this is why i do not like this argument - it implies the free market will average out all the arseholes into niceness, but as soon as companies start following similar "party lines", competition in this respect becomes useless. you're just choosing between walled gardens in slightly different colours and layouts.
The flaw in the GP is that he is making the same assumption that you're pointing out, that the free market will solve problems like this. Unfortunately, the XBOX and pretty much anything to do with electronic media is protected by government interventions in the market through patents and copyrights. Since the XBOX is protected by the government, there is no free market solution to be had here because there's no free market. If companies can use the government to keep the market out and give them total control, they will. This is another example of that.
Nothing will become of it...especially from any politician. The reason...these corporations have enough money and lobbyists to make sure nothing but their way will be the way it is. Welcome to the United States of Facsism...where corporations and their money are the government.
FTFY...
And, since this is about media corporations, the democrats are even more likely to be behind this since that's a big source of their dollars... Don't let their rhetoric confuse you about their actual behavior... If they're elected, they've most likely been bought...
Actually they are not in charge of health care. It is called regulations.
So telling people how something must be done is different than being in charge? Interesting...
The same kind that they used to have on the banks, before they removed them and it all went to hell.
They never removed the regulations from banks. They might have changed them, but the government was still in charge... and, since they insist on being involved, they're also responsible. The insinuation that what happened is due to the free market is blatantly false. The banks haven't operated in a free market for over a century.
The FED had all the power and resources it needed to stop the Great Depression from even starting by propping up the Bank of the United States. But, it didn't and the bank failed triggering the run on banks that crashed the entire system. The government had the power to stop it, but didn't. Instead, the free market was made the scapegoat, and the government pushed for even more power to "prevent" another crisis from ever happening.
Government "regulation" has a major history of failing, followed by spin blaming the free market even though the markets being addressed are never unregulated to begin with, and then the government argues for more power even though it's proven it can't use it particularly well. And, people take the bait, believing that "regulation" will save them... even when the regulations were already in place, but the government was too inept to actually use them properly.
Of course, that doesn't stop the knee jerkers from claiming that "deregulation" caused problems and regulations will save us all...
Because when local municipalities dare to try to run their OWN lines they get told "Unfair advantage!" and then get to spend a decade before the courts. So the telecos basically have figured out how to have their cake and eat it too, by refusing to upgrade their shitty infrastructure but when some place decides to get their own better infrastructure, oh no! That wouldn't be fair. And to me this is why we will just have to have the fed either run lines like with electricity in the 30s, or just take the existing lines away from the telecos, because as it is now they have so much money small towns and the free market simply can't operate. True story:
A friend of mine operated a little shop just outside town. Even though this is a heavy populated area, neither the cableco or teleco would serve them, it was strictly 33k dialup. So he talked his boss into going in half with him to have a T-1 line ran from town. We are talking nearly 25k to have it run, and then they sat up their own little ISP to serve the neighborhood. Capitalism in action, right? Well when the teleco noticed what was happening and their shitty $80 a month dialup started losing customers they jacked the rates on the T-1 by 4000%. Apparently they had also made a few calls so that nobody else would sell to them either. They were told by the teleco "Don't like it? Just try to sue us!" and their lawyer told them "Oh yeah you'll win, but it'll take a decade and about a million five in court fees". So they filed bankruptcy and just moved away. The people there are STILL stuck on 33k dialup, and the T-1 lies rotting in a field.
The moral of the story? There is NO way for the free market to function when the ones that serve an area also own the rights to the backbone. And we will NEVER have nationwide broadband without the government forcing the teleco/cableco monopoly to compete. Otherwise you get what you have now in my area, where the cableco and teleco have not moved a single inch in nearly 30 years! My mom was a block and a half from the cable and now the DSL junction when she built her house 27 years ago, guess how far away it is now? If you guessed a block and a half you'd be correct sir!
But, everything you're complaining about is happening in a regulated environment, not the free market. I'm just saying you can't blame the problems on the free market when the industry you're talking about has never operated in a free market. You can certainly blame it on the typical big government/big business conspiracy to keep control over the masses. But, you can't blame it on the free market since there never has been one in this industry.
Wake up. Do you want you post delivered as cheaply as possible or do you want you postal service to be a profitable as possible, you can not have both, profit you fool comes from gouging the consumers pocket.
Why do I even need post delivered? I can get and pay my bills online. Everyone I correspond with I do electronically. Pretty much everything of value I get in the mail, could have been communicated more efficiently online. The rest of what I get in the mail is environmentally destructive junk.
Government services attempt to provide as much service as possible whilst charging as little as possible, sometimes resulting losses. Corporations attempt to provide as little service as possible whilst charging as much as possible for it, often resulting in multimillion dollar bonuses for corporate executives. Competition is what corporation strive to cripple by forming cartel, buy buying out the opposition and then ramping up prices to pay for it, by lying to consumers, by lobbying for reduced worker rights, by not paying tax, by seeking corporate welfare from the local, state and federal government.
But, why does a poor taxpayer that might send a couple of letters a month have to subsidize a big corporation doing mega mailings of marketing junk (which they get a lower rate for than the poor guy)? Sure, the cost for the user of the service is low, but you're not counting the subsidies. The major users are commercial businesses. But, everyone has to pay for the subsidies. It costs much more than the price of the stamp...
So more efficient letter carriage, drop Saturday deliveries, drop pick up of mail from letter box have localised post boxes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_box, just those simply changes will substantively reduce cost. Of course it you really want to do what a for profit corporation would do, simply drop all postal services to rural areas unless they are willing to pay substantially more for the service.
Yeah... because that's what UPS and Fedex have done. Oh, wait. Actually, they do deliver to those rural areas... and for pretty much the same price. Strange considering there is pretty much no government regulation of their business...
As for corporations as far as they are concerned your money is their money and they will and do lie, cheat and steal to 'er' recover it.
And that is different from government how?
Oh... I forgot... the government can imprison or kill you to get your money.
Right. And then they would say, I'm not going to spend my money delivering to those people out in the country. The postal service has the responsibility to deliver to every region of the country. A private company doesn't have the same responsibility. We could make it a prerequisite for whoever wins the contract, but then they would raise the prices significantly.
But, there's no laws saying where UPS and Fedex have to deliver to... and, they still deliver to "those people out in the country."
Why is that? Why would they do something that the government hasn't mandated they do? And, why aren't they charging a huge amount more for those services? Did they miss that day in capitalist pig class?
So lets please step off the "corporation yay!" bandwagon for a minute, shall we? We have been kissing the telecoms booties here in the USA for damned near 30 years now, and even our largest cities have broadband speeds that are honestly shameful compared to the rest of the planet, and much of our rural areas have land lines laid down when fricking Ike was president. If we wait for the "free market" in the case of nationwide broadband we will ALL end up on the short bus to crappytown, left behind while the world advances, while all we will have to show for it is some crappy quality Youtube videos of Telecom CEOs snorting coke off of $1000 hooker asses while having their balls tickled with $100 bills. It is time we treat broadband no different that electricity or water, take the last mile AWAY from the telecoms by laying OUR OWN LINES, and then if they want to compete they can get off their asses and offer better service for less money. That is what the free market is supposed to be about, competition, right?
I'm not sure how one can blame the free market for the state of an industry that has never operated under the free market...
Of course, that doesn't stop people from doing it...
I see a lot of people roll out the usual Milton Friedman 'Privatise it!' option to everything, but I'm afraid that a lot of private delivery firms just do not see it as cost effective to deliver to a lot of, mainly rural, areas. It's the same thing here in the UK with the Royal Mail. No matter how much anyone talks about privatisation you can always bet that there will be government subsidies needed to fill the gap needed, because you can't have a functioning economy and communities without some kind of postal service unless you tell everyone to move to areas that delivery firms find cost effective. I can't see that being an option.
When you subsidise private firms to provide a service they don't really want to provide then you get something far worse than anything the government could run itself. It simply doesn't work.
But how much mail do you get that is just junk? And, how much of that would get sent if it were "privatized" and prices went up?
The reason the postal service is in trouble is because it prices a mostly unneeded service at a price so low that it creates useless demand. The bulk of what they handle is just physical spam.
They're not really needed anymore. And, if they were a private company, they probably wouldn't be around... certainly not in their current form. There are more environmentally responsible ways to communicate what they enable to be communicated. Electronic billing and payments would be much better for the environment and economy. And, junk mail should disappear. But, government subsidies prevent the natural market forces from pressuring change that the USPS's bottom line clearly reflects should be happening.
I don't get the USA system. What's the worth of an education the market isn't waiting for, even if you attended the most prestigious university? Harvard art students still don't become CEOs.
One of my former jobs was for one of the top telco's in the US. For the majority of my time there, we had a CEO that had a degree in English Literature.
> I'm not a fan of pesticides but I won't deny that they increase food and crop yield.
Prove it. I don't believe this whatsoever.
There has been a growing of evidence showing that the overuse of pesticides has led to a *decline* in crop yields, not an increase.
I'm not a fan of pesticides either. And, I'm not sure exactly how yield is defined. Assuming that it is defined as harvestable food that doesn't have to be thrown away instead of how much a plant puts out irrespective of whether or not it is spoiled by pests, it does increase yields.
The only evidence I have to back it up is personal experience with home gardening. And, I'll definitely concede that it might be different in the industrial context rather than my mostly potted fruits and vegetables. However, during this last season, whenever we skipped a pesticide treatment, we'd end up throwing out most of the food that was anywhere near ripe. We really wanted to go completely organic, but it just wasn't working. I'm not saying it's impossible to do. I'm just saying that for me, the chemical compromise made sense.
I'm clueless about that too. I'm an independent. I'm suspicious of both sides because we have a political system that is funded by special interests, and an election system that is rigged to try to make it as difficult as possible for anyone who is not a member of one of the two major parties to even get on the ballot, let alone get elected. It's a system that does everything possible to preserve the status quo, and ensures that the status quo is controlled by those with the money to fund the campaigns.
Now if we can just get everyone else to understand that instead of joining in the finger pointing at $THEOTHERPARTY, we might actually get somewhere...
There was a lot of support for a single-payer system within the Democrats. The problem is that there was no support within the Republican party, and they were able to scare the Democrats into dropping the issue with the threat of calling them Socialists and comparing them to Stalin and such. Of course they continue to do that anyway, so basically the Democrats are just pussies that refuse to stand up for anything and actually fight for it. Hell, the speech the other day is the only time I've heard Obama sound even remotely passionate about anything. Unfortunately he was being passionate about giving in to the demands of the Republicans even when the Democrats had the high moral ground. If you can't win in that situation, you just aren't going to win, period. It's a little bizarre to have a Democratic Congress and President essentially carrying out the Republican agenda, but here we are...
So, essentially, we're screwed even if one of the two parties actually has a good idea because they care more about politics than doing what they believe needs to be done.
And, that's why I'm clueless as to why people so passionately support either party. It's not like they actually believe enough in what they say to do anything about it... even when they have all the votes they need.
Billy Bob has insurance, he sees a doctor. He can't quit smoking.
If we can mandate him having insurance for public health and cost reasons, why can't we make him stop smoking? Why can't we make him eat a healthy diet? Why can't we make him get a good night's sleep every night? Why can't we keep him from having unsafe sex? Why can't we prevent him from riding motorcycles because of the dangers? What about taking the stairs?
Where is the line? And, why is that line not arbitrary? Because, if it is arbitrary, it WILL move...
Are you seriously making the argument that if it weren't for local government in California, the federal government would have made medical marijuana available?
Absolutely not.
I'm saying that medical marijuana laws were passed in California, many local California governments in contradiction to the wishes of the people of California created bans on the dispensaries of medical marijuana, the case was taken to the Supreme Court and so far the Federal branch of the government has upheld the position of the citizens in California.
You're not going to hear me argue against the federal courts except when they uphold things that don't leave decisions like that to locals. You have to also concede that even though in this particular case they might be supporting the local position, they have on numerous occasions ruled against local laws supporting the federal prohibitions based on the interstate commerce clause, despite many cases being completely within the bounds of a single state.
California is not a homogeneous conglomeration of single mind, single belief, single position politics. Even without a Federal government your idea of medical marijuana is doomed by local government. You wont be running across state lines to escape marijuana laws, your going to running across county lines, city lines, etc. Where as if you have a legal case the Supreme Court will make sure you don't have to run anywhere.
And, that's even better. You don't have to run as far. Those that you are running from don't have as many resources to obstruct you. I have no problem with a city of mormons banning alcohol in their city. I do have a problem when they have input into what happens everywhere and we end up with the 18th amendment which makes alcohol illegal in the entire nation. And, there's no supreme court remedy for that type of problem. Constitutional amendments, by definition, are constitutional.
The supreme court has at times upheld slavery, segregation, the Patriot Act, corporate speech but not individual speech, etc. It doesn't guarantee a good result just because they get involved.
This whole Ron Paul if you don't like it leave position is bullshit anyway. If Ron Paul and his supporters are so oppressed under the Constitution of the United States then leave.
Their position is that oppression should be localized rather than nationalized. Then you actually have an option to leave it. I'm not familiar with any statement that they've made about leaving the country. They just believe that diversity is good when it comes to government and everyone should be able to live under whatever type of government they wish within the limits of the constitution.
And as I just showed you with a news article the Federal government is actively supporting your position so you can't say they are oppressing you. Admittedly that is an over simplification but so is your claim of Federal oppression and the idea that elimination of the Federal government will set you free.
I never contended that elimination of the federal government would set us free. I just believe that diversity and the distribution of power give people a much better chance. Virtually all government, and non-government organizations, are corrupt to some degree. We never escape corruption and people attempting to use power to take advantage of others.
So, assuming corruption and exploitation will happen with almost every opportunity, which is the best way to minimize it? With one big government that has it's patriot acts, TSA's, etc? With one big government that only has 100 senators to buy? Or is it a bunch of smaller governments with less scope and resources? With 50 legislatures and 10's of thousands of representatives with less power to be bought?
Concentrating power in the federal government is like turning DC into a shopping mall for the lobbyists and big corporations. They don't have to go looking for laws to buy all over. It's one-stop shopping...
The same way it's possible to force him to pay for roads he doesn't use, police he doesn't need, or libraries he doesn't want. It's like people never heard of taxes before.
Except the democrats went out of their way to make the payment not a tax so that the republicans couldn't scream that they were raising taxes. So, as defined, it's essentially a fine for not buying a product from big insurance.
If they'd made it a tax or just created a public option, there would be no constitutional challenge to those that would have been upheld.
As for the Commerce Clause, yes it's been mutilated in the past century. I'd be in favor of rolling back those abuses. But as long as the courts hold that Cannabis grown for personal medical use in ones own home can be considered interstate commerce this challenge doesn't have a chance.
Where the hell were all of you limited government people 5 years ago?
Everyone is for limited government on issues that they disagree with the government on. If we actually had intellectual consistency, we wouldn't have a lot of the problems we have in the US... or a lot of the nonsense that gets posted on slashdot.
No because I'm a Pro-Choice person and this is anti-choice. It's forcing me to buy a product I don't want. It's no choice.
I can avoid the car insurance requirement by simply not driving, but there's no way for me to stop existing. I object to being forced to fall on my knees and suck Nationwide or Allstate or any other Corporation's phallus ("oh please sell my insurance & rape my wallet of $5000 Mr. CEO, else government will fine me"), especially in a country that is supposedly "free" and "celebrates liberty". That is not liberty. That is being demoted to a Serf (someone else runs your life and you are just a puppet).
Okay maybe I went a little overboard there. But hopefully it made you think. This requirement is nothing more than Corporate Welfare giving them guaranteed sales to 110 million homes. (I thought Democrats were against that?)
No, it's forcing you to pay a tax, something the government does for all sorts of reasons. In this case it's to ensure that everyone has health care coverage. You can avoid paying this tax by purchasing health care coverage for yourself. Object to the tax if you like, but someone has to pay for covering health care costs, and unless we're going to start turning people away from emergency care (the most expensive kind of care there is), that someone is government, via taxes. Personally, I think a single-payer system would be more efficient and serve us better, but the Republicans managed to shoot that down before we even got started, so now we end up with a system that benefits the insurance companies more than anyone else really. Sadly it's still better than what we have now, and I haven't heard of a better solution from the Republicans yet.
Well, the democrats expressly didn't want to call it a tax, though, because they didn't want to be seen as increasing taxes. So, due to the semantics and mechanisms that trigger the payment, it is essentially a fine. That's the entire basis that enabled the judge to rule as he did. If they'd called it a tax, forced everyone to pay it, but give you a credit if you had insurance, it would have passed the test. But, political posturing stopped that from happening.
And, we ended up with a system that benefits the insurances companies, period. No one else benefits from the bill. Sure, they'll talk about pre-existing conditions being covered. But, they don't tell you what you're going to have to pay the insurance companies for one of those policies. And, we both know that it's not going to be the same as someone without a pre-existing condition.
Nothing the government has done in health care in the past 30 years has truly benefitted anyone but insurance companies. So much so that, the default position now is that insurance=healthcare. Until we get big insurance out of the picture, we'll never have affordable healthcare. Unfortunately, the democrats as well as the republicans won't dream of doing that. It would cost them too much in campaign dollars.
Indeed, I half suspected something like this would happen, and as someone as liberal as humanly possible, I am laughing my ass off.
To recap: We should have had single payer system.
Instead, insurance companies, looking to make even more money, promised to insure everyone...but only if everyone was forced to buy from them, so that the healthy couldn't skip out on the deal.
If the latter part of that gets sentence struck down, insurance companies will have to insure anyone who wants it (I.e, who is currently sick) and then, when healthy, the person can just let their insurance lapse, secure in the fact they can just buy more insurance when they need, because insurance companies can no longer deny insurance on any grounds except failure to pay.
I am fucking rolling on the floor laughing. I mean that literally. I read this an hour ago, and it's taken me that long to stop laughing to comment. I had to make a support call during that, and I had serious difficulty not cracking up during it.
You just utterly fucked yourself, insurance companies. Oh, man, oh man.
I hope the teaparty folks take this as a rallying cry, and regardless of how this goes in the court, yell at their congressmen to remove exactly this part of the law.
Exactly. Everyone is touting this as a win for the "right". If you're for the public option, this is a huge win. And, I'm totally with you on watching big insurance get the short end of this stick...
Meanwhile people die because some bastards have been paid off to stop a health care plan that is far less ambitious than the Republicans were pushing under Nixon. You can bet he's not doing it because he's a "flaming crazy" but the only way to show that is to follow the money.
Except, in this particular case, he's fighting against the government forcing you to buy expensive policies from the big insurance corporations. It's not like it's a ruling against a public insurance option offered by the government, which would have most likely stood up to a constitutional challenge.
It's just a testament to how flawed the whole healthcare bill was. It didn't really help people that couldn't afford insurance to begin with. It basically just forced everyone to buy the insurance industry's expensive, flawed products.
If you're pro-government care, I think this gives you a more compelling case to get a public option. Since the constitution says you can't force everyone to buy insurance, the only real option to provide it to those that can't afford it is a public option.
That's a nice thought, but they aren't challenging "every little thing" the government does, they only challenge things they don't like, and there aren't a similar number of "flaming crazies" challenging other laws that other americans view as blatantly unconstitutional or imposing on freedom.
Take "obscenity" laws for instance, blatantly unconstitutional and yet those who oppose such laws aren't running around the streets casually with semi-automatic weapons or making references to "2nd amendment remedies" when things don't go their way.
If this were a case about a law requiring everyone to purchase a Bible, these same people would be actively supporting the law or at least remaining silent, because that's what they do, they only run their mouths and cry about freedom when it suits their personal causes.
That's why we need passionate crazies on all sides... they protect us from the apathetic majority that only pays attention around election time... and, then it's usually just to pick all the R's or D's on their ballot.
what about the federal government busting medical marijuana producers and distributors in California?
Perhaps you missed this part:
"Don't get me wrong, it is not perfect and oppression still occurs but make no mistake, you do have options under the Constitution to protect your rights."
That said, it is ironic that you made this post while a quick search of the news shows that local California government is trying to ban medical marijuana while at the same time the third branch of the Federal government, the Supreme Court, is on a path to end the oppression against medical marijuana.
So it appears that your problems with medical marijuana are not simply the big meanie Federal government stomping all over your rights but in fact the Federal government is playing a role in protecting your rights against local California government.
In the Ron Paul Libertarian universe you would have no Federal Constitution, no Federal Court, and only the individual rights that the local mob decides you may have.
Are you seriously making the argument that if it weren't for local government in California, the federal government would have made medical marijuana available? If so, there's really no point in having any further discussion with you since you're so invested in a position that reality doesn't even come into play...
You might be able to find a minor story here or there that would present that case, but you're seriously ignorant of the entire history of the issue in CA if you think that it's the local government that has made it illegal... Prop 19 was a clear example of that. It might have been defeated, but there's nothing even approaching it happening at the federal level.
You want 1 government, you've got to put up with everyone's input, even the bible thumpers that we both despise... which is why the end of prohibition will originate from state and local fights against the feds, rather than the federal government. You're crazy if you think the representatives from all the red states are going to not fight it. At least we have blue states that are thankfully able to act because of federalism... otherwise, we'd be stuck trying to convince the red states that it's our own business what we decide to do with our own bodies.
And, had it only been the federal government, there would likely have not been abortion to be fought for to begin with thanks to those red states. Even before Roe v Wade, it was legal in some states. If we'd only had federal rules, it wouldn't have been to begin with... and there never would have been Roe v Wade.
Instead of dealing with a local mob, that you at least can escape by crossing the state line, you've got a national mob... and that mob would definitely build the border fence... only not to keep people out...
The Constitution of the United States was meant to protect against the flagrant oppression of mob democracy that was practised at the state level and that is exactly what Ron Paul wants to bring back. And whether they realise it or not Ron Paul supporters are supporting establishment of a Christian State Theocracy with oppressive religion based laws.
So, what about the federal government busting medical marijuana producers and distributors in California? Is that the federal government protecting us from the "Christian State Theocracy" advocated by the "state's rights goons"? Is that the wonderful constitutional protection offered to us by the eternally benevolent federal government?
It's amazing that despite centuries of change in technology, media and society itself, people still fight battles using old boogeymen that can never conceivably reemerge. And, in the meantime, we only get a one-size fits all option for a decent government rather than 50 that are closer to the citizens and more easily held accountable.
I suppose monopolies are only bad when they're not allowed to use lethal force to get you to do what they want you to do...
It can be argued with just as much or perhaps more justification that developing energy efficiency and reducing emissions would have a positive effect on the economy.
So, why not make that argument instead of throwing red meat to the wolves? Why do both sides have to insist that the other side agrees to their perspective on climate if there's a compelling economic argument completely separate of the contentious stuff that could get everyone on board?
If we just made the conversation about efficiency and how much money we could save, everyone could get what they want without the need to argue about complex systems that few if any actually understand.
Of course, that doesn't sell magazines, newspapers or get viewers for the news casts... so, we continue...
Can't use force? Why not? If the government is weaker, or absent who is there to tell them what not to do? You and whose army?
If they have no legal standing to own property since they don't legally exist, they're not going to be able to get anyone to do anything.
That's ridiculous. That's like saying if a thug has no legal standing to own property he's not going to be able to get anyone to do anything.
You've got it backwards.
All that fancy "legally exist" and "legal standing" stuff are mere words. Words that hold no POWER unless they are ultimately backed by force e.g. the threat of violence.
If a Government has vanished, and a Corporation has its "private security team" they certainly can force you to do whatever they want, even if they don't "legally exist", as long as they pay that private security team whatever that team wants to do the job. And if you think the private security team would just turn on the Corporation, you should figure out why Dictators continue stay in power even if they are not very strong physically.
Governments exist and hold power in an area so long as they maintain a monopoly over violence in that area. Anyone who establishes and maintains a monopoly over violence in an area becomes the Government of that area by default. If a Government is too weak or absent, others take over.
Any violence would be purpatrated by individuals, not a corporation.
I suppose it does make a big difference to you to only get killed by "a Group of People Formerly Known As A Corporation" rather than some Corporation.
Won't make a big difference to people who live in the real world.
Why does a government need to have it's mitts fully up the ass of the market to be able to also defend individual rights? Just because government doesn't sanction corporations or muck around in the market doesn't mean it has to be weak in defending individual rights.
You're too stuck in the status quo to see that there's actually a much simpler solution. Obviously, you've bought into the protection racket like most others have. Government has to have all the power we can give it... enough to create the problems and enough to pretend to solve the problems it creates while still ending up with a system where normal people are disenfranchised and power and wealth are concentrated in those that have the resources.
While the little guy might still get screwed in a less regulated system without government created private power structures, he would at least have a chance. When the system requires so many lawyers to just navigate within it, it's a sure thing that the animal that will dominate is the one that can hire the lawyers. And, the strange coincidence is that the lawyers are the one's that are running the government and making the laws.
If you believe the government is the answer, they've already got you. So, now we all get to pay our protection money.
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't like it, buy a different product.
name one that does the same thing.
this is why i do not like this argument - it implies the free market will average out all the arseholes into niceness, but as soon as companies start following similar "party lines", competition in this respect becomes useless. you're just choosing between walled gardens in slightly different colours and layouts.
The flaw in the GP is that he is making the same assumption that you're pointing out, that the free market will solve problems like this. Unfortunately, the XBOX and pretty much anything to do with electronic media is protected by government interventions in the market through patents and copyrights. Since the XBOX is protected by the government, there is no free market solution to be had here because there's no free market. If companies can use the government to keep the market out and give them total control, they will. This is another example of that.
Nothing will become of it...especially from any politician. The reason...these corporations have enough money and lobbyists to make sure nothing but their way will be the way it is. Welcome to the United States of Facsism...where corporations and their money are the government.
FTFY...
And, since this is about media corporations, the democrats are even more likely to be behind this since that's a big source of their dollars... Don't let their rhetoric confuse you about their actual behavior... If they're elected, they've most likely been bought...
Yes, ICE can't do their job, but they can be given more responsibility.
It's called government...
Actually they are not in charge of health care. It is called regulations.
So telling people how something must be done is different than being in charge? Interesting...
The same kind that they used to have on the banks, before they removed them and it all went to hell.
They never removed the regulations from banks. They might have changed them, but the government was still in charge... and, since they insist on being involved, they're also responsible. The insinuation that what happened is due to the free market is blatantly false. The banks haven't operated in a free market for over a century.
The FED had all the power and resources it needed to stop the Great Depression from even starting by propping up the Bank of the United States. But, it didn't and the bank failed triggering the run on banks that crashed the entire system. The government had the power to stop it, but didn't. Instead, the free market was made the scapegoat, and the government pushed for even more power to "prevent" another crisis from ever happening.
Government "regulation" has a major history of failing, followed by spin blaming the free market even though the markets being addressed are never unregulated to begin with, and then the government argues for more power even though it's proven it can't use it particularly well. And, people take the bait, believing that "regulation" will save them... even when the regulations were already in place, but the government was too inept to actually use them properly.
Of course, that doesn't stop the knee jerkers from claiming that "deregulation" caused problems and regulations will save us all...
Because when local municipalities dare to try to run their OWN lines they get told "Unfair advantage!" and then get to spend a decade before the courts. So the telecos basically have figured out how to have their cake and eat it too, by refusing to upgrade their shitty infrastructure but when some place decides to get their own better infrastructure, oh no! That wouldn't be fair. And to me this is why we will just have to have the fed either run lines like with electricity in the 30s, or just take the existing lines away from the telecos, because as it is now they have so much money small towns and the free market simply can't operate. True story:
A friend of mine operated a little shop just outside town. Even though this is a heavy populated area, neither the cableco or teleco would serve them, it was strictly 33k dialup. So he talked his boss into going in half with him to have a T-1 line ran from town. We are talking nearly 25k to have it run, and then they sat up their own little ISP to serve the neighborhood. Capitalism in action, right? Well when the teleco noticed what was happening and their shitty $80 a month dialup started losing customers they jacked the rates on the T-1 by 4000%. Apparently they had also made a few calls so that nobody else would sell to them either. They were told by the teleco "Don't like it? Just try to sue us!" and their lawyer told them "Oh yeah you'll win, but it'll take a decade and about a million five in court fees". So they filed bankruptcy and just moved away. The people there are STILL stuck on 33k dialup, and the T-1 lies rotting in a field.
The moral of the story? There is NO way for the free market to function when the ones that serve an area also own the rights to the backbone. And we will NEVER have nationwide broadband without the government forcing the teleco/cableco monopoly to compete. Otherwise you get what you have now in my area, where the cableco and teleco have not moved a single inch in nearly 30 years! My mom was a block and a half from the cable and now the DSL junction when she built her house 27 years ago, guess how far away it is now? If you guessed a block and a half you'd be correct sir!
But, everything you're complaining about is happening in a regulated environment, not the free market. I'm just saying you can't blame the problems on the free market when the industry you're talking about has never operated in a free market. You can certainly blame it on the typical big government/big business conspiracy to keep control over the masses. But, you can't blame it on the free market since there never has been one in this industry.
Wake up. Do you want you post delivered as cheaply as possible or do you want you postal service to be a profitable as possible, you can not have both, profit you fool comes from gouging the consumers pocket.
Why do I even need post delivered? I can get and pay my bills online. Everyone I correspond with I do electronically. Pretty much everything of value I get in the mail, could have been communicated more efficiently online. The rest of what I get in the mail is environmentally destructive junk.
Government services attempt to provide as much service as possible whilst charging as little as possible, sometimes resulting losses. Corporations attempt to provide as little service as possible whilst charging as much as possible for it, often resulting in multimillion dollar bonuses for corporate executives. Competition is what corporation strive to cripple by forming cartel, buy buying out the opposition and then ramping up prices to pay for it, by lying to consumers, by lobbying for reduced worker rights, by not paying tax, by seeking corporate welfare from the local, state and federal government.
But, why does a poor taxpayer that might send a couple of letters a month have to subsidize a big corporation doing mega mailings of marketing junk (which they get a lower rate for than the poor guy)? Sure, the cost for the user of the service is low, but you're not counting the subsidies. The major users are commercial businesses. But, everyone has to pay for the subsidies. It costs much more than the price of the stamp...
So more efficient letter carriage, drop Saturday deliveries, drop pick up of mail from letter box have localised post boxes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_box, just those simply changes will substantively reduce cost. Of course it you really want to do what a for profit corporation would do, simply drop all postal services to rural areas unless they are willing to pay substantially more for the service.
Yeah... because that's what UPS and Fedex have done. Oh, wait. Actually, they do deliver to those rural areas... and for pretty much the same price. Strange considering there is pretty much no government regulation of their business...
As for corporations as far as they are concerned your money is their money and they will and do lie, cheat and steal to 'er' recover it.
And that is different from government how?
Oh... I forgot... the government can imprison or kill you to get your money.
Right. And then they would say, I'm not going to spend my money delivering to those people out in the country. The postal service has the responsibility to deliver to every region of the country. A private company doesn't have the same responsibility. We could make it a prerequisite for whoever wins the contract, but then they would raise the prices significantly.
But, there's no laws saying where UPS and Fedex have to deliver to... and, they still deliver to "those people out in the country."
Why is that? Why would they do something that the government hasn't mandated they do? And, why aren't they charging a huge amount more for those services? Did they miss that day in capitalist pig class?
So lets please step off the "corporation yay!" bandwagon for a minute, shall we? We have been kissing the telecoms booties here in the USA for damned near 30 years now, and even our largest cities have broadband speeds that are honestly shameful compared to the rest of the planet, and much of our rural areas have land lines laid down when fricking Ike was president. If we wait for the "free market" in the case of nationwide broadband we will ALL end up on the short bus to crappytown, left behind while the world advances, while all we will have to show for it is some crappy quality Youtube videos of Telecom CEOs snorting coke off of $1000 hooker asses while having their balls tickled with $100 bills. It is time we treat broadband no different that electricity or water, take the last mile AWAY from the telecoms by laying OUR OWN LINES, and then if they want to compete they can get off their asses and offer better service for less money. That is what the free market is supposed to be about, competition, right?
I'm not sure how one can blame the free market for the state of an industry that has never operated under the free market...
Of course, that doesn't stop people from doing it...
I see a lot of people roll out the usual Milton Friedman 'Privatise it!' option to everything, but I'm afraid that a lot of private delivery firms just do not see it as cost effective to deliver to a lot of, mainly rural, areas. It's the same thing here in the UK with the Royal Mail. No matter how much anyone talks about privatisation you can always bet that there will be government subsidies needed to fill the gap needed, because you can't have a functioning economy and communities without some kind of postal service unless you tell everyone to move to areas that delivery firms find cost effective. I can't see that being an option. When you subsidise private firms to provide a service they don't really want to provide then you get something far worse than anything the government could run itself. It simply doesn't work.
But how much mail do you get that is just junk? And, how much of that would get sent if it were "privatized" and prices went up?
The reason the postal service is in trouble is because it prices a mostly unneeded service at a price so low that it creates useless demand. The bulk of what they handle is just physical spam.
They're not really needed anymore. And, if they were a private company, they probably wouldn't be around... certainly not in their current form. There are more environmentally responsible ways to communicate what they enable to be communicated. Electronic billing and payments would be much better for the environment and economy. And, junk mail should disappear. But, government subsidies prevent the natural market forces from pressuring change that the USPS's bottom line clearly reflects should be happening.
I don't get the USA system. What's the worth of an education the market isn't waiting for, even if you attended the most prestigious university? Harvard art students still don't become CEOs.
One of my former jobs was for one of the top telco's in the US. For the majority of my time there, we had a CEO that had a degree in English Literature.
> I'm not a fan of pesticides but I won't deny that they increase food and crop yield.
Prove it. I don't believe this whatsoever.
There has been a growing of evidence showing that the overuse of pesticides has led to a *decline* in crop yields, not an increase.
I'm not a fan of pesticides either. And, I'm not sure exactly how yield is defined. Assuming that it is defined as harvestable food that doesn't have to be thrown away instead of how much a plant puts out irrespective of whether or not it is spoiled by pests, it does increase yields.
The only evidence I have to back it up is personal experience with home gardening. And, I'll definitely concede that it might be different in the industrial context rather than my mostly potted fruits and vegetables. However, during this last season, whenever we skipped a pesticide treatment, we'd end up throwing out most of the food that was anywhere near ripe. We really wanted to go completely organic, but it just wasn't working. I'm not saying it's impossible to do. I'm just saying that for me, the chemical compromise made sense.
I'm clueless about that too. I'm an independent. I'm suspicious of both sides because we have a political system that is funded by special interests, and an election system that is rigged to try to make it as difficult as possible for anyone who is not a member of one of the two major parties to even get on the ballot, let alone get elected. It's a system that does everything possible to preserve the status quo, and ensures that the status quo is controlled by those with the money to fund the campaigns.
Now if we can just get everyone else to understand that instead of joining in the finger pointing at $THEOTHERPARTY, we might actually get somewhere...
There was a lot of support for a single-payer system within the Democrats. The problem is that there was no support within the Republican party, and they were able to scare the Democrats into dropping the issue with the threat of calling them Socialists and comparing them to Stalin and such. Of course they continue to do that anyway, so basically the Democrats are just pussies that refuse to stand up for anything and actually fight for it. Hell, the speech the other day is the only time I've heard Obama sound even remotely passionate about anything. Unfortunately he was being passionate about giving in to the demands of the Republicans even when the Democrats had the high moral ground. If you can't win in that situation, you just aren't going to win, period. It's a little bizarre to have a Democratic Congress and President essentially carrying out the Republican agenda, but here we are...
So, essentially, we're screwed even if one of the two parties actually has a good idea because they care more about politics than doing what they believe needs to be done.
And, that's why I'm clueless as to why people so passionately support either party. It's not like they actually believe enough in what they say to do anything about it... even when they have all the votes they need.
They're both power hungry hypocrites...
Billy Bob has insurance, he sees a doctor. He can't quit smoking.
If we can mandate him having insurance for public health and cost reasons, why can't we make him stop smoking? Why can't we make him eat a healthy diet? Why can't we make him get a good night's sleep every night? Why can't we keep him from having unsafe sex? Why can't we prevent him from riding motorcycles because of the dangers? What about taking the stairs?
Where is the line? And, why is that line not arbitrary? Because, if it is arbitrary, it WILL move...
Look: car insurance is mandatory in the USA.
No. It's not.
Absolutely not.
I'm saying that medical marijuana laws were passed in California, many local California governments in contradiction to the wishes of the people of California created bans on the dispensaries of medical marijuana, the case was taken to the Supreme Court and so far the Federal branch of the government has upheld the position of the citizens in California.
You're not going to hear me argue against the federal courts except when they uphold things that don't leave decisions like that to locals. You have to also concede that even though in this particular case they might be supporting the local position, they have on numerous occasions ruled against local laws supporting the federal prohibitions based on the interstate commerce clause, despite many cases being completely within the bounds of a single state.
California is not a homogeneous conglomeration of single mind, single belief, single position politics. Even without a Federal government your idea of medical marijuana is doomed by local government. You wont be running across state lines to escape marijuana laws, your going to running across county lines, city lines, etc. Where as if you have a legal case the Supreme Court will make sure you don't have to run anywhere.
And, that's even better. You don't have to run as far. Those that you are running from don't have as many resources to obstruct you. I have no problem with a city of mormons banning alcohol in their city. I do have a problem when they have input into what happens everywhere and we end up with the 18th amendment which makes alcohol illegal in the entire nation. And, there's no supreme court remedy for that type of problem. Constitutional amendments, by definition, are constitutional.
The supreme court has at times upheld slavery, segregation, the Patriot Act, corporate speech but not individual speech, etc. It doesn't guarantee a good result just because they get involved.
This whole Ron Paul if you don't like it leave position is bullshit anyway. If Ron Paul and his supporters are so oppressed under the Constitution of the United States then leave.
Their position is that oppression should be localized rather than nationalized. Then you actually have an option to leave it. I'm not familiar with any statement that they've made about leaving the country. They just believe that diversity is good when it comes to government and everyone should be able to live under whatever type of government they wish within the limits of the constitution.
And as I just showed you with a news article the Federal government is actively supporting your position so you can't say they are oppressing you. Admittedly that is an over simplification but so is your claim of Federal oppression and the idea that elimination of the Federal government will set you free.
I never contended that elimination of the federal government would set us free. I just believe that diversity and the distribution of power give people a much better chance. Virtually all government, and non-government organizations, are corrupt to some degree. We never escape corruption and people attempting to use power to take advantage of others.
So, assuming corruption and exploitation will happen with almost every opportunity, which is the best way to minimize it? With one big government that has it's patriot acts, TSA's, etc? With one big government that only has 100 senators to buy? Or is it a bunch of smaller governments with less scope and resources? With 50 legislatures and 10's of thousands of representatives with less power to be bought?
Concentrating power in the federal government is like turning DC into a shopping mall for the lobbyists and big corporations. They don't have to go looking for laws to buy all over. It's one-stop shopping...
The same way it's possible to force him to pay for roads he doesn't use, police he doesn't need, or libraries he doesn't want. It's like people never heard of taxes before.
Except the democrats went out of their way to make the payment not a tax so that the republicans couldn't scream that they were raising taxes. So, as defined, it's essentially a fine for not buying a product from big insurance.
If they'd made it a tax or just created a public option, there would be no constitutional challenge to those that would have been upheld.
As for the Commerce Clause, yes it's been mutilated in the past century. I'd be in favor of rolling back those abuses. But as long as the courts hold that Cannabis grown for personal medical use in ones own home can be considered interstate commerce this challenge doesn't have a chance.
Where the hell were all of you limited government people 5 years ago?
Everyone is for limited government on issues that they disagree with the government on. If we actually had intellectual consistency, we wouldn't have a lot of the problems we have in the US... or a lot of the nonsense that gets posted on slashdot.
No because I'm a Pro-Choice person and this is anti-choice. It's forcing me to buy a product I don't want. It's no choice.
I can avoid the car insurance requirement by simply not driving, but there's no way for me to stop existing. I object to being forced to fall on my knees and suck Nationwide or Allstate or any other Corporation's phallus ("oh please sell my insurance & rape my wallet of $5000 Mr. CEO, else government will fine me"), especially in a country that is supposedly "free" and "celebrates liberty". That is not liberty. That is being demoted to a Serf (someone else runs your life and you are just a puppet).
Okay maybe I went a little overboard there. But hopefully it made you think. This requirement is nothing more than Corporate Welfare giving them guaranteed sales to 110 million homes. (I thought Democrats were against that?)
No, it's forcing you to pay a tax, something the government does for all sorts of reasons. In this case it's to ensure that everyone has health care coverage. You can avoid paying this tax by purchasing health care coverage for yourself. Object to the tax if you like, but someone has to pay for covering health care costs, and unless we're going to start turning people away from emergency care (the most expensive kind of care there is), that someone is government, via taxes. Personally, I think a single-payer system would be more efficient and serve us better, but the Republicans managed to shoot that down before we even got started, so now we end up with a system that benefits the insurance companies more than anyone else really. Sadly it's still better than what we have now, and I haven't heard of a better solution from the Republicans yet.
Well, the democrats expressly didn't want to call it a tax, though, because they didn't want to be seen as increasing taxes. So, due to the semantics and mechanisms that trigger the payment, it is essentially a fine. That's the entire basis that enabled the judge to rule as he did. If they'd called it a tax, forced everyone to pay it, but give you a credit if you had insurance, it would have passed the test. But, political posturing stopped that from happening.
And, we ended up with a system that benefits the insurances companies, period. No one else benefits from the bill. Sure, they'll talk about pre-existing conditions being covered. But, they don't tell you what you're going to have to pay the insurance companies for one of those policies. And, we both know that it's not going to be the same as someone without a pre-existing condition.
Nothing the government has done in health care in the past 30 years has truly benefitted anyone but insurance companies. So much so that, the default position now is that insurance=healthcare. Until we get big insurance out of the picture, we'll never have affordable healthcare. Unfortunately, the democrats as well as the republicans won't dream of doing that. It would cost them too much in campaign dollars.
Indeed, I half suspected something like this would happen, and as someone as liberal as humanly possible, I am laughing my ass off.
To recap: We should have had single payer system.
Instead, insurance companies, looking to make even more money, promised to insure everyone...but only if everyone was forced to buy from them, so that the healthy couldn't skip out on the deal.
If the latter part of that gets sentence struck down, insurance companies will have to insure anyone who wants it (I.e, who is currently sick) and then, when healthy, the person can just let their insurance lapse, secure in the fact they can just buy more insurance when they need, because insurance companies can no longer deny insurance on any grounds except failure to pay.
I am fucking rolling on the floor laughing. I mean that literally. I read this an hour ago, and it's taken me that long to stop laughing to comment. I had to make a support call during that, and I had serious difficulty not cracking up during it.
You just utterly fucked yourself, insurance companies. Oh, man, oh man.
I hope the teaparty folks take this as a rallying cry, and regardless of how this goes in the court, yell at their congressmen to remove exactly this part of the law.
Exactly. Everyone is touting this as a win for the "right". If you're for the public option, this is a huge win. And, I'm totally with you on watching big insurance get the short end of this stick...
Meanwhile people die because some bastards have been paid off to stop a health care plan that is far less ambitious than the Republicans were pushing under Nixon. You can bet he's not doing it because he's a "flaming crazy" but the only way to show that is to follow the money.
Except, in this particular case, he's fighting against the government forcing you to buy expensive policies from the big insurance corporations. It's not like it's a ruling against a public insurance option offered by the government, which would have most likely stood up to a constitutional challenge.
It's just a testament to how flawed the whole healthcare bill was. It didn't really help people that couldn't afford insurance to begin with. It basically just forced everyone to buy the insurance industry's expensive, flawed products.
If you're pro-government care, I think this gives you a more compelling case to get a public option. Since the constitution says you can't force everyone to buy insurance, the only real option to provide it to those that can't afford it is a public option.
That's a nice thought, but they aren't challenging "every little thing" the government does, they only challenge things they don't like, and there aren't a similar number of "flaming crazies" challenging other laws that other americans view as blatantly unconstitutional or imposing on freedom.
Take "obscenity" laws for instance, blatantly unconstitutional and yet those who oppose such laws aren't running around the streets casually with semi-automatic weapons or making references to "2nd amendment remedies" when things don't go their way.
If this were a case about a law requiring everyone to purchase a Bible, these same people would be actively supporting the law or at least remaining silent, because that's what they do, they only run their mouths and cry about freedom when it suits their personal causes.
That's why we need passionate crazies on all sides... they protect us from the apathetic majority that only pays attention around election time... and, then it's usually just to pick all the R's or D's on their ballot.
Diversity of dissent is a "good thing"...
Perhaps you missed this part: "Don't get me wrong, it is not perfect and oppression still occurs but make no mistake, you do have options under the Constitution to protect your rights."
That said, it is ironic that you made this post while a quick search of the news shows that local California government is trying to ban medical marijuana while at the same time the third branch of the Federal government, the Supreme Court, is on a path to end the oppression against medical marijuana.
So it appears that your problems with medical marijuana are not simply the big meanie Federal government stomping all over your rights but in fact the Federal government is playing a role in protecting your rights against local California government.
In the Ron Paul Libertarian universe you would have no Federal Constitution, no Federal Court, and only the individual rights that the local mob decides you may have.
Are you seriously making the argument that if it weren't for local government in California, the federal government would have made medical marijuana available? If so, there's really no point in having any further discussion with you since you're so invested in a position that reality doesn't even come into play...
You might be able to find a minor story here or there that would present that case, but you're seriously ignorant of the entire history of the issue in CA if you think that it's the local government that has made it illegal... Prop 19 was a clear example of that. It might have been defeated, but there's nothing even approaching it happening at the federal level.
You want 1 government, you've got to put up with everyone's input, even the bible thumpers that we both despise... which is why the end of prohibition will originate from state and local fights against the feds, rather than the federal government. You're crazy if you think the representatives from all the red states are going to not fight it. At least we have blue states that are thankfully able to act because of federalism... otherwise, we'd be stuck trying to convince the red states that it's our own business what we decide to do with our own bodies.
And, had it only been the federal government, there would likely have not been abortion to be fought for to begin with thanks to those red states. Even before Roe v Wade, it was legal in some states. If we'd only had federal rules, it wouldn't have been to begin with... and there never would have been Roe v Wade.
Instead of dealing with a local mob, that you at least can escape by crossing the state line, you've got a national mob... and that mob would definitely build the border fence... only not to keep people out...
The Constitution of the United States was meant to protect against the flagrant oppression of mob democracy that was practised at the state level and that is exactly what Ron Paul wants to bring back. And whether they realise it or not Ron Paul supporters are supporting establishment of a Christian State Theocracy with oppressive religion based laws.
So, what about the federal government busting medical marijuana producers and distributors in California? Is that the federal government protecting us from the "Christian State Theocracy" advocated by the "state's rights goons"? Is that the wonderful constitutional protection offered to us by the eternally benevolent federal government?
It's amazing that despite centuries of change in technology, media and society itself, people still fight battles using old boogeymen that can never conceivably reemerge. And, in the meantime, we only get a one-size fits all option for a decent government rather than 50 that are closer to the citizens and more easily held accountable.
I suppose monopolies are only bad when they're not allowed to use lethal force to get you to do what they want you to do...
It can be argued with just as much or perhaps more justification that developing energy efficiency and reducing emissions would have a positive effect on the economy.
So, why not make that argument instead of throwing red meat to the wolves? Why do both sides have to insist that the other side agrees to their perspective on climate if there's a compelling economic argument completely separate of the contentious stuff that could get everyone on board?
If we just made the conversation about efficiency and how much money we could save, everyone could get what they want without the need to argue about complex systems that few if any actually understand.
Of course, that doesn't sell magazines, newspapers or get viewers for the news casts... so, we continue...
Can't use force? Why not? If the government is weaker, or absent who is there to tell them what not to do? You and whose army?
If they have no legal standing to own property since they don't legally exist, they're not going to be able to get anyone to do anything.
That's ridiculous. That's like saying if a thug has no legal standing to own property he's not going to be able to get anyone to do anything.
You've got it backwards.
All that fancy "legally exist" and "legal standing" stuff are mere words. Words that hold no POWER unless they are ultimately backed by force e.g. the threat of violence.
If a Government has vanished, and a Corporation has its "private security team" they certainly can force you to do whatever they want, even if they don't "legally exist", as long as they pay that private security team whatever that team wants to do the job. And if you think the private security team would just turn on the Corporation, you should figure out why Dictators continue stay in power even if they are not very strong physically.
Governments exist and hold power in an area so long as they maintain a monopoly over violence in that area. Anyone who establishes and maintains a monopoly over violence in an area becomes the Government of that area by default. If a Government is too weak or absent, others take over.
Any violence would be purpatrated by individuals, not a corporation.
I suppose it does make a big difference to you to only get killed by "a Group of People Formerly Known As A Corporation" rather than some Corporation.
Won't make a big difference to people who live in the real world.
Why does a government need to have it's mitts fully up the ass of the market to be able to also defend individual rights? Just because government doesn't sanction corporations or muck around in the market doesn't mean it has to be weak in defending individual rights.
You're too stuck in the status quo to see that there's actually a much simpler solution. Obviously, you've bought into the protection racket like most others have. Government has to have all the power we can give it... enough to create the problems and enough to pretend to solve the problems it creates while still ending up with a system where normal people are disenfranchised and power and wealth are concentrated in those that have the resources.
While the little guy might still get screwed in a less regulated system without government created private power structures, he would at least have a chance. When the system requires so many lawyers to just navigate within it, it's a sure thing that the animal that will dominate is the one that can hire the lawyers. And, the strange coincidence is that the lawyers are the one's that are running the government and making the laws.
If you believe the government is the answer, they've already got you. So, now we all get to pay our protection money.