OT: protectionist practices?

[Alan Dayley]

Fritz wrote:
> The above paragraph seems somewhat ill informed.  It states, in part
> 
>     "We are currently in a political environment
>        where GOVERNMENT (my emphasis) is more interested in ... "
> 
> Is there anyone on this list who doubts that these "free market 
> restrictions"
> (DMCA, Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, etc.) were brought
> about by PRIVATE corporate interests (MPAA, RIAA, etc.) using their
> well armed cadre of lobbyists?
> 
> Government itself has no interest.  However, the politicians occupying it
> at any given time certainly do.  Most politicians like giving speeches and
> getting re-elected and in todays times there's no better way to get 
> re-elected
> than to "sell your services" to potentially large campaign donors.
> 
> Our federal government has evolved into the "stick-up gun" for large,
> private, corporate interests:  in essence a wealth transfer mechanism.
> 
> A question for all the libertarian, Second Amendment fans on this list:
> When there's a handgun shooting do you blame the gun or the shooter?
> 
> Fritz
> 
> I've got my welding goggles on, flame away .......... :-)

First of all let me state that I agree with you.  I am confused about
your distinction between "government" and "the politicians occupying it."

I understand that our current form of government exists based on a set
of laws and therefore, out lives any politician or functionary that
serves in the government.  However, what government does is directed by
those very politicians so in the context of this discussion, government
IS the politicians.  Government HAS whatever interest the people
currently running it have.

That the people running the government have been and are influenced by
lobbyists and corporate interests is not in question at all.  The RIAA
or MPAA or any other group does not create the laws, government does.
That such laws may be "purchased" by corporate interests through
manipulation of the politicians is not in doubt but that does not change
the fact that the GOVERNMENT is what creates and enforces said laws.
Therefore, the government does have an interest.

You even state "Our federal government has evolved into the "stick-up
gun" for large, private, corporate interests" which sound like
government interest to me.

I think we are splitting hairs here but are essentially on the same
side.  But, I am curious to understand your point.  What do you mean
that government has not interest but the politicians running it do?  And
why is that distinction important?

Alan


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/pipermail/plug-discuss/attachments/20070601/b22d1d01/attachment.pgp