| >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. |