| > [..] it's a mistake to try establish broad frameworks which try to deal the wrong causes of the problem [..] It's true that regulations sometimes are harmful, but this really depends on the specific circumstances, and I don't see an argument here for being anti-regulation in general. A lot of governments especially those today, have come about via democratic revolutions or less-violent processes. As citizens of those places, many of them want their government to regulate corporations, especially since this is typically more effective than trying to boycott the corporation. > I believe more competition would lead to better services than government (and corporations) offers in almost all areas. (To be clear, I'm not an anarchist, but the smaller the government, the better). I also believe that competition is generally a good thing, but I don't believe that "small government" preserves competition. Those "natural monopolies" (as you defined, whatever that means) destroy their own competition by definition, and just because they are "natural" does not mean that they stay efficient, or that they don't abuse their own power. That is not necessarily to say that I favor a large government, but in order to preserve competition, efficiency, and lack of abuse, we need to think of mechanisms other than simply "small government". If government regulations is the only mechanism we can think of for now, I'd rather we try that, than stick to "small government" for ideological reasons and let corporate power run amok. > The biggest problem of government is that it simply wants to do more and more. Socialism gradually creeps in a step at a time, mostly unnoticed because each step is small and seems harmless. This effect happens with large corporations too. First they provide good service, and everyone buys from them believing they will use their power well, and this seems harmless. Then sometimes they grow too powerful and start abusing their position (with or without help from government handouts) and consumers are negatively affected to different degrees. > [..] big tech companies engaged in censorship, they're not essential services [..] What is essential or not also depends on the context of history. It is not in human nature to require a banking system, but as you agree it's impractical to operate in society today without having access to banking services. It's also becoming very hard to operate in society without access to the internet and various other tech services that 99% of other people have access to. |