What I wrote was specifically targeting the fallacy of applying the "let
the market decide" argument to our current telecommunications business
environment.  I am actually glad that you asked this question since it
indicates I hit my desired target.

Now to answer your question I don't have much time right now so I will
try to be direct and to the point with some bullets of my opinions.

- Free market is preferred over other models when possible.

- Free market is very difficult or close to impossible for some things
like roads, utilities, air traffic control and many other things due to
high cost or safety or other reasonable situations.

- When the free market is not a good fit, government should step in to
provide the proper environment to provide the product.

- Government involvement can range from small regulation like
certifications or licensing (building contractors) all the way to full
control such as owning and maintaining the product (local roads).

- Government should get out of the way if the environment of the good
becomes more conducive to free market conditions.  Like the few years of
the long distance service market where I pay a monopoly for my local
connection but have a choice of many long distance providers.

- Businesses are in business to make profit, this is good.

- Businesses sometimes disregard safety or actively work to prevent a
free market, this is bad.

- When government forgets that their job is to maintain as close to a
free market as possible, this is bad.

- When government thinks that incumbent businesses are the boss and
continue to restrict free market creation when it is not needed, this is
bad.

- We are currently in a political environment where government is more
interested in maintaining or increasing restrictions on the free market
than they are in actually fostering innovation and free culture.
Witness DMCA, attempts to mandate DRM, copyrights that last essentially
forever, patents on any thing that starts with "e-" and changing
regulations such that competition is stifled in the name of "providing
incentives."

Nutshell: I am against the protectionist practices our government
engages in currently.  The government should step in only to provide
good when the market can't or won't and only then just enough to provide
it and only then just as long as actually needed and never to save the
business model of the current incumbent companies.

I disagree with both the sides of the argument: One side that
"businesses must keep making money" as presented by republicans
(usually) and incumbent dinosaur companies.  The other that "businesses
make too much money" as presented by democrats (mostly) and social
minded "free-loaders."  The ideal position lies not in black and white
but somewhere in the gray middle with protection applied only where
needed and restrictions applied only where deserved.

That is probably not very clear and full of errors and took more time
than I thought I had to write.  I'm so in trouble for not being home
right now!

Alan

Bryan O'Neal wrote:
> Much of what you say is very true.  But is this a pro or con to the
> protectionist practices our government engages in?