<div>I am always down for a civil debate, no matter then venue.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As we both pointed out, yes, there are going to be portions of the population that are going to be greedy. But that doesn't mean that it is bad to be selfish. (this leads into a long ethics discussion, but I will not get into that at this time.) Does trying to punish a small percentage of greedy individuals make it right to force the entire population into regulations that will hamper their freedom? I hold firm that the judicial system is sufficient in dealing with any actual illegal activities (i.e. the unwarranted use of force or fraud, breech of contract, etc.). The idea of helping out the "less fortunate businesses" at the detriment to the more successful businesses is an atrocity in my view. (Bailouts, non-competition zones, etc.) </div>
<div>Now, I will admit that there have been plenty of businesses and individuals that have committed fraud, and they should be punished severely for such a crime. But adding more regulation, to cover an issue that is already covered by existing laws is ridiculous to me. Adding regulations to "protect" the public from a contract that they have to voluntarily agree to, is stepping over my freedoms to choose what is in my best interest. It is not the governments position to protect me from my own decisions. If I am forced into a decision, then that is the use of force by defination, and I would classify that as illegal. We cannot spend our time protecting the stupid from companies. If you want to figh that battle, then you need to first focus on protecting the stupid from the government. (Old laws that are not applicable, but still enforcable, cryptic laws, obscure laws).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Furthermore, I will hold that regulations do nothing to actually provide a "fair" environment but just codifies what can and cannot be punished in a subset of actual laws. This environment ties the hands of the honest, and provides a framework that the dishonest will try and skirt around (bend but do not break these "laws"). Taking it further, those that are really dishonest, will out right break the laws, and cover it up. Leading to more regulations, further tying the hands of the honest individuals even more. (Look at the cause and results of the Enron scandal and the Standard Oil Company fear that lead to the Anti-trust act) In the case of the Enron scandal, there was already a regulator body (the SEC) with its set of regulations. What Enron did was blantly illegal, as proven by the fact that those accountable were convicted with criminal charges. And what was the outcome? More regulations. The regulations that existed, punished the guilty, and all that needed to happen was the SEC needed to focus more on doing its job. Instead, we add more paperwork, add more hurdles for everyone to jump through, inconvience everyone, instead of pushing the SEC to abide by the already existing regulations. This society seems to be in the mindset of, someone messed up, so we need to add more hoops for everyone to jump through, instead of focusing on the entity that failed us. (Energy Department and our continued dependence on forgien oil anyone?) If the current entities cannot fulfill their original mission, what makes you think that more regulations will work? If they are ignoring their current tasks, what makes you thinking that new, and tougher tasks are going to be the saviour?</div>
<div><br><Breath></div>
<div> </div>
<div>The government needs checks and balances because the government is the only entity that can initiate force. A company cannot initiate force legally. A company cannot force you to buy a product except through government mandate. A company can only conduct trade. A government can conduct war, declare states of emergency, raise taxes and FORCE you to pay them. No matter how many times you say it, a company cannot produce tyranny, because you can choose to conduct business with any other company. The only ways that a company can establish a monopoly is </div>
<div>1) by being the best and constantly bettering themselves to keep entrepreneurs out of the market. </div>
<div>2) by government assistance (legslation, favors, etc.) </div>
<div>3) Force or Fraud, which should be illegal by the laws of the government.</div>
<div>A government is a much scarier entity then a company. So my goal is to limit the amount of influence any government has in my personal life.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>You mention that these "tyrannical" tendencacies are evident in history. Well lets take an example that all of us should know. The Microsoft Anti-trust suit. Microsoft had a huge market share in this country, with its OS and its browser. Over time, competetiors innovated, and provided services that was not address by Microsoft needs, or made better services then Microsoft offered. Apple, Linux, Google, all chipping away at Microsofts markets. Now we are seeing innovation from others, and Microsoft playing catch up. Microsoft is loosing market shares left and right. Has anyone seen any actual difference in Microsoft's business practices? Do you think that they have become less agressive, or has the competition matured? Does anyone want to ague the fact that we have alot more choices now, across all relms of what use to be Microsofts domain? The government failed to nail it's anti-trust case to MS, does anyone know of anything else they did to hobble MS?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Simmons</div>