The difference is we can use alternatives other then google.
Goverment doesn’t offer that option.
I don’t understand? Let me rephrase…
Cons want search engines and social media controlled (company agnostic)… libs want emissions controlled.
Under that umbrella, there are no alternatives because everything is controlled to the same extent.
There is alternatives to Google is there not?
Is there one for goverment?
Not if you regulate the industry and not a specific company. If you regulate the industry… then all companies in that industry are subject to those regulations.
Same as regulating power and car companies… if you regulate the industry then there are no alternatives. All companies would be subject to the same regulations.
Yes goverment regulate industry, but that doesn’t say there is no alternative to Google.
There is only goverment.
Goverment is ultimate power…and there isn’t other options.
This isn’t about libs verses cons.
Some want goverment to open up search engine competition by loosing up regulations which allows others to compete.
Some wants to hand Google the keys to goverment so they can lock out that competition.
Which allow for maximum freedom/opportunities?
The only reason I can see conservatives wanting search engines and social media to be controlled is to open them up for competition.
Conservatives want clean water and fresh air just as much as the next guy. However, when it comes to emissions we also look at the cost/benefit. If 10 parts per million is an acceptable level and has been proven to harm no one, but liberals want it reduced to 8 parts per million at a cost of millions of dollars, then we would oppose it. Why? Because it would cause hardship to the poor who have to pay for it, the plants that may have to shut down with resulting increased unemployment.
However, to some liberals, it is nothing more than a sound bite. An emotion based cause without due consideration of the consequences.
Meanwhile our plants are shut down while China and India is pump out 12 parts per million…or whatever their number is.
And libs think they’re saving the plant while buying Chinese made goods.
2 Likes
No, libs feel good and move on to the next disaster they can create and leave the conservatives to clean up their mess.
I’m still not following you… you keep talking about an alternative to government? I am not sure why?
The discussion has government a the center of regulation. With that, both sides of the fence want to use government in the same way, they want to regulate certain industries.
To your second point, cons don’t want to loosen regulations on social media or search engines… they want to levy more regulations on that industry. Just like libs want to levy more regulations on the coal industry.
Both sides do it
Competition isn’t open now? What is keeping, let’s say Apple, from generating their own search engine? Hint: it’s not Google.
Don’t confuse big goverment repugs to libertarian conservatives.
I understand. I try to distinguish but often the line is blurred.
I’m a pretty strong libertarian… so I want the least amount of regulations possible… unless it is over an industry that oversees our health and safety.
But that is not what libs want now is it…they want total control to regulate society as THEY see fit.
Do you disagree. If not why haven’t you called em out for it?
1 Like
That was not the foundation of your argument:
No doubt libs go to far. Cons also go far, just for their own causes.
Is one better than the other? To me, it depends on the regulations proposed. Like I said above health and safety and that’s it for me.
How does my answer about competition… contradict my original argument?
And how far should government go for your health and safety?
[quote=“DMK, post:266, topic:529”]
The only reason I can see conservatives wanting search engines and social media to be controlled is to open them up for competition.
Conservatives want clean water and fresh air just as much as the next guy. However, when it comes to emissions we also look at the cost/benefit. If 10 parts per million is an acceptable level and has been proven to harm no one, but liberals want it reduced to 8 parts per million at a cost of millions of dollars, then we would oppose it. Why? Because it would cause hardship to the poor who have to pay for it, the plants that may have to shut down with resulting increased unemployment.[/quote]
However, to some liberals, it is nothing more than a sound bite. An emotion based cause without due consideration of the consequences.
I did not see an answer. I saw a question.
Last time I waste my time backtracking to reply to you.
You didn’t ask a question. You made a statement. I replied to that statement.
The foundation of my argument is that both cons and libs want regulation, just for different causes.
Ah, there’s the question. Is the government responsible for my health?