5 ms·

He had me convinced until the last paragraph: it’s time we step in in our role as governments... to create the regulatory environments that protect us vassals (

He had me convinced until the last paragraph: it’s time we step in in our role as governments... to create the regulatory environments that protect us vassals (and the lords as well). Otherwise, we really are just serfs. We won't be serfs if Big Government is running the show? Edit: With regards to his choice of words: The Road to Serfdom, a Comic by Hayek: http://mises.org/books/TRTS/ http://mises.org/books/TRTS/

king-coconut 14y ago
Better government than corporation, I choose the lesser evil.
- ef4 14y ago
  That's a pretty unsubstantiated claim, considering the tens of millions of people murdered by governments in the 20th century.
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    That's probably because governments enforced a monopoly on weapons. Do you think the world would be better if we allowed companies to raise private armies of mercenaries?
    - 46Bit 14y ago
      We don't now? There's more private gun-toting personnel in the Middle East now than you could easily count.
      - jiggy2011 14y ago
        And that place is in great shape :)
        bluekeybox 14y ago
        With extractive governments like Assad's, you could hardly expect something different.
  - B-Con 14y ago
    I think it depends on if you're talking about expected case or worst case. In the U.S., companies will act out of their own selfish interests, but in theory the government can address the concerns of the citizens in areas the citizens don't have sufficient power themselves ("by the people, for the people", etc). If the government is focused on regulating the industry, the "serf" ownership model won't be transitive from the companies to the government. Hopefully the companies would act as a barrier and the government would never get them as direct minions. But obviously the government could abuse this position. Then it's a question of which one would be the purest evil given the chance.
  - praxeologist 14y ago
    It is actually into the hundreds of millions, and that is just governments killing their own people, not inter-state wars. Rummel puts this number at 262M. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide
cousin_it 14y ago
In this world there are big fish and little fish. The only way little fish can protect themselves is by acting together. "Big Government" is one way to do that. Or you could create some other organization that's stronger than the big fish.
- digitalengineer 14y ago
  Or smarter. Have a look at Connect.me https://connect.me/about https://connect.me/about "...a new business model where people get better services and deals by directly connecting to businesses on the user's terms". (Disclaimer: I was a beta-tester)
- temphn 14y ago
  The key problem here is that people think the government is acting in their interests. It's not, it's acting in its own interests, and the interests of politicians and regulators. Thought experiment: imagine something that benefits the public but puts 100 politicians out of work. How likely is that to happen? With a corporation you can withhold your support by refusing to buy their product. This can happen instantly with an internet boycott and is not limited to election cycles or $1 per person. With a government the process of opting out is much more laborious; short of moving out of the country, you have to pay their price as a package deal, regardless of whether you like with their product as a whole.
  - politician 14y ago
    Yes, revolutions are inconvenient.
mhurron 14y ago
Regulations protecting workers rights are not 'Big Government running the show.' The US and many governments of Western Europe are supposed to be governments of the people. Why shouldn't the government work for the peoples interests?
- digitalengineer 14y ago
  (I'm not talking unions, just about the article). That' what they're suppose to be. What we see happening all around us is government working for special interest. And as your government they have one huge advantage over corporations: They can force you to accept a single product or solution.
  - danielweber 14y ago
    If I have something that I'm interested in (say, clear air), and I want the government to do something about it, when do I move from an interest to a special interest?
    - digitalengineer 14y ago
      Good question! If you start hyring former and current politicians, sponsor elections, pressure your employees, try sneek in legislation, I'd say you're special interest.
    - justin66 14y ago
      "Special interest," just like "big government," is nothing but a TV buzzword. It's not as if these are political science terms of art. Imagine experts in a field choosing to use a term normally used for measurement of bulk to describe the function of a system, or wasting their time categorizing interests into "special" and "not special" based on a fixed set of criteria. Political science is deeply boring, but it's not THAT boring.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- 14y ago
danielweber 14y ago
While there is much potential for abuse, there is also room for some regulation. For example, if Google decides right now to cut me off from my email, what recourse do I have? Something that requires them to mail me a DVD full of all my data at reasonable cost given proof of identity could be reasonable. Not that I trust Bruce Schneier on this.
- jimmyk 14y ago
  Why do you believe google owes you access to data you put on their servers beyond what they choose to offer as part of their service? They are under no obligation to offer you any service of any kind in the first place. Why should they not be allowed to offer you a service with any terms they choose?
Spooky23 14y ago
There's a difference between a regulatory framework and central planning of the means of production. I think that if a bunch of smart people went into a room, they could come out with a set of core principles that are in the best interests of users of cloud IT systems, but not necessarily in the interest of the service providers. Example: Phone number portability. Before 1997, your phone number was immutably associated with your telephone company. That meant that you were stuck with cellular provider X unless you changed your number -- which is a big deal for many people. FCC regulations forced the carriers to allow portability... an act that cost them alot of money, but benefited the public good. So while government regulation can lead to extreme scenarios like a Maoist-style police state similar to what is described in the comic that you linked to, that isn't a likely scenario. Government regulation applies to the government too. The absence of principles enshrined in law and regulation regarding police access to your data has resulted in police and prosecutors obtaining broad powers to access or mine your data through the judiciary.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  This is true but such a discussion must be balanced with the cost of compliance for newer market entrants. For example if running a social network or email service etc required following a large rule book then we probably would not have Facebook and maybe not even gmail. We would all be using some clunky Microsoft or IBM solution that took years to add new features because they had to get it all past the regulators. You don't want to get an angry phone call from a regulator because you put some weekend hack up on HN.
- spindritf 14y ago
  > FCC regulations forced the carriers to allow portability... Are we better off with that than with a consensus-based DNS-like overlay? I don't mean to say that no government regulation can ever be beneficial but they're often heavy-handed and destroy alternatives, often before those can even emerge.

king-coconut 14y ago

Better government than corporation, I choose the lesser evil.

ef4 14y ago
That's a pretty unsubstantiated claim, considering the tens of millions of people murdered by governments in the 20th century.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  That's probably because governments enforced a monopoly on weapons. Do you think the world would be better if we allowed companies to raise private armies of mercenaries?
  - 46Bit 14y ago
    We don't now? There's more private gun-toting personnel in the Middle East now than you could easily count.
    - jiggy2011 14y ago
      And that place is in great shape :)
      - bluekeybox 14y ago
        With extractive governments like Assad's, you could hardly expect something different.
- B-Con 14y ago
  I think it depends on if you're talking about expected case or worst case. In the U.S., companies will act out of their own selfish interests, but in theory the government can address the concerns of the citizens in areas the citizens don't have sufficient power themselves ("by the people, for the people", etc). If the government is focused on regulating the industry, the "serf" ownership model won't be transitive from the companies to the government. Hopefully the companies would act as a barrier and the government would never get them as direct minions. But obviously the government could abuse this position. Then it's a question of which one would be the purest evil given the chance.
- praxeologist 14y ago
  It is actually into the hundreds of millions, and that is just governments killing their own people, not inter-state wars. Rummel puts this number at 262M. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

cousin_it 14y ago

In this world there are big fish and little fish. The only way little fish can protect themselves is by acting together. "Big Government" is one way to do that. Or you could create some other organization that's stronger than the big fish.

digitalengineer 14y ago
Or smarter. Have a look at Connect.me https://connect.me/about https://connect.me/about "...a new business model where people get better services and deals by directly connecting to businesses on the user's terms". (Disclaimer: I was a beta-tester)
temphn 14y ago
The key problem here is that people think the government is acting in their interests. It's not, it's acting in its own interests, and the interests of politicians and regulators. Thought experiment: imagine something that benefits the public but puts 100 politicians out of work. How likely is that to happen? With a corporation you can withhold your support by refusing to buy their product. This can happen instantly with an internet boycott and is not limited to election cycles or $1 per person. With a government the process of opting out is much more laborious; short of moving out of the country, you have to pay their price as a package deal, regardless of whether you like with their product as a whole.
- politician 14y ago
  Yes, revolutions are inconvenient.

mhurron 14y ago

Regulations protecting workers rights are not 'Big Government running the show.' The US and many governments of Western Europe are supposed to be governments of the people. Why shouldn't the government work for the peoples interests?

digitalengineer 14y ago
(I'm not talking unions, just about the article). That' what they're suppose to be. What we see happening all around us is government working for special interest. And as your government they have one huge advantage over corporations: They can force you to accept a single product or solution.
- danielweber 14y ago
  If I have something that I'm interested in (say, clear air), and I want the government to do something about it, when do I move from an interest to a special interest?
  - digitalengineer 14y ago
    Good question! If you start hyring former and current politicians, sponsor elections, pressure your employees, try sneek in legislation, I'd say you're special interest.
  - justin66 14y ago
    "Special interest," just like "big government," is nothing but a TV buzzword. It's not as if these are political science terms of art. Imagine experts in a field choosing to use a term normally used for measurement of bulk to describe the function of a system, or wasting their time categorizing interests into "special" and "not special" based on a fixed set of criteria. Political science is deeply boring, but it's not THAT boring.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
14y ago

danielweber 14y ago

While there is much potential for abuse, there is also room for some regulation. For example, if Google decides right now to cut me off from my email, what recourse do I have? Something that requires them to mail me a DVD full of all my data at reasonable cost given proof of identity could be reasonable. Not that I trust Bruce Schneier on this.

jimmyk 14y ago
Why do you believe google owes you access to data you put on their servers beyond what they choose to offer as part of their service? They are under no obligation to offer you any service of any kind in the first place. Why should they not be allowed to offer you a service with any terms they choose?

Spooky23 14y ago

There's a difference between a regulatory framework and central planning of the means of production. I think that if a bunch of smart people went into a room, they could come out with a set of core principles that are in the best interests of users of cloud IT systems, but not necessarily in the interest of the service providers. Example: Phone number portability. Before 1997, your phone number was immutably associated with your telephone company. That meant that you were stuck with cellular provider X unless you changed your number -- which is a big deal for many people. FCC regulations forced the carriers to allow portability... an act that cost them alot of money, but benefited the public good. So while government regulation can lead to extreme scenarios like a Maoist-style police state similar to what is described in the comic that you linked to, that isn't a likely scenario. Government regulation applies to the government too. The absence of principles enshrined in law and regulation regarding police access to your data has resulted in police and prosecutors obtaining broad powers to access or mine your data through the judiciary.

jiggy2011 14y ago
This is true but such a discussion must be balanced with the cost of compliance for newer market entrants. For example if running a social network or email service etc required following a large rule book then we probably would not have Facebook and maybe not even gmail. We would all be using some clunky Microsoft or IBM solution that took years to add new features because they had to get it all past the regulators. You don't want to get an angry phone call from a regulator because you put some weekend hack up on HN.
spindritf 14y ago
> FCC regulations forced the carriers to allow portability... Are we better off with that than with a consensus-based DNS-like overlay? I don't mean to say that no government regulation can ever be beneficial but they're often heavy-handed and destroy alternatives, often before those can even emerge.