insaniak wrote:
No, I'm absolutely serious. You seem to think that allowing the government to regulate this thing that you personally don't agree with will mean that said government will go power-mad and regulate
everything.
Which is patently not the case. Governments (including yours) regulate all sorts of things. That's a part of their
job. But their power to do so ultimately starts and ends with those who elect them.
That would only be true if they were accountable to those electing them in a meaningful way.
The way it actually works is that if some elected official does something you dont like, in theory you can opt not to vote for them, in theory this might hurt their chances of being elected.
Even if it does result in them not being elected, there is no way you voting in someone else will result in the offensive law being rescinded or changed.
Its at the point where you can literally have candidates campaign on things like closing gitmo for example, then they simply do not make good on the promise (plenty of examples from both sides doing this), and jon q public has zero meaningful recourse.
Governments have the job of regulating things, this is true, but the performing of needless regulation isnt in line with the goals or mandate of that job much in the same way a cabbies job is to drive you somewhere but if they just circle around a few extra times its considered superfluous and not performing their job properly . If the regulations are out of line with public interest, or are just a waste of time, or simply dont make sense, then the
""they are just doing their job" argument, is a non sequitur because that is not the point, they are doing their job poorly.
That being said, I think we should allow any names we want, if only to point out who the stupid parents are.
