Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
The UK actually has some of the most stringent financial regulations in the world - certainly far tougher than that of the US - but yes, I totally agree with you that it needs to be toughened still further, and that there should be more "transparency" in the sector.
|
But it doesn't bother you at all that the only reason *their* behavior is regulated is because of world (or at least national) crises, and they can keep most away because they either "lobby" or just "have friends" in politics, while on the other hand civil behavior is regulated through laws instated by that same corporate lobby, with the only exception being "anti-knifing" legislation sponsored by continued coverage in the Daily Wail?
What kind of democracy is it where corporate interests are deemed so much more relevant by politicians than the right to privacy, which you seem to care so little about, "because it is used as an argument for the right to infringe copyright"? The right to (or expectation of) privacy is the only thing that keeps CCTVs from being everywhere, from the police to wiretap you and decide they hear something bad, which they then sue you for (which is currently not legal because it is trolling for "criminal behavior"). Those are the things that happened when the Stasi and KGB made sure the USSR stayed in power; they are not the things that should be allowed to happen in (moderately) free and democratic societies. Aren't (or weren't) you bothered by those reports on TV that say "CCTVs have helped capture x criminals" that were on at least when I was last there in July '07? Doesn't that "reek" to you?
Freedoms aren't
given to you, they're things you're supposed to fight for (both to obtain as well as to maintain); and while your strange bias towards the rights of "artists" is one thing, I fail to understand utterly why you care for the companies who so happily trample upon your rights in order to help their bottom line. (even though nobody knows if the enacted legislation will actually do anything)
If an individual (your neighbor) would tell you that only he has the right to have parties in the back garden (making lots of noise), but you don't (because that would make him enjoy his living there less), would you accept that if he were an affluent
life peer with 20 employees, reasoning that his opinion counts for more than yours as he has employees whom he supports through hiring them and you don't? Would you only "respect" that if he hired two hundred?
Similarly with your quote that says that "companies shouldn't suffer from employees behaving badly". Where is the equality for the law?