Re:When It Comes to Security, We’re Back to Feudalism
by digitalengineer on Monday November 26, 2012 @09:53AM
(#4832148)
(I'm not talking unions, just about the article). That' what they're suppose to be. What we see happening all around us is government working for special interest. And as your government they have one huge advantage over corporations: They can force you to accept a single product or solution.
Re:When It Comes to Security, We’re Back to Feudalism
by danielweber on Monday November 26, 2012 @11:20AM
(#4832567)
If I have something that I'm interested in (say, clear air), and I want the government to do something about it, when do I move from an interest to a special interest?
Re:When It Comes to Security, We’re Back to Feudalism
by justin66 on Monday November 26, 2012 @12:11PM
(#4832816)
"Special interest," just like "big government," is nothing but a TV buzzword.
It's not as if these are political science terms of art. Imagine experts in a field choosing to use a term normally used for measurement of bulk to describe the function of a system, or wasting their time categorizing interests into "special" and "not special" based on a fixed set of criteria. Political science is deeply boring, but it's not THAT boring.
Re:When It Comes to Security, We’re Back to Feudalism
by digitalengineer on Monday November 26, 2012 @11:37AM
(#4832641)
Good question! If you start hyring former and current politicians, sponsor elections, pressure your employees, try sneek in legislation, I'd say you're special interest.
The US and many governments of Western Europe are supposed to be governments of the people. Why shouldn't the government work for the peoples interests?