[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dvd-discuss] Lexmark Decision

> > 
> > Again, it sounds more like you disagree with the entire idea of
> > corporations.  I wouldn't confuse this with what rights a corperation
> > should have if it -is- allowed to exist.  It does make sense to me to
> > allow them because the partnership model doesn't scale so well.
> Not at all.  I just don't like them when they get out of control.
> The vast majoriy are of no concern.  I just think they should
> be regulated like any other government agency.
And here as we get farther off topic, you have hit on a big peeve of mine.  
I don't think a corporation should be treated like a government agency
under normalcircumstances, because there should be competition, and they
aren't government run.  Until you run into cases like Amtrak.  Amtrak is 
supposedly a private company, so they don't have to follow all sorts of
guidelines they would if they were a government agency.  Yet... They do
the government's bidding (ID Required to travel now on the train!, they
provide personal info about travellers to DEA and others with no warrant
required... even before 9/11).  They aren't accountable because they aren't
government,yet they derive a significant portion of their income from
government grants and subsidies.  There is no real competition either.

If the government creates and controls a monopoly, it should have to become
an official government agency, and be held to the same standards.   

(we won't get into how the the roads are subsidized by everyone's taxes,
 to that taking the train becomes uneconomical...)

 -- noah silva

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part