But then when the same government interferes and is on the "wrong" side of popular geek opinion there is an uproar.
Industries, pretty much without exception, don't want that.
However, when you are talking about the same government, when they agree with you, will upvote you?
This, right here, is a broken system. People should only be able to upvote or downvote another person, but not both, whenever they are talking about the same government!
The same branch of the same country, but with changes in who occupies it they can be vastly different.
I greatly dislike the "both sides are the same" narrative, but there were some strong elements of consistency regardless of occupant.
The current administration is an entirely new beast that reflects the whims of a single individual. We are in uncharted waters now.
Some of the more forward looking liberals warned against executive orders when Obama was in the White House. They said that be careful about the precedent it was setting. Now those same people are bemoaning the current administration.
It’s always dangerous to give government more power.
And to avoid getting too political I'll avoid questioning the loyalties and competence of this individual. I don't care if it was Obama or Bernie or Daffy Duck, this is a dangerous situation and it's compounded by the acceptance/acquiescence of a startlingly large portion of the population.
Compare that with a previous generation where the GOP leadership went to the President and told him they could not support him because he had gone too far, and Nixon therefore resigned.
Justices Roberts was a figurehead at the trial and his actions were supportive of the outcome.
This is not "normal"; this is not the democracy I learned back in the day.
The small-government counterargument has always been "You are not going to like this new power when it's inevitably in the hands of the wrong person". That has always been ignored--the Whig theory of history ruled as enlightened new theories for social management demanded more and more centralized authority for the greater good.
Now that the chickens are home to roost and someone truly offensive to the left has been elected, they are doing the world's biggest surprised Pikachu face. But the capacity for human self-deception is infinite, as for example the very same people panicking about imminent fascist takeover are simultaneously panicking that anyone other than the government has guns. So I don't believe that any event can shock the hubris out of smart people and their tidy moral rubrics.
But at the same time, it’s just silly to think that a reason to own guns is in case the government wants to impose martial law. We are talking about the government with the largest military in the world - with tanks, jet fighters, bombs etc. The 2nd amendment is not going to protect you from a hypothetical fascist government.
Clearly not realistic.
Isn’t that the definition of a civil war?
But if you are convinced that the military would turn on its own people, doesn’t that still make the whole “we need guns to protect ourself from a potential fascist government and we are going to run around in the woods and prepare” silly?
I
The idea that the military would stay unified and be on one ‘side’ of a civil war does not.
In any case it is obvious from the Middle East that people with guns can in fact stand up to the US military quite successfully.
I don't take any pleasure in saying any of this; I'm not interested in besmirching the values of others that I do not share. But what is happening is crazy. The President of the United States is advocating that anybody who does not blindly support him is the enemy; and that those enemies need to be "dealt with".
This is way beyond "America, love it or leave it".
But it's not just about resisting hypothetical martial law in the future. It's about having a free culture now. Just like encryption, it is the difference between power deriving from consent the governed and an open-air prison and also has legitimate use for personal protection. The mere fact they don't want you to have it is reason enough to keep it by tooth and nail.
Are you aware of the reports that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were multi-trillion dollar failures?
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.
Well, you've just proven yourself wrong. I am panicking over a fascist takeover and I don't think that only the government should have guns. I also know that I'm not alone in this sentiment.
> So I don't believe that any event can shock the hubris out of smart people and their tidy moral rubrics
Does this include yourself?
> (Do not...) Downvote an otherwise acceptable post because you don't personally like it. Think before you downvote and take a moment to ensure you're downvoting someone because they are not contributing to the community dialogue or discussion. If you simply take a moment to stop, think and examine your reasons for downvoting, rather than doing so out of an emotional reaction, you will ensure that your downvotes are given for good reasons.
Downvotes should not be used as an "I disagree" button, that is what the reply button is for.
For instance, they must regulate communications because the airways are limited and a free for all would render communications useless.
The government getting involved in basic research is also necessary sometimes.
TL;DR: Government should regulate industries, but it should do it for the greater good or people will complain.
For example was different phone manufacturers using different cables really enough of a negative externality for the EU to step in?
That only works if you have choices that aren't just the same megacorporation with different names. In reality, most people have less voting power in their wallets than it appears.