Former CIA and NSA employee source of intelligence leaks

[Berkut]

The alternatives to Google in the phone OS market are Apple and Microsoft. All three are in PRISM.
The alternatives in the search market are once again Microsoft and Yahoo. Again all in the program.


It's really funny seeing blind faith in both the government and Teh Market in the same thread, by the same people.

What is ironic is that the same people arguing that the government is screwing the people by spying on them, then instantly turn around and argue that the people should give up MORE power to that very same government so it can protect them from big business spying on them!

How is expecting or asking the government to regulate big business in anyway 'people giving up power' to the government?

The proposition is that the government ought to pass a law mandating that regular citizens NOT be allowed to enter into a contract with some segment of businesses. If you don't understand how that is giving up power to the government, I don't think there is anything I can do to explain it to you.

[mongers]

The alternatives to Google in the phone OS market are Apple and Microsoft. All three are in PRISM.
The alternatives in the search market are once again Microsoft and Yahoo. Again all in the program.


It's really funny seeing blind faith in both the government and Teh Market in the same thread, by the same people.

What is ironic is that the same people arguing that the government is screwing the people by spying on them, then instantly turn around and argue that the people should give up MORE power to that very same government so it can protect them from big business spying on them!

How is expecting or asking the government to regulate big business in anyway 'people giving up power' to the government?

The proposition is that the government ought to pass a law mandating that regular citizens NOT be allowed to enter into a contract with some segment of businesses. If you don't understand how that is giving up power to the government, I don't think there is anything I can do to explain it to you.

That's not the sole topic in this thread, that was DG points about entering into a privacy contract; myself and Iormlund are addressing the boarder issue.

[DGuller]

The alternatives to Google in the phone OS market are Apple and Microsoft. All three are in PRISM.
The alternatives in the search market are once again Microsoft and Yahoo. Again all in the program.


It's really funny seeing blind faith in both the government and Teh Market in the same thread, by the same people.

What is ironic is that the same people arguing that the government is screwing the people by spying on them, then instantly turn around and argue that the people should give up MORE power to that very same government so it can protect them from big business spying on them!

And if you read other people's posts instead of "fixing" them, you would find out a perfectly consistent ideology driving such views.  The government should empower people, and empowering them includes giving them a real option when it comes to contracts of adhesion for vital services.

[Bluebook]

Who gets to define when a regular citizen, or group thereof, becomes a company, and hence I am no longer allowed by Big Brother to enter into contracts with them?

Why, Im glad you asked Berkut, that would be the legislature. Which in turn is selected through democratic elections.

And you, as a corporation, are not prohibited from entering into contracts with regular citizens, you are just prohibited to enter into unfair contracts who take advantage of them. Basically you are prohibited from using your standing/situation to take unfair advantage of consumers who have little or no possibility to protect their own interests in a contract negotiation with you. This is especially true if your opinion of a contract negotiation consists of you posting a 50-page document on your webpage with two options for the consumer, along the lines of "accept" or "log out".

Consumer protection laws exist to protect consumers. A consumer is easily identified as such by being a physical person buying goods or services from a business, large or small. So, a lawyer can be a consumer, while a group of lawyers cannot. But really, all that part of your post is just blah really. And instead of you posting alot of cunning examples trying to undermine the principle I just outlined, just skip that part and rest assured there are fully functioning laws with working definitions of consumers and businessess etc. Focus on the principle.

[Admiral Yi]

That's not the sole topic in this thread, that was DG points about entering into a privacy contract; myself and Iormlund are addressing the boarder issue.

Virtually all government regulation restricts choice.  Let's say that some consumers are perfectly happy depositing their money at a bank that charges outrageous overdraft fees, because they watch their balance carefully and are either indifferent to the fees or believe other attributes of the bank compensate for them.  A regulation that caps overdraft fees takes away a choice that people were previously making.

[Bluebook]

Virtually all government regulation restricts choice.

Indeed. And that restriction of choices, or restriction of freedom if you will, is the tradeoff we all accept when we chose to live in a nation state instead of in a place like Somalia.

[DGuller]

Virtually all government regulation restricts choice.

That is true.  However, sometimes it merely restricts it in a different way than free market does, rather than reduce the number of real options you have.  What radical free marketeers and libertarians don't understand is that individuals can be effectively coerced without a government involvement.  In such cases, I would certainly prefer for the government to take over the coercion;  at least I get to vote occasionally.

[Berkut]

I am focused ont eh principle, and have no problem with the principle of consumer protection laws, of course. We have lots of them.

But we are not talking about princicples, we are talking about a specifically proposed law to "protect" consumers from entering into a contract based on some imagined unfairness.

Like I said, why don't we legislate the price while we are at it? I am just as unfairly restrained from negotiating the price of my contract for my cell phone as I am the services - it is pretty much the same offer. Take it or leave it. If I leave it, I can go to some other provider, where the prices will also be take it or leave it.

Why is "accept or log out" by definition unfair? You are defining "unfair" as any deal where the one party is not interested in actually negotiating with every single individual, and then using that as your justification to get the state involved in deciding what is "fair" for that deal. Of course, that won't give the consumer any more choice either - they will still have to hit "Accept or log out", the only difference being the state gets to decide what they are accepting or not instead of the business. The state cannot force companies to do something that is categorically impossible to do - negotiate individually with consumers, which seems to be the crux of the issue here.

So the solution in this case is no better, on the merits of justifying intervention, than the problem to begin with, and almost certainly worse, because the state is almost certainly incapable of actually rationally and reasonable deciding what WOULD be a "fair" fair use policy for every company across multiple technologies that are constantly changing.

You will still be left with a consumer who has no ability to negotiate, but now the state is involved as well.

Which isn't to say that it should never be done, just that it should be done pretty damn conservatively. Which, by the way, is exactly how it works right now. There are in fact laws in place that deal with fair use rules, and what companies can and cannot ask consumers to do, and what they can and cannot actually do in response regardless of what consumers actually sign.

[Admiral Yi]

Indeed. And that restriction of choices, or restriction of freedom if you will, is the tradeoff we all accept when we chose to live in a nation state instead of in a place like Somalia.

The tradeoff is accepting laws that limit destructive behavior, like murder and theft.

We're talking about contracts that harm no one else, and which both parties are happy to enter in to.

[Bluebook]

Indeed. And that restriction of choices, or restriction of freedom if you will, is the tradeoff we all accept when we chose to live in a nation state instead of in a place like Somalia.

The tradeoff is accepting laws that limit destructive behavior, like murder and theft.

No, the extent of the tradeoff is determined by the legislative assembly and accepted or modified through elections.

We're talking about contracts that harm no one else, and which both parties are happy to enter in to.

In that case, we are not talking about consumer protection laws...

[Berkut]

Virtually all government regulation restricts choice.

That is true.  However, sometimes it merely restricts it in a different way than free market does, rather than reduce the number of real options you have.  What radical free marketeers and libertarians don't understand is that individuals can be effectively coerced without a government involvement.  In such cases, I would certainly prefer for the government to take over the coercion;  at least I get to vote occasionally.

I think everyone understands that people can be coerced without the government.

The issue here is not lack of understanding, it is the different weight different people apply to the value of individual liberty, and the different respect people have for the rights of individuals to make choices - even bad choices. We are all social animals, and hence make collective decisions at some level. The issue is at what level, and where the bar for deciding when collective action is necessary even if it does in fact impinge on individual freedom.

Or rather, choices that some people think are bad, because they honestly and fervently believe that they are smarter than everyone else so much so that they ought to be able to make choices for others.

That is the fundamental struggle here. The struggle between those who think an enlightened elite will make better choices for everyone versus those who think that individuals will make better choices for themselves.

[Admiral Yi]

ndividuals can be effectively coerced without a government involvement.

Please elaborate.

[Bluebook]

I am focused ont eh principle, and have no problem with the principle of consumer protection laws, of course. We have lots of them.

But we are not talking about princicples, we are talking about a specifically proposed law to "protect" consumers from entering into a contract based on some imagined unfairness.

No, it is not an imagined unfairness. It is an unfairness. Period. Otherwise the consumer protection law does not apply.  Perhaps that is where you go wrong in your argument.

[Admiral Yi]

No, the extent of the tradeoff is determined by the legislative assembly and accepted or modified through elections.

Then you are talking about a choice, and not an inescapable prerequisite of living in a nation state.

In that case, we are not talking about consumer protection laws...

I don't follow.

[DGuller]

Virtually all government regulation restricts choice.

That is true.  However, sometimes it merely restricts it in a different way than free market does, rather than reduce the number of real options you have.  What radical free marketeers and libertarians don't understand is that individuals can be effectively coerced without a government involvement.  In such cases, I would certainly prefer for the government to take over the coercion;  at least I get to vote occasionally.

I think everyone understands that people can be coerced without the government.

The issue here is not lack of understanding, it is the different weight different people apply to the value of individual liberty, and the different respect people have for the rights of individuals to make choices - even bad choices. We are all social animals, and hence make collective decisions at some level. The issue is at what level, and where the bar for deciding when collective action is necessary even if it does in fact impinge on individual freedom.

Or rather, choices that some people think are bad, because they honestly and fervently believe that they are smarter than everyone else so much so that they ought to be able to make choices for others.

That is the fundamental struggle here. The struggle between those who think an enlightened elite will make better choices for everyone versus those who think that individuals will make better choices for themselves.

Jesus, you're fucking impossible sometimes.  I'm not in the mood to do the whole "build a strawman, expose a strawman" dance that every attempt to honestly discuss issues with you degenerates into.  I'm done here.