ET
"The public needs to be protected from the abuse of monopolistic power when it exists".
And who protects the public from the monopoly of government?
First of all, ET, you live in socialist country so I assume that you're a socialist. If not, be aware that you sound like one.
See, ET, your axiom is where you and I differ. We cannot properly debate an issue if we don't accept each other's givens. That's why I should make a note not to engage in debating public policy with socialists.
Socialists like yourself always sound like infatuated schoolgirls when waxing rhapsodic about goverment protecting the citizens of their country.
Guys like you give government carte blanche and are thankful that they let you live. Now, that may be a good way for you, but, to paraphrase Louis Lamour, "that's not my way".
But, see, in America, the foundations of the law is premised on the rights of the individual, not the "public" or the "common good". Have you every seen a law suit brought by "the public".
These are collective terms and many people like yourself engage in thinking that "reifies" these abstractions and convince themselves that there really is a "common good" or that "the public" is discrete entity that has "rights".
So your axiom is based on the fallacy of composition or "there is no "there" there."
Daniel |
