Nobody Reads Their EULA

EULA's should be federally-controlled to not exceed beyond 500-words and come with three questions that have to be answered correctly before moving forward with any installation.

Why does the government have to get involved. Why cant we take care of ourselves. I admit I don't read the EULA's but I also don't complain about it either. Take some responsibility for your self and leave the government out of it. All they will do is waste our tax money even more.

Might I suggest you handle your own air traffic control the next time you fly, and open your own personal fire station "just in case".

Sure, and since we have government providing air traffic control and emergency rescue services, it's only natural to also bring them into every other aspect of our lives. It sure would be great if the government could monitor what I eat for breakfest to make sure it's healthy (I'd go to jail if it isn't- it's for my own good). Then they can make sure that I don't listen to my satellite radio too loud on my way to work (it's bad for my hearing), or that I don't listen to anything a little too profane (it hurts the children who don't even have access to a satellite radio subscription). Hell, government is good, so more government is better, right? I'm glad that with every ****up we see our government make we're still willing to give up more control and naivly entrust others with the most personal and intimate pieces of our lives. After all, they handle air traffic control.

If you want to make a specious argument go ahead, but the government already does monitor your food supply and it's a good thing. Go read The Jungle. You probably won't be eating sausages for breakfast anytime soon after that. Satellite radio too loud? I don't really care how deaf you plan to be later in life or how you intend to get there, but at least employers don't have the luxury of making that choice unilaterally on your behalf anymore. Regulation is often made necessary by the damaging excesses of a few.

I'm going to agree that his argument may be a little over the top, BUT you do understand his point. This isn't a government issue. It's a user issue.

You bring a VCR home and don't read the manual, is the government going to do that for you?

Install some software without reading the EULA. And you want the government to come in and do what for you? Oh I get it, you want it easy enough for a 7 yr old to read. Because 7 yr olds should be installing software on a computer without parental supervision. There ya go. Now we know where the problem is coming from.

Root cause.....NEGLIGENCE!

Oops! I did a boobo. Let me call Uncle Sam to fix this for me.

Sure I get the point, and I don't care if there's regulation or not. But it's pretty much a given that as long as there is no regulation or standard, someone somewhere will be trying to put one over on users. It's that simple.

Maybe what is needed is some member organization where SW vendors could participate and give their EULAs some kind of standardization and approval. It is a private contract after all. And of course, the same people who have problems now will still have problems with the scumware vendors who wouldn't participate. Why? Because they still wouldn't know an EULA if it bit them on the a**.

There ya go. Now that's what I call an idea. And there is no need to get the gov involved. It gets all the software makers to work together as opposed to trying to kill each other. This benefits everyone and it doesn't cost the users anything. Of course MS would come in and throw a Window at it and monopolize it. LOL!!

Hmmm last time I checked if you were in violation of an EULA and whomever it belonged to wanted to, they would file charges against you in a court of law (that's part of the gov't btw).

So maybe you are right and the gov't shouldn't be involved, just slice off the court system and we have nothing to fear from the contents of a license agreement or such.

LOL!!! Why are you posting? When you do something illegal (violate an EULA - a crime) then yes the court is involved. Not some "I have my own agenda" politician. See the difference? Court vs politician? LOL!! I'd like to see the Barack Obama (popular black politician who won a seat in one of the houses that is gaining all forms of praise without so much as lifting a finger - yet) or McCain come after you for violating an EULA.

Think...HARDER!

Not that I should respond to your post that makes no sense...... except that you are probably watching cspan right now... or more likely Fox news.

If you break a law it involves the gov't... pretty simple. The companies lawyers might "come after you" but it all goes though the gov't unless you choose not too (settle out of court, which is what they really want). The gov't provides services, rights and protection and if it didn't there wouldn't be much point in having a gov't now would there?

Should the gov't get involved? Probably not in most cases but if asshat "companies" that claim to have a legitimate product try to screw their "users" with deceptive clauses in their EULA they yes they the gov't does need to get involved.

Both of you are a little bit off on the "violating an EULA is a crime" thing. Violating a civil contract is not a crime, it is a tort. You don't "file charges" against someone (only "the people", e.g. prosecutors can "file charges"), you would file a civil lawsuit. The court then acts an intermediary to make sure that contract law is followed and to ensure that the contract doesn't violate any laws that would make it unenforcable. The government doesn't have any interest in the case except enforcing the contract as written.

Congress makes your laws. Not Judge Wapner. The creation of a law has nothing to do with violation of an EULA. C-Span or Fox are not my sources of info. Studying for your constitution test should help you understand how your government works.

The topic we are discussing is the creation of a law to force companies to write dummied-down versions of the EULA. This law is created by the legislative branch of government.
You bring up violating an EULA for what purpose? To try to set an example of how the government is involved. You stated, "...court of law (that's part of the gov't btw)...", which is technically correct. The courts are your judiciary branch of government.

Now correct me if I'm wrong but, where is the judiciary branch involved in the creation of laws?

To help you along, I will clarify MY comments for you. When I say "Government" or "gov", I am referring to the legislative branch. They are your law creators. Not the judiciary branch which presides over your alleged violations of an EULA.

Does that make sense now? Was it a simple matter of me not clarifying what "gov" meant?

I'm not a politician and I hate politics. But I sure as hell understand what the three branches of government are and how they affect my life.

vpoko - you are correct on the tort thingy. Thanks for the info.

Legislative? Judiciary? Who cares? An EULA is an EULA, if it says something, that something has to be supported by some law, they can't just pull a great idea out of their ass and throw it in the EULA and laugh all the way to the bank with it. I'm not saying this doesn't happen but not many people will press the issue to get these issues resolved in a legal way because these companies feed their scum sucking lawyers well.

And quit pointing the finger like you think I reject EULA's and sell pirated copies of software to my high school buddies. If I studied the constitution it was 15 years ago so I suggest you think before you judge ones age with your witty quotes about the details of our law making process.

The only EULA's I deal with are ones forced upon me by mandatory updates that keep software I paid for secure on the systems that have to have that software (windows updates) but they only get used for 15 minutes a month so I deal with it. Everything else is open source licensing and you know what, it doesn't have these hidden clause problems.

I don't believe you're correct on this point. Nobody needs to pass a law to enable somebody to insert a clause into an EULA. An EULA is a private contract between two parties (the software vendor and the end user) and is legally binding without any form of government approval.

Now, of course, there are some laws that establish civil contracts as legally binding. There is even a law (the ESIGN Act of 2000) which says you can "sign" a contract electronically, when you click on "accept" with an EULA. But as far as the CONTENT of the EULA, unless it requires you to do things contrary to law, it's legit.

That would be where the law comes in. I do believe that if it was taken to court, anything in an EULA that restricted how you remove software that is installed on your own hardware would be found to be invalid/illegal. This was what was linked to in the article (absurd demands) with the gator EULA.

You guys must be lawyers (real or arm-chair) because you nit-pick this "legal" "law" "gov't" thing way to seriously for what seems to be only to "argue".

firephoto - The topic of the discussion was government intervention in EULA creation. I oppose this very strongly. I'm not sure what side of the fence you stand on. But you have yet to make a point about the topic. All I was trying to do was help you understand that violating an EULA was not something that the courts care about or are involved in as vpoko has stated as well. They're just there to preside over these cases.

I can understand your upset about this and want to vent but please pick a side and insert a valid point.

"And quit pointing the finger like you think I reject EULA's and sell pirated copies of software to my high school buddies. If I studied the constitution it was 15 years ago so I suggest you think before you judge ones age with your witty quotes about the details of our law making process."

What??? Who's talking about pirated software? And the constitution comment was to help you understand the topic of discussion, government intervention in EULA creation and what PART of government is actually involved.

"You guys must be lawyers (real or arm-chair) because you nit-pick this "legal" "law" "gov't" thing way to seriously for what seems to be only to "argue"."

Not at all. You're just not on topic. Oh, and you're right. I am witty.

If they go to court someone has to decide who wins or loses..... yes?? The judge perhaps? Maybe a jury even? You don't just go to court to argue about it.

What part of that process being part of our gov't doesn't make sense?

"Government intervention in EULA creation"

Creation is the key word. Courts would be involved AFTER the CREATION. What you're talking about takes place after a violation has occured and someone wants to file a civil lawsuit.

IF (that's your word there) there is NO violation, are the courts involved? no

But again, this topic is about government intervention in EULA creation. Not EULA violation.

Oh well, I see it's too hard for you to answer a question just because it has nothing to do with what was brought up 6 hours ago and everything to do with what was discussed in the last hour.

see ya.

Oh and I hope you have fun spending your money protecting yourself when some simple checks and balances could protect everyone.

I wrote this:
There ya go. Now that's what I call an idea. And there is no need to get the gov involved. It gets all the software makers to work together as opposed to trying to kill each other. This benefits everyone and it doesn't cost the users anything. Of course MS would come in and throw a Window at it and monopolize it. LOL!!

You wrote this:
Hmmm last time I checked if you were in violation of an EULA and whomever it belonged to wanted to, they would file charges against you in a court of law (that's part of the gov't btw).

So maybe you are right and the gov't shouldn't be involved, just slice off the court system and we have nothing to fear from the contents of a license agreement or such.
------------
I'm talking about EULA creation and your talking about EULA violation. 6 hrs ago you were off topic.

Please explain to me what the courts have to do with EULA "creation", then I'll answer your question.

^^^ see that, it says in reply to you???
now rewind to page one...... see what my first post is lacking... yeah I wasn't replying to just your comment. You know some people click the article on the front page and it has these wonderful comments shown below that are in a tree not in a forum view. You see a thread going about a something and you comment on what was said in general in the topic which in this case was gov't involvement with anything to do with an EULA. I'm pretty sure if I was going to argue you point I would have quoted you but I didn't want to quote 6 posts by three people. Sorry you got lost and felt the need to defend yourself about my reference to a court being a gov't thing and my sarcasm about not needing to worry about a court system that doesn't need to exist.Oh and btw, if you are going to quote it might make more sense if you used the

quote:

---

your quote here

---

block so your quote posts are more legible.

Thank you for teaching me something new about how the news posts work. I had no idea. But alas, I was using the default view for news and thus was commenting accordingly. I clicked on the "topics" link to separate the topics just like a standard forum view. Thanks. That doesn't change much.

But, you say you were being sarcastic? Oh. Why didn't you just say so instead of getting into a retarded internet argument about nothing? I was wondering why your posts sounded so off topic. Hell, I wasn't the only one wondering that.

Trust when I say, " I'm a very civil person." I can handle making a mistake and your sarcasm was misinterpreted on my part. My bad.

Now.... I understand your comment about the courts being involved if someone sues because the courts are part of the government but I've yet to figure out why you posted something about criminal activity or EULA violations when the discussion was about making laws. Nobody was talking about end user EULA violations. That was your first post, right? I keep looking at it and I still don't get it. Started from the first post, to my posts, to your post and blah... nothing.

I don't know. Call me crazy.

Tapeloop - My suggestion to confusing EULAs is to not install the software. If the company really wants you to use it, they'll change it. A company would take action if such a situation came up. Unless of course your a spyware vendor. Then my suggestion applies perfectly.

Do you think that someone like Oracle (who charges per CPU as someone else pointed out) or Microsoft would renegotiate a EULA for a small- or medium-sized business? And have you ever tried to return a piece of opened software because you didn't agree with the (thoroughly read) EULA?

No I don't think they would negotiate. But those are big businesses. The smaller vendors, who are the the ones behind our having this discussion, would be more susceptible to people not installing the software if they feel intimidated by the EULA.

It's much too late to try to force large corporations to change their methods. They already have us cornered. The U.S. government didn't scare MS with it's law suits and neither did the EU. MS took those suits in stride.

The little guy is the one the would feel it the most. Let's take AdAware for instance. If most people would not install their software because they didn't like the EULA, where would they be? In obscuresville.

I'll agree with that. Which is why I'm saying that it's not unreasonable to have "plain language" legislation so that the small vendors don't get lumped in with the big guys when it comes to EULA-reading.

And actually I was referring to the small businesses that would be USING the software. I doubt Micorsoft or the like would be willing to alter their agreements so Joe Blow and his 5 employees could have resonable flexibility.

I suppose you're trying to say that it's unreasonable that there should be legislation regarding the language in EULAs. Actually, in many states there are "Plain Language" laws that are already on the books regarding contracts including real estate, insurance, credit applications, leasing, and other areas.

e.g.:
»library.lp.findlaw.com/a ··· g_2_3510
»www.irs.gov/taxpros/arti ··· ,00.html
»www.ethics.state.ct.us/p ··· mary.htm

So it really is reasonable to suggest that there should be laws regulating the composition and lucidity of software EULAs. In fact, it's probably even more apt in the EULAs case since a)people are more likely to come across many more EULAs than most other contracts, which neccessitates simple and concise language; b)the user has an "all-or-nothing" choice, meaning that there's no room for negotiation or editing (as in most other situations); and c)the user usually doesn't have counsel standing next to him/her when he/she installs software.

Would it be different if the EULA had a mandatory arbitration clause and you went to a private, binding arbitrator?

The difference between the courts getting involved is that a private party must bring the case before them. The court doesn't want to be there any more than the defendant does. Mediating a private contract is different from the government regulating a private contract, and that was the distinction I believe Plldwnyrpnts was making.

quote:

---

LOL!!! Why are you posting? When you do something illegal (violate an EULA - a crime) then yes the court is involved.

---

Violating a EULA is not a crime. Check out the definition of 'crime' some day.

It is merely violating the terms of a contract (after that is proved in court). Hardly anything criminal about it at all. It is a civil matter.

Although I think it would be nice for the government to take some of the tons of taxes we give it to protect us from unscrupulous corporations, they probably will not do so anytime soon. The results of a bad EULA usually aren't life or health threatening, which is where you would want to get the government involved. However, once these corporations start preventing you from proper access to your computer and the internet, then it is time for the government to get involved.

But we can't trust the government remember? We have to get govt. out of our lives and let big business regulate themselves. Worked for Lay & Kozlowski.

More people need to think this way instead of having big brother come and beat up the bully. Society needs to learn how to do things for themselves. No ifs, ands or butts.

Your argument might have held some water if it didn't utterly rely on the slippery slope fallacy...

Actually, the government is already involved. If it weren't for laws already on the books to prevent the sort of contract abuses that used to be a real problem in the days before consumer protection legislation, some company could write a EULA with buried clauses that for example allowed them to seize all your assets for any reason whatsoever, and then actually enforce it in court.

The question is just how much government regulation we want, or there should be, compared to the amount that we already enjoy. It does seem that EULAs have gotten out of hand to the point of being virtually nonsensical for an instrument supposed to carry legal weight and consequences, and some sort of corrective action is in order, though I don't have a detailed suggestion to offer. One possible model is the sort of standardized summary disclosure sheet required to be affixed to cars being sold.

Perhaps it doesn't require government involvement, but he does have a point. Anyone who wants to front some semblance of legality while passing a product that does something unethical could simply blabber on and on about meaningless things in the EULA knowing full well the consumer will eventually zone out and stop reading it.

Because, I am not licensed to shoot the b@stards when I feel they've tricked me. Now, if this were the wild west I would take care of my own business in a more appealing {to me} way.

I don't want the government micromanaging what I can and cannot agree to.

Ya, I really want the people who wrote our tax laws writing my EULA.

Here's a suggestion -- learn to read long passages of text without having to have taxpayer money fund programs/agencies to enforce the idiotic idea that you just proposed. Lazy Democr-- Never mind. I'll let it slide for now.

IronChefMorimoto

Read?? You really expect the general U.S. population to be able to read something like this?? Much less understand all the garbage in these EULA's.

Yup!

Keep up or get left behind.

Really now, and how would this be enforced and by whom ? How would it be paid for ? Who would approve the questions that had to be answered ?

Yes, incredibly long EULAs are a pain and are typically written in a language that most people have a hrd time comprehending (legalese)... But face it, the government isn't going to be able to fix it. These guys will just pick up and move to another country where there is no requirement for them to jump thorugh these hoops...

There really is no solution to this problem.

The eff.org has an interesting article on EULA's.

»eff.org/wp/eula.php

Most suspicious EULA (adware products) are more than 5 pages long, that's a lot of stuff!

Reminds me of the Dilbert from a few years back where he inadvertantly became indentured to Bill Gates as his towel boy after installing some MS software.

Not unlike "universal default" on revolving credit accounts; I discovered that one early on because I once bothered to read the insert from some outrageous credit card deal (wasn;t so great after that though!).

In response to amenite post, here's that cartoon. I love it.

»www.mevis.de/~meyer/MISC ··· di/a.htm

OMFG

WTF 5936 words.

I used to remember I used to get pissed when I got punishment to write a 1000 word essay.

WTF

Holding people hostage under terms that paid LIARS, I mean lawyers can't even determined, are about to be ruled unconstitutional. The sh*t is gonna hit the fan with all these companies who falsely believe they can change law for their own benefit.

This has been long overdue !

I wish I had been reading all my eula's

This is how I will be reading my eulas from now on

open Eula
crtl+a
crtl+c
winkey+r
notepad.exe
crtl+v
crtl+f
$

LoL

lmao!

This forum seems a little more angry this morning for some reason.

Its just a EULA, either read it or don't.

"gator EULA is 5,936 words on 63 pages"
Depending on what these lawyers get from writing the EULAs, maybe I should consider writing pages of BS for money too.

Darn, I had used the product in that time period.

I guess the reason I don't read the EULAs that carefully is because I monitor what the programs are doing that I install. So I guess I agree that ultimately the user is responsible, not the government.

For those who want to criticize the Gator EULA, there's more to criticize than just length.

See my "Gator's EULA Gone Bad" ( »www.benedelman.org/news/ ··· 4-1.html ). Gator prohibits removing its software in "unauthorized" ways (like using Ad-Aware), and prohibits using a packet sniffer to see what information it transmits about its users. As installed by Kazaa, Gator's license offers seriously deficient formatting -- omitting the line breaks and bold types that would ordinarily make section headings stand out.

See also »www.benedelman.org/spywa ··· license/ , showing all 56 pages of Claria's summer 2004 license as shown by Kazaa. (Now the license is even longer.)

I guess reformatting your computer would also be an unauthorized removal.

Marrow

Granted I am one that would have never found that $1000 so I am not sure what EULAs do currently include, but I can only think of 3 things that needs to contained in them.

1.) Establish legal ownership of the code and license
2.) Company's liability for their work (warranty) and your rights according to it
3.) Your assertion that you obtained, installed, and are using the software/license legally (not pirated, are you of age, not using for illegal activities, etc)

Anything else that grants the company any other "rights" or removes any of yours should be separate. Especially when it is something beyond the “obvious” scope of the software (games installing adware). Your refusal to agree or disagree to these separate things could still, at the company’s discretion, prevent the installation.

Note that I don’t mention privacy policy up there. I should without a doubt not have to worry about the company invading my privacy and as such the default for any software should be no collection and no tracking of any kind, just simply install. If they want their software to invade my privacy, then it should be a completely separate agreement that can be reviewed and agreed or disagreed with separately. Disagreement with this attempted invasion should not stop the installation of the product, unless of course it is the only purpose of the product.

Beyond that I couldn’t care less what they want us to agree to, as long as it is separate. If game makers want us to agree that we will not cheat, or the penalty will be death (as it should be), then so be it. If Mr. Gates wants us to give up our first born male child in order to install MS Office 2003, then so be it. As long as it is a separate agreement, it is clear, and we have every opportunity to agree or disagree with their demands.

EULA's are pretty shitty, there was once a time ( before this dmca bullshit) that all you had to do was read several lines of text, maybe a page worth, thats it, the company would specify that this software was owned and copyrighted by them and their warrenty for it, that is it, nothing more or less, nowadays everything you download or buy has massive eulas, www.eff.org has a good article on it, eulas prevent the use of software after you buy it, therefore lets say I buy some software, its a no return policy, if I go into the install and choose to install it, and it says something in the eula that I can't accept, there goes my money, I can't use the software, there really isn't much reason to have large eulas with massive amounts of legal bullcrap to begin with, I wish we could go back to those old days when all we had to read was a simple copyright and warrenty info...

Although the question of how software can be used seems simple, it can actually be quite complex.
I have had to call multiple software companies about ambiguous (dare I say they needed include more information)EULAs regarding how we could use the software. Questions about the licenses can be: Is it licensed on a per server, per cpu, per unique client, per concurrent client basis? Does remote access count as an additional install/location, is a specific remote user considered unique from the same user when in the office? How is concurrent users determined? Is it the number of users actively using a program, the number of computers with the program running, or the number of computers that are turned on and have the program installed?

For a business, slight EULA differences can be very expensive. For example, databases are frequently licensed on a per CPU basis. Oracle currently plans to count dual-core processors as two CPUs, whereas Microsoft is considering them a single processor. Oracle requires twice the number of licenses Microsoft would.

My point: EULAs are a necessary evil and are complex and long-winded for a reason. With that said, I think a having a standardized 2-3 page EULA would be a good idea. Software EULAs could reference the standard EULA and provide exceptions. This would make it much easier to spot shady EULAs.

One a side note, a EULA is generally now on the software CD. The EULA usually say to return the software to the retailer for refund if you do not agree with the EULA. Very few retailers will accept returns on opened software. Has anyone ever tried returning software because of a EULA?

I wonder if it could have been googled? Maybe more is waiting on other sites. One of the best finds i saw was the guy offering a mill if you could solve his puzzel. Then he goes and shows it finished on live TV for a few sec's.. No one told him about TIVO he stopped the deal shortly after,

I have read EULAS and find most are the same as the other with exceptions of privacy.

I did hit that site during the time frame as well.

i heard that if you record yourself reading aloud (obviously) the WinXP EULA and send the recording in an email to customer support you'll get an email back to send to all your friends and get 1$ for each forward.

Did the same person that told you this send you an e-mail saying that the US Govt. was starting to charge a fee for e-mail? :D

In this would be good. I don't mean having the government actually write the EULA either. I mean have a simple law that would force the companies to put their EULAs into simple english. Like what happened with food labels. Tell us without all of the lawyer double speak what we can and cannot do with the product. Tell us what will be installed and how if we want to to opt out.(ie spyware). I am not saying make it so a 7-year old could read it but at least make it shorter and easier to read for the average user who doesn't have a law degree.

I've used PC Pitstop wearily for years (and I just ran a scan less than 30 days ago), but I have never seen this product/service before. No wonder I missed this. Does anyone use it or know if it's any good?

Consider this, you buy a new piece of home electronics. You get something the size of a novel The first 300 pages are math equations, tables, chards, some language that looks like what you speak, but is composed of strange words in an even stranger order. Finally, the last 4 tell you how to plug in your gizmo, and turn it on. The final page consists of a card that you place into the machine to make it work. On that page it says that "By using this card, I agree to the terms lain out here in this manual". A few months latter, you receive a summons in the mail. It turns out that the device has a radio transmitter camera, and microphone in it. It turns out that the company has determined that you in violation of its licence agreement and that the radio transmitter made the company aware of your violation.
The day comes for you to go to court, you clutch your manual in hands after now trying to go over it, sure there is nothing in there you have done wrong. In fact, yo are outrages, they should have disclosed the camera, microphone, and transmitter in the manual! You prepare your barrage, and in mere minutes, it is shot down. The company puts an engineer on the stand and points to one of the pages of squiggly lines. "This here is obviously a preamp for a transmitter. He flips to another page, "here is the obvious transfer function for the RF mixer to the final amp. And this page has all the equations for the antenna." He then turns to another page and reads out loud. The words make even less sense spoken. "And that is disclosure of the camera and microphone." "What?! you say to yourself, I shouldn't need an engineering degree to decipher all of this!" Turn out that your violation is not paying attention to the ads on the programming you were receiving with the device. The camera clearly shows you walking out of the room to go to the bathroom or get a snack, the microphone clearly records you talking through another commercial to someone else in the room. The judge, who also happens to have an engineering degree, also agrees it is all very obvious. You are given an offer to settle out of court. It is expensive, but less than trying to hire an engineer and lawyer yourself. It turns out that you can't throw out your device, ebay it, or scavenge it for parts (if you were so inclined). Yo can't even move the box. All you can do is unplug it at best. IF you want to be rid of it, the company will gladly send someone out to take a circuit board out of the box.

Yes this is absurd, but only because it involves a physical box, and the requirement for an engineering degree. The courts are lawyers though, and to them, legalize is perfectly acceptable. Perhaps they all believe that the consumer should be able to read it just as well. As for the judicial system not making law, I haven't seen anyone point out legal precedent which can be just as strong as law when wielded by a lawyer. It is how a number of problems arose during the industrial revolution. We are now at a similar point in time. The problem is how can these companies be effectively boycotted? There are plenty of people who lack the education to see the need for such a thing, and don't care anyway. In the end, there WILL be a government law, either restrictive of EULAs, or letting the companies get away with whatever they want. The government does not have to be big and scary. I don't agree with the philosophy of thousands of agencies managing everything. But I don't believe that human being are nice, noble creatures either, especially not those with power (remember that money=power). If our great grandparents, grandparents, and parents had been responsible citizens, we wouldn't have to fear government. But the system was hijacked. We can't keep the government out now, its too late for that. Doing nothing is an invitation for someone else to step in.

The invisible hand of capitalism is a nice idea, but assumes everyone as equals in some very basic thinking. This is not the case as should be evident by the current state of business. By standing by, we are only trading elected government of a different one, one that is more like the aristocracy this nation fought for freedom from nearly 130 years ago. Keep that in mind next time you go to vote.