There is a difference between government-made monopolies, like Comcasts, and consumer-made monopolies ("dominant firms"), like Google. Everyone uses Google because they want to, not because there is no competition.
Breaking up the former is a good idea. Breaking up the latter is idiotic.
We will always need some form of collective. Just not a highly regulated centralized government. Most people read consumer reports before they buy a car. If the government was gone, other groups would independently do safety testing.
Look, Ebay functions perfectly fine without government. In fact, large companies are weaker without government. They can't bend regulators to stop startups. And consumers voting with their wallets is in fact much more democratic than political elections, where you change the head on a huge machine.
I'm not sure why they can't just keep the tombstone and then just say DC is not affiliated or connected to it.
There is a difference between Superman the product and Superman in culture. I own my history, my memories, my experiences, not some damn company. It was a real fact this kid would dress as Superman. If that fact is turned into art, too f*cking back for DC (or any other company for that matter).
We can destroy this copyright dictatorship, one download at a time. When the big media companies collapse, perhaps the ones that replace them will be a bit more humble.
At the root, this won't work. First, if tries to fix big government by making it bigger. Second, the root of the complaint is that the public doesn't donate to parties, only large donors do.
If the problem is no one cares about politics, isn't the solution to make them care? If people understood the issues, snake oil salesmen would not be elected. The root of this campaign assumes people are idiots who are duped by advertisements. This is not exactly the most inspiring message. A better way to fight this is education. Show people that all those pork barrel projects are bankrupting government, and we'd all be better off with less government.
Which is back to my first point. Large government isn't fixed by larger government, only smaller government. In Canada, we have something like this: we give parties money based on how many people vote for them. It was meant to do exactly what this campaign wants: take the burden of parties to fundraise and just use taxpayer money to fund political campaigns. So what happens? The people in power now get even more money, in addition to their fund raising.
The solution is people need to wake up, and stop voting for people based on empty promises. There is no free lunch. If someone offers it to you, know that it was stolen from someone else.
The reason lobbyists shower politicians with money is the politicians can un-level the playing field. The solution is not to try and reduce the money flowing it, which is impossible, it is to reduce the power the politicians have. A smaller and less centralized government is a less corruptible government.
This is what happens when governments think they can "control" the free market. You get this lovely mess. Where the creator of a cure for cancer gets less protection than a guy who writes a song about it.
What the hell are you talking about? My son was "communicating" at a far younger age than me because of computers and phones. We are far more "literate" than we were a few decades ago. Who cares if the spelling is a bit off.
This is a great story. It is a perfect example of the encroachment of the nanny state. In what world is harassing and traumatizing an autistic kid "helping" the situation. Now, apparently talking back to your kid is "abuse". Unless a parent is torturing their kids, it is ALWAYS better just to leave the kid in the parents care.
This kid will remember this horrific situation for the rest of his life. These social workers and busybodies are evil people.