Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Absolutely, and I don't have any problem with the fact that you hold a different viewpoint. That's fine with me.
|
Yes, you (or we) still have that luxury of thinking that "differing viewpoints can coexist".. Although I would live in constant fear of the state that "lives" by your rule set (in favor of corporate gain).. It makes me wonder if you disapprove(d) of the lack of regulation that existed towards the financial sector in the UK, which was also heavily slanted towards protecting the happy few, rather than protecting the masses who invested their money with them, or whose investments were influenced by their behavior.. The lack of regulation there in favor of corporations is directly comparable to the currently created law that gives those same corporations the role of police & judge, with a neat exception for "companies who should not have to suffer if its employees behave badly".
As you quote:
This is because the government does not wish to see businesses and institutions placed in a position where a national enterprise could suddenly find itself deprived of internet access because of the illegal activities of one or two of its managers.
Where is the analogous exception for "families who should not have to suffer if a visitor/uneducated child does something dumb"? Why are the caveats always for "corporations"?