“This bill is a targeted response that will remove uncertainty and restore stability for the United States by bringing us back into compliance,” Chairman Conaway said. “We must do all we can to avoid retaliation by Canada and Mexico, and this bill accomplishes that through full repeal of labeling requirements for beef, pork, and chicken."
I agree with your sentiments, though I think it would be more accurate to reply to that bravely anonymous govt official that we're always in uncharted waters; so fucking what. We were in uncharted waters when the Soviets armed Cuba with nukes, when Saddam dropped Scud missiles on Tel Aviv, and when the U.S. had an Easter egg hunt in Iraq for no apparent reason. we're always in uncharted waters. Keep things in proportion, in perspective. Change into some clean undies and shut up with the fear.
Kudos for your enthusiastic attempt to sell us a clunker. By all means point out the shiny new coat of paint and the engine's horsepower rating. Unfortunately, there's an obvious puddle of fluid underneath the TPP, the tie rods are bent like pretzels, and I can see gears through the hole in the transmission.
If I were King, these guys at the USTR (and all lobbyists, for that matter) would be forced to wear plaid leisure suits to dispel any illusions about who they are and what they're all about. What's your color preference, BTW? Peach and lime, or avocado and gold?
This calls to mind one of the very basic principles on which our government was founded: MAKE BIG THINGS HARD TO DO. Go to war, amend the constitution, stuff like that. You want me to agree to "Fast Track" something that would likely span the terms of numerous presidents, encompass 40% of global trade, maybe impact a shitload of domestic law? Umm, no. Please, I invite you to kindly STFU. --
"The basic idea is that all technological civilizations require ever greater sources of energy."
How typical of humankind's lack of imagination. It assumes that intelligent life would remain in the same needy organic form it was in when it crawled out of some warm puddle. Resource dependence and the fear of scarcity are at the heart of all your potentially extinction-level conflicts and activities, so it should be obvious that any life worthy of the title "intelligent" re-engineers itself to be less dependent, and more robust and adaptable.
The Midichlorians are shaking their little heads about all you ponderous meatbags; trust me. --
The collateral damage we're talking about here is the crippling of people's ability to find and share information. From the viewpoint of profitability, the AAs have no incentive to distinguish between stopping piracy of their stuff, and, whoops, so sorry, shutting down the means by which people can access and spend money on competing property. It's all profitable, baby. Fewer choices in a reduced marketplace means every dollar in search of entertainment and other information stands a better chance of winding up in their pockets. The MPAA even provides a list* of "safe" places to access legal content, with no need for consumers to risk venturing out onto that scary, scary web. (*No link. Screw 'em.)
While China's motives are probably more ideological and less financial than the AAs', they're still allies in wreaking havoc on the net and free speech. As far as the copyright industrialists not intending the damage that will result from their actions, I don't buy it. They're evil, not stupid.
the copyright industry doesn't seem to care in the slightest about collateral damage from its quixotic effort to stop piracy, . .
I cringe when I see statements like this that seem to accept the copyright industry's stated intentions as genuine. When collateral damage equals suppression of competition, it's a feature of their strategy. Seriously- the word "Piracy" is merely a Frank Luntz-esque hook the MPAA and cohorts can hang their hat on as they work to enhance market share by any and all means. And their strategy is not "quixotic" when any tilt of the market means profit.
Cool. But continuing along that train of thought, how about the possibility of the US government being sued by multiple parties- for making laws stronger, making laws weaker, and keeping laws the same. And losing every which way.
Hey, I guess this means our modern free-for-all global marketplace operates just as efficiently as the natural world after all. No part of a dead carcass will go to waste; too bad that carcass had been a living, breathing democratic society. -
Debate? No, debate's not possible, not when there's so little common ground in our understanding of history, sociology, and economics.
We could start with a little history, maybe. Look at how the free ungoverned new world residents were suddenly not-free, when Christopher Columbus' heavily armed free enterprise practitioners came ashore. So what is meant by "freedom," and for whom? We could examine the nightmare socialist nations of Scandinavia and compare standards of living there with Somalia's, where freedom reigns. We could try to unpack your "free market in India has solved poverty" claim, by working our way through several centuries of history related to that populist Ghandi (Boooo!) who helped free India from the oppressive British government (Yaaay!) which led to millions dying as Muslims and Hindus separated into Pakistan and India (Booo!) after which India formed a more stable government (Boooo!) which laid the social and regulatory framework on which business depends today. (Booo! Yaaay! I think, . . . ) Then of course delve into how a century of progress in technology independent of events in India makes your arithmetic of government and free market just a tad simplistic. But I'll leave it at that. You can stay in your corner rocking to your libertarian mantra if that's what makes you happy.
I'm of course addressing EconProf, who's argumentation format is typical of cult members and libertarians alike (OK, so that's redundant.) Simply lay on the baloney so fast and so thick that no one's going to bother picking the train wreck apart in order to respond in detail. Maoist communists, Title II proponents, and populists everywhere are all the same. Yep, sure. Poverty's solved. Check. Regulation always corrupts. Okeedokee. Like the laws of physics are to physicists. Geez, we're stoned now.