Recently in England, there was some uproar as evidence that a government agency that was supposed to help protect people's privacy was actually in collusion with an internet ad company (read about it here). As it turns out, the agency was supposed to "ensure" the online privacy of the British people, and was likely working with a company to decide how much privacy they should be protecting. This is hardly the only example of such government abuses, and it is in no way limited to the United Kingdom. America has more examples of inappropriate government/corporation collusion then a person can count. Energy, pollution, finances, and almost everything else imaginable have fallen under the watchful eye of the government. We have seen the results, and they are not good. At best, it makes noise about protecting something or someone while doing nothing more then increasing red tape and prices for the consumers. At worst, it expands government power and influence and leads to wide spread corruption.
In the United States, most of these regulatory powers are unconstitutional and they do not work. The power over industry is what creates lobbyists and the "culture of corruption" that both parties are such fans of. If the government did not have any of these extraordinary powers, then there would be no work for the lobbyists. Not only are these powers unconstitutional, but they are also usually used to create regulations that are reactionary. The regulations are spawned because of some perceived problem or complaint from the "concerned" populous. These regulations stifle competition by ensuring that no small or start-up companies can afford to enter the market. Larger corporations, that were able to operate without these restrictions, are easily able to absorb the costs or the fines created by them. There are even lobbyists to twist the regulations to benefit the entrenched companies at the cost of newer or smaller ones. If nothing else works companies have proven that they are not above giving bribes, and politicians are certainly not above taking them. Ultimately, the government is doing nothing more then hurting the consumer by driving down choice and driving up prices.
The only way to combat this kind of governmental scope creep is to start taking responsibility for ourselves. If you want your privacy protected online then take steps to do so. If you don't want a tiered internet system, don't support any ISPs that use it. If you don't want your children to watch filth on the television, then change the channel. Even the "big" issues can be solved this way. If a company has discriminatory hiring practices (the government got rid of that right?), then don't support them by working there or shopping there. The biggest, evilest corporations in the world still need money to exist. With out money or employees, the company will have to change its ways or die. Voting with our actions is infinitely more effective then with our politicians.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Voting with our actions is infinitely more effective then with our politicians"
ReplyDeletebut infinitely harder to organize.
At some point we have to stop assuming that some one else will take care of us. The man tending the light at the end of the tunnel doesn't always (ever) have our best interests at heart.
ReplyDeleteWell said - I've always been an advocate of personal responsibility, but since when has the population adhered to common sense?
ReplyDeleteHey, I'm not saying its a bad concept. But it is just a concept. You can directly organize people into action on a smaller scale. You can even organize national public pressure campaigns. Like this, for example: http://www.ciw-online.org/ It's called direct-action organizing, it's what I do. But you can't get everyone in the country to stop buying from Walmart, and you can't expect a large enough majority of people to put in work on any organizing campaign.
ReplyDeleteSo we should hope that someone does it for us?
ReplyDelete