Maybe Google should just delist any companies complaining about Google unfairly prioritizing their own products over their competitors. It is their search engine, their advertising platform, and so on.
And when a private company does something like that, people whine about "price fixing" and demand the government Do Something(TM) to stop it. Apropos to this is today's Slashdot story about China artificially restricting its rare-earth supply specifically in order to drive up prices.
Indeed. In New Hampshire, we haven't had a Libertarian in a state-level or higher office since the 1990s. However, we have about forty outright-pro-liberty Republicans in the 400-member State House right now (a dozen of which are the so-called freestaters). We've had one pro-liberty Democrat get elected, too (Rep. Joel Winters, 2006-2010), and a handful of other liberty activists have run as Democrats, too.
What we've learned from New Hampshire politics: Both the major parties have pro-liberty elements; with Republicans it's taxes, spending, and firearms, with Democrats it's social freedom issues, privacy, and civil rights.* If you actually want to get elected (as opposed to just making a point by running, running as a "protest" candidate, or the like), pick a party depending on which issues you care more about. If you make it through the primary, you're guaranteed about 30% of the people will vote for you in the general just because of the party label, then you only have to worry about getting that additional 20%+1 to win. Running as a third party, you have to work for every single vote to make the full 50%+1, and first you have to waste your time petitioning just to get on the ballot. I've known a couple Libertarians who worked their asses off---visiting every single registered voter household in their district (one of which was 9,000 people)---only to get less than 4% of the vote.
* That's the breakdown on the state level here; YMMV in other states of course.
In other words, they're saving you money, and all you have to do in return is know how to cook your food thoroughly, rather than expect some government regulator to protect you. How terrible!
Sure you can. That the government created the National Helium Reserve and its attendant bureaucracy for dirigibles and is still holding onto it in 2012 is ludicrous, whether or not they're finally getting rid of it. It's an exemplary case of how government bureaucracies always far outlive their original mandate and purpose.
The problem is the asshole tailgating. But instead of dealing with one asshole's irresponsibility, we should just ban products left and right because a few assholes misuse them.
... so I keep coasting to a slower and safer speed. Eventually the asshole figures it out.
Nah, dealing with a problem yourself is too difficult! Easier to just let the government take care of the problem by banning everything.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case over the objections of the Obama administration, which had urged the justices to leave the lower court rulings in place.
Wasn't Bush's support of Monsanto one of the myriad things progressives despised him for? What happened to all that "change we could believe in"? Guess this is another entry for Nothing Changed.
...now that IT is a firmly established sector of the economy lead by an elite, we should encourage new tech workers to just be satisfied being life-long, middling employees of that elite.
The modern American dream: Working for someone else your whole life. Be happy you have "job security" and "benefits," peon.
It probably needs JavaScript turned on or something. It goes through an interstitial ad, where you can click the "skip" button in the top right-hand corner if you want to go directly to the link.
They are not blacklists, they are whitelists. In all the examples I cited, the products are presumed unsafe and thus illegal to sell until they've been approved as safe.
Maybe not business models, but most of these can be traced to protecting individual businesses. All you have to do is look at who lobbies for these things (or lobbies against eliminating them) to see what I mean. I can dig up citations if you'd like.
No, that's very different. Just because an electronic device requires FCC approval does not mean it's presumed illegal any more than your house is presumed illegal because it needs to be approved by a housing inspector. All that means is that you must pass an inspection before selling it to the public.
Semantics.
If you try to sell that unapproved product, they'll either fine you and/or order the product off the market, correct? And if you move into that house before you get that approval, they'll fine you and/or order to leave, correct? Thus, it's illegal, no matter what sort of lexicographical gymnastics you want to perform.
Your statement about the FCC is also in error. Devices that are not intentional RF radiators only need testing by a certified lab and certification by the lab before they can be sold.
Well, isn't that clever of them. Instead of the government doing the approval themselves, they mandate that you get approval from a "private" laboratory. (I wonder how much these private labs paid to earn that privilege.)
Sort of like how Obamacare mandates people buy private health insurance rather than creates an actual socialist universal health care system. I guess this is the "American Way" of doing things, so we can still pretend we're "capitalist" and "free."
So, all this guy has to do is find some "safety" excuse and people will line up to support him. He could cite how Wikileaks' release of those diplomatic cables "puts American lives in danger" or how The Innocence of Muslims is causing worldwide riots (which has resulted in deaths), as just two examples.
In virtually all cases of new regulations or bans, such legislation is pushed by self-serving entities who will selfishly benefit from putting competitors out of business. Naturally the people or corporations pushing those laws look for justifications that the public will support, and "safety" is always easy to spoon-feed to the public. It's worthwhile to ask in response to every new legislative proposal, "Cui bono? Who benefits?" And indeed you'll most always find someone who does, usually quite handsomely, and at everyone else's expense.
How is copyright to be killed off? Give guys like this a megaphone.
Careful what you wish for. Virtually every useful product that one might want to make and sell nowadays is presumed illegal until it's approved by some regulatory agency or another. Give this guy a bullhorn and the ignorant general public might agree with him, just like they have again and again in the past with those examples I cited.
Really. See this post I just made. Virtually every product someone might try to make and sell nowadays in the U.S. is presumed illegal until it's approved by some regulatory body.
What this bureaucrat is proposing is far from ground-breaking. It's just a tiny, incremental increase in the power the government in this supposedly "free" country already has.
Before you act shocked about this, exactly how is this different than any other products sold nowadays?
It's illegal to make and sell electronic hardware without approval from the FCC. It's illegal to make and sell most any food products without approval from a state-level health agency. It's illegal to make and sell any medical products without approval from the FDA. It's illegal to make and sell any motorized vehicles without approval from multiple safety bodies. So now, we can simply add "content delivery technology" to the list of things the government presumes is guilty of... whatever, until you prove it's not.
Isn't it great to live in a "free" country? Aren't you glad you're free?
This problem could probably be fixed without regulating and fining textbook manufacturers. If a few major colleges revolted against the current textbook paradigm, refused to buy from any of these companies, until they implemented the policies you describe, it would have the same effect---without creating any new laws. The only reason companies get away with abusive behavior like this is because the consumers put up with it.
As for health care, if you want real reform, start by repealing the HMO Act. That's what gave the insurance companies the lock on health care they have now and what led to the exorbitant prices everyone has to suffer nowadays.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe Google should just delist any companies complaining about Google unfairly prioritizing their own products over their competitors. It is their search engine, their advertising platform, and so on.
And when a private company does something like that, people whine about "price fixing" and demand the government Do Something(TM) to stop it. Apropos to this is today's Slashdot story about China artificially restricting its rare-earth supply specifically in order to drive up prices.
Indeed. In New Hampshire, we haven't had a Libertarian in a state-level or higher office since the 1990s. However, we have about forty outright-pro-liberty Republicans in the 400-member State House right now (a dozen of which are the so-called freestaters). We've had one pro-liberty Democrat get elected, too (Rep. Joel Winters, 2006-2010), and a handful of other liberty activists have run as Democrats, too.
What we've learned from New Hampshire politics: Both the major parties have pro-liberty elements; with Republicans it's taxes, spending, and firearms, with Democrats it's social freedom issues, privacy, and civil rights.* If you actually want to get elected (as opposed to just making a point by running, running as a "protest" candidate, or the like), pick a party depending on which issues you care more about. If you make it through the primary, you're guaranteed about 30% of the people will vote for you in the general just because of the party label, then you only have to worry about getting that additional 20%+1 to win. Running as a third party, you have to work for every single vote to make the full 50%+1, and first you have to waste your time petitioning just to get on the ballot. I've known a couple Libertarians who worked their asses off---visiting every single registered voter household in their district (one of which was 9,000 people)---only to get less than 4% of the vote.
* That's the breakdown on the state level here; YMMV in other states of course.
In other words, they're saving you money, and all you have to do in return is know how to cook your food thoroughly, rather than expect some government regulator to protect you. How terrible!
Sure you can. That the government created the National Helium Reserve and its attendant bureaucracy for dirigibles and is still holding onto it in 2012 is ludicrous, whether or not they're finally getting rid of it. It's an exemplary case of how government bureaucracies always far outlive their original mandate and purpose.
The problem is the asshole tailgating. But instead of dealing with one asshole's irresponsibility, we should just ban products left and right because a few assholes misuse them.
Nah, dealing with a problem yourself is too difficult! Easier to just let the government take care of the problem by banning everything.
Maybe they should just follow the lead of the U.S. legislature: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."
So whose idea was this at WikiLeaks, and which government agency was paying them to sow this kind of discord, eh?
How many people think living off of Other People's Money is a right? Bet that one would get a majority vote too nowadays.
Wasn't Bush's support of Monsanto one of the myriad things progressives despised him for? What happened to all that "change we could believe in"? Guess this is another entry for Nothing Changed .
Is it even news anymore that "freedom of speech" is about as respected in the UK as it is in Iran or China?
...now that IT is a firmly established sector of the economy lead by an elite, we should encourage new tech workers to just be satisfied being life-long, middling employees of that elite.
The modern American dream: Working for someone else your whole life. Be happy you have "job security" and "benefits," peon.
It probably needs JavaScript turned on or something. It goes through an interstitial ad, where you can click the "skip" button in the top right-hand corner if you want to go directly to the link.
The link ultimately goes to the Free State Project.
...but I suppose blatantly lying in headlines and article blurbs gets people to read your articles.
They are not blacklists, they are whitelists. In all the examples I cited, the products are presumed unsafe and thus illegal to sell until they've been approved as safe.
Maybe not business models, but most of these can be traced to protecting individual businesses. All you have to do is look at who lobbies for these things (or lobbies against eliminating them) to see what I mean. I can dig up citations if you'd like.
Semantics.
If you try to sell that unapproved product, they'll either fine you and/or order the product off the market, correct? And if you move into that house before you get that approval, they'll fine you and/or order to leave, correct? Thus, it's illegal, no matter what sort of lexicographical gymnastics you want to perform.
Well, isn't that clever of them. Instead of the government doing the approval themselves, they mandate that you get approval from a "private" laboratory. (I wonder how much these private labs paid to earn that privilege.)
Sort of like how Obamacare mandates people buy private health insurance rather than creates an actual socialist universal health care system. I guess this is the "American Way" of doing things, so we can still pretend we're "capitalist" and "free."
So, all this guy has to do is find some "safety" excuse and people will line up to support him. He could cite how Wikileaks' release of those diplomatic cables "puts American lives in danger" or how The Innocence of Muslims is causing worldwide riots (which has resulted in deaths), as just two examples.
In virtually all cases of new regulations or bans, such legislation is pushed by self-serving entities who will selfishly benefit from putting competitors out of business. Naturally the people or corporations pushing those laws look for justifications that the public will support, and "safety" is always easy to spoon-feed to the public. It's worthwhile to ask in response to every new legislative proposal, "Cui bono? Who benefits?" And indeed you'll most always find someone who does, usually quite handsomely, and at everyone else's expense.
Careful what you wish for. Virtually every useful product that one might want to make and sell nowadays is presumed illegal until it's approved by some regulatory agency or another. Give this guy a bullhorn and the ignorant general public might agree with him, just like they have again and again in the past with those examples I cited.
Really. See this post I just made. Virtually every product someone might try to make and sell nowadays in the U.S. is presumed illegal until it's approved by some regulatory body.
What this bureaucrat is proposing is far from ground-breaking. It's just a tiny, incremental increase in the power the government in this supposedly "free" country already has.
As if that stops them from doing anything they want.
Before you act shocked about this, exactly how is this different than any other products sold nowadays?
It's illegal to make and sell electronic hardware without approval from the FCC. It's illegal to make and sell most any food products without approval from a state-level health agency. It's illegal to make and sell any medical products without approval from the FDA. It's illegal to make and sell any motorized vehicles without approval from multiple safety bodies. So now, we can simply add "content delivery technology" to the list of things the government presumes is guilty of... whatever, until you prove it's not.
Isn't it great to live in a "free" country? Aren't you glad you're free?
Maybe if you're that sensitive to noise getting an apartment on the busiest intersection in a major city was a bad idea.
You can move, you know.
This problem could probably be fixed without regulating and fining textbook manufacturers. If a few major colleges revolted against the current textbook paradigm, refused to buy from any of these companies, until they implemented the policies you describe, it would have the same effect---without creating any new laws. The only reason companies get away with abusive behavior like this is because the consumers put up with it.
As for health care, if you want real reform, start by repealing the HMO Act. That's what gave the insurance companies the lock on health care they have now and what led to the exorbitant prices everyone has to suffer nowadays.