>>>>>>And after all is said and done, we will end up governed, not by the government we elect, but by the power of the monopolies we did not elect. It's happening all around us already. If there is no protection for small start-up companies, it will just accellerate. When we're all living under the thumb of one huge mega-company, I wonder if we will look back on this and wish the government had played a role in protecting us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Shades of Richard Morgan (from an interview):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Society is, always has been and always will be a structure for the exploitation and oppression of the majority through systems of political force dictated by an élite, enforced by thugs, uniformed or not, and upheld by a willful ignorance and stupidity on the part of the very majority whom the system oppresses."
>>>>>
>>>>>As much as I enjoyed both Altered Carbon and Broken Angels I am not quite so glum about our future prospects.
>>>>>
>>>>>There has never been a time when small startup companies were protected. There has never been a time when wealth and power did not mean a greater say in how the game is played.
>>>>
>>>>But there was a time when a startup could get under the radar long enough to establish itself. Now the predators have far better information on who's doing what.
>>>
>>>But you could also argue the startups have greater access to getting their message out.
>>
>>Which is, of course, one of the main reasons why larger companies are more easily able to ferret them out to stomp on.
>>
>>>Imagine starting up a venture on a national scale in 1925. And consider that previously the big opportunities were in inventory heavy or resource intensive manufacturing businesses. Definitely a disadvantage for the little guy. Each era has its own set of challenges.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I very much like the effect the computer has had on power distribution. Immense power of information and distribution that formerly did not even belong to the most powerful government or corporation. Much as the printing press broke the power of Rome and the Maxim gun changed warfare.
>>>>
>>>>I would agree with you if the camps weren't so sharply delineated and abominably close minded. You've seen it yourself here. Somebody posts a pointer to a blog or whatever, and it's inevitably, "Agh. Thats just some stupid [right/left] (choose one) wing nutcase spouting biased crap."
>>>>
>>>>Information is only useful if it is absorbed.
>>>
>>>That is a very good point. Interesting to think that 200 years ago pretty much every newspaper was a virulently polemical organ of a political faction with not even lip service to objectivity - and access to information was so limited outside of whatever paper(s) controlled a geographic area.
>>>>
>>
>>Yeah, it's nice to know they've progressed so much in the 'lip service' area.
>>
>>>>>I am not sure from what the government can "protect" us.The most important thing that came out of the English enlightenment was the cynical view of mankind that insisted all power be counterbalanced, rather than insisting "the good" would rule.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And is it? Personally, I'd say, "Yeah, right."
>>>
>>>Imperfect, true, but not based on the illusion of the "new man" who will behave as humans have never behaved before and therefore behave as social engineers would like him to. ( the Stepford Citizen <g> ) It is cruel to promise utopia to people who couldn't live there.
>>
>>>>>And who protects us from the government? It is not a new question. Juvenal asked "Sed quis custodiet ipsos custdodes?" - But who will watch the watchers?
>>>>
>>>>The hardest question of all. But is lacking a good answer to that a good reason for doing nothing?
>>>
>>>No, but there is reason to be sceptical about social engineering or mandated solutions. Businesses at least must show results - if only to their money grubbing stockholders. And on some level they must provide satisfaction. Politicians have a lot more room for smoke and mirrors. Seldom are they judged on results but more often on image. And there most compelling argument is too often "But the other guys are even bigger crooks than we are and if you vote for them weasels will eat your baby's flesh." Businesses may dazzle with advertising I'll take a pitchman over a demagogue any day <g>
>>
>>But I still believe the government (since it's the only entity in a position to do so) must act as some sort of legislative buffer to curtail the predatory nature of business. Otherwise, Richard Morgan's future is not so far fetched.
>
>>I just can't find it in myself to buy the line that if businesses act badly, then they are destined to fail.
>
>I'm not sure I said that. I think it is not the government's job to decide whether a business fails or not... and that there is precious little the government can do about that even with the best of intentions.

Iirc (and I'm not saying I do), didn't you say something like companies need to act in a win-win way in order to remain sustainable? My argument all along has been that they don't.

>But the theme of predatory practices against startups seems to run pretty consistantly through your arguments. It's sounding personal. Have you been a victim of this kind of stuff? ( I am also not aware of Canada's anti-trust law situation at all )

Nope. I've never been a victim, but that doesn't change my belief that large companies are generally predatory, and do not necessarily have the best interests of their customers or their respective countries economies at heart. They pretty much care about one thing - their own greed, and if governments can't put a rein on that greed... well, nobody else can, and those who are not part of that greed continuum are fated for an uncomfortable future.

I don't recall who wrote it, but somebody said that in order to be the CEO of a major corporation, one needs to be relatively sociopathic. Within sane limits, I believe that, and I'm not convinced it's a good thing.