 R4M0NBrazilian Soccer Ownz Joo
join:2000-10-04
Glen Allen, VA | reply to Karl Bode
Re: I can already hear the conversation said by Karl Bode: quote:
What if, decades from now, it decides that selling for any profit is "sleazy activity"?
Yes, clearly I'm advocating that we outlaw profit. Very observant. Right.... That's exactly what I said. 
And you accused tkjunkmail of creating "bridges in his head"? |
|
|
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
2 edits | You proposed a scenario where a regulatory authority would suddenly deem making a profit something that should be banned. You can re-read your own post above.
TKJunkmail suggested I advocated mirroring Cuba's government.
Pretty common debate club tactic to re-frame an opponent's position to an extreme so it's easier to defeat. Not really interested in that kind of "discussion."
I believe you're missing my very simple point: overbilling the elderly for antique telephones is sleazy. You may think it's fine, I don't. |
|
 wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | said by Karl Bode:You proposed a scenario where a regulatory authority would suddenly deem making a profit something that should be banned. The point he was trying to make is that if a regulatory authority can determine this specific case as something that should be illegal or banned (given that no laws have been broken), they could later determine anything (such as making a profit) to be illegal as well. Once you cross over the line and start actively making decisions FOR people, nothing else is safe. What if they start making other decisions for elderly people? No entering into contracts just because you might get a bad deal? No purchasing gasoline if it might be cheaper elsewhere? No using email because they might be exposed to something offensive? Old people are not all stupid, and they should also be held responsible for their actions.
--
я люблю медведей! |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| quote:
The point he was trying to make is that if a regulatory authority can determine this specific case as something that should be illegal or banned (given that no laws have been broken), they could later determine anything (such as making a profit) to be illegal as well.
Yes, and Uncle Sam could suddenly outlaw wearing pants? Disband Uncle Sam?
Saying something could possibly happen does not support the position a regulatory authority should or shouldn't intervene in something like this. It's just kind of argumentative fluff for fans of deregulation. A scare tactic.
Obviously if you're designing the "perfect" regulatory authority, it's not some double headed monster that goes around outlawing things like making a profit. It's a reasonable authority, not compromised by industry cash, capable of reasonable regulation at times, but also being able to step back and appreciate instances that require no intervention. |
|
wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | said by Karl Bode:Obviously if you're designing the "perfect" regulatory authority, it's not some double headed monster that goes around outlawing things like making a profit. It's a reasonable authority, not compromised by industry cash, capable of reasonable regulation at times, but also being able to step back and appreciate instances that require no intervention. So what exactly would you have them "outlaw" in this case that couldn't also apply to another situation?
--
я люблю медведей! |
|
| reply to Karl Bode
AMEN ! |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
1 edit | reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:I believe you're missing my very simple point: overbilling the elderly for antique telephones is sleazy. You may think it's fine, I don't. Exactly. Even if it isn't illegal, it's hardly ethical, and rightly should be condemned.
Unfortunately these days there's a lot of people who think that profits and business self-interest is far more important and deserves greater privileges and rights then ordinary people. Ie, if it's good for some corporation then it MUST be good for the country. Who cares who the corporate bulldozer runs over.
.... Unless the bulldozer is coming at them.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
