undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdiminoten7y ago0 comments

It's uncontroversial to say Net Neutrality is pro-consumer on HN because we're the people who know the technical aspects of the concept; it's uncontroversial anywhere people know what it's about.

But the point is well made. We can't be breaking up companies that don't do what we want, if they're playing by the rules.

The real answer is to change the rules. Warren is running on some populist anger, and that's a dangerous thing to praise.

0 comments

pessimizer7y ago

This is only true if you think that "the rules" can't include breaking up companies when they reach a certain level of market control. I hope you agree that Warren is running to change or enforce some rules; the reason you run for political office is to become a rulemaker or executor.

kmkemp7y ago

That's fine also, but I don't think they're mutually exclusive. If lax laws have allowed monopolies to take hold, then the job of the government is to protect consumers by creating a free market - and that may mean breaking companies up. In the case that the monopoly is natural or sufficiently hard to prevent, the government should either take over the industry and run it as a non-profit or intervene in such a way that creates a free market.

diminotenOP7y ago

In absolutely no way should the government do any of those things. The government should instead pass laws that reflect how the people want corporations to behave, and until they do so, not punish or harm corporations for playing by the rules.

The government running an entire industry, even the threat of such a thing, is a great way to completely destroy innovation in that industry. Why would I invest in research if it's a real possibility the government can come in and take everything from me for nothing?

What you're suggesting doesn't create a free market, it creates a dead market.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse