My last post to ET
(as a Kevin Nealon SNL monologue....)
RE: "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, I presume you're Canadian (since you cite a Canadian monopoly with such prescience) even though you don't say so in your profile.
(Far as I know you could be teenage paid shill or an extraterrestrial.)
Bombthrowers always try to remain anonymous so they can't be confronted directly.
(Chicken Sh*t)
So, I assume that you're a socialist. If not, be aware that you sound like one.
(Yugo driver)
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.
(Dim bulb. 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.
(Like your mum did.)
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".
(Peons)
But, see, in America, the foundations of the law is premised on the individual, not the "public" or the "common good". Have you every seen a law suit brought by "the "Common good v. MSFT".
(Bolshevik hoser)
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".
(Santa Claus, the Easter bunny...)
So, I find that your axiom is based on the fallacy of composition or "there is no "there" there." Now I respect the rights of Canadians to live under their legal system.
(kangaroo court)
You should not lecture citizens of my country about monopoly if you do not understand.
(Rightie tightie, Leftie loosie)
Ciao,
Daniel |
