me is the government’s ability to evaluate said merits and their responsiveness to market changes that would require a change in the standard. We have plenty of example where governments got it very wrong - see the USSR. In this case it’s easy. But the next standard, should the the choice no longer be so clear cut between competing standards with their pros and cons. It would also be interesting to see how the EU determines when we should switch to a successor. Why should a bunch of old people in Brussels who in all likelihood can barely operate a smartphone be the ones deciding these matters? There is also the issue of corruption - which is still fresh in my mind; see Qatar and the EU parliament. As such I rather nigh dictatorial power not be unnecessarily placed in the hands of governments.