[steadicat]

"Governments shouldn't have a monopoly on governance."

Isn't governance what governments are for? Granted, governments are dysfunctional in many ways, but suggesting governments let others govern seems a bit silly. Who else is going to govern? Should we let corporations sit on committees, next to officials, forgetting that officials were elected, and corporations were not?

There is no guarantee that companies are going to take care of our interests better than governments do. And let's not forget that governments are dysfunctional largely because of the influence that corporations themselves already exert on them.

[ataggart]

>Isn't governance what governments are for?

All As do B, but not everyone that does B is an A. I don't need an organization with a geographic monopoly on police powers to run my son's little league.

>There is no guarantee that companies are going to take care of our interests better than governments do.

Straw-man. The argument isn't that companies are going to "take care of our interests", it's that both politicians and CEOs respond to self-interest, but at least firms have competition for our dollars, thus are incentivized on a continual basis to meet our wants.

The problem with the preceding is that government -- either intentionally, or as an unintended consequence -- helps to constrain the competitive market pressures.

I would put a lot more stock in the "net neutrality" legislation advocates if they even bothered to look at what extant legislation might be contributing to the hypothetical problem before agitating for increased government manipulation of the market.

Further:

- Firms can operate in different markets; I can choose my barber independently from my grocer. With governments there are often competing factors in making electoral decisions, such that we are left with choosing the lesser of the evil package-deals.

- Multiple firms can service different sets of preferences. We don't need to vote on what color tie to wear, and then have the minority yield to majority's preference.

[ary]

You missed the obvious, but none the less ignored, idea (at least in the US we pretend) that governments govern with the consent of the people. Perhaps someone wouldn't mind speaking up?

[grav1tas]

While I somewhat agree with you, I do think that in the age of the pervasiveness of the Internet, we are moving to a time when sovereign governments have (if only) slightly less relevance than they did before. Sovereigns govern groups of people pretty much by geographic location based on 'citizenry' of areas where they reside/work/were born. With the rise of the Internet we now have new groups of people that have come together not based on geographic locations, but on shared ideas, interests, financial ventures, and what have you. These people can come together from all over the world online and may have more to do with each other than each members respective citizenry. To assume that sovereigns can/will/should act in the interest of this emerging enterprise is fairly far fetched in my opinion. Corporate interests may not defend them either, but still, on the Internet large corporations are almost sovereigns unto themselves. It'd be nice if some of these interest groups could have a/some seat(s) on this commission to help voice the interests of people who continually operate without respect to sovereign borders online.