"I would say a government has more incentive than any private entity in maintaining roads. What incentive would a private contractor have in maintining it right? If it gets paid a fixed rate for "operation" then the more skimping on quality means more profit."

I wasn't necessarily comparing to private road operators, but you clearly don't understand the concept of competition. Of course a company who would have zero other competition would be horrible at road maintenance (just like the government operator). But that scenario does not and would not exist. If private road operators were able to properly pay for and acquire the right of way to build new parallel roads, people could choose the best route to get somewhere. So of course it's a bit more complex than that, but you get my point. Also, different modes of transportation provide incentives to maintain the roads well by private entities. This is not true of a government. If people prefer the local trains because the roads have too many potholes and feel dangerous, it won't just go fix the roads. There are so many political wills to take into account, plus lobbying, labor unions, regulations, and the personal feelings of the legislators. It's much simpler and more straightforward for a private company compared to a government.

I'm not trying to insert a discussion of the pros and cons of the government making and maintaining roads, but simply trying to state that governments have very little, if any, incentive to improve roads, improve the safety of roads or use new innovative techniques. It usually takes a crisis before new things get implemented. Under normal circumstances they have very little incentive to continually raise the bar and wow the user (all of us) of the roads.

For those who are generally ok with the government knowing best for them, how can you justify your position with something like this? It clearly is something so egregious, so ridiculous, so out-of-bounds! Honestly, how is this about protecting people at all and not about special interests, money and more power? I find people who trust their government officials to do the "right thing" for the "greater good" to be really naive. The best kind of government is the one that does the minimal. Protects justice by providing a judicial system to resolve conflicts after the fact, a defense force that protects the borders and does not get involved in offensive wars or peace missions (unless invited by allies), and highly federal (meaning localized, not nationalized) police forces. This is the only way to keep things like this ridiculous new power grab from happening. But even then, I'm pessimistic that such a government wouldn't still grow into the tyrannical behemoths that we have today in the "free" world. How can anyone defend such power grabs?

Completely agree. Well said. It's easy to say something is easy and straightforward after the fact, but what Google has done and continues to do is nothing short of amazing.

Darn! You beat me to linking to that article. Even after reading that article, I still feel really good about voting for Gary Johnson even though I know it won't make much of a difference. But I can't in good conscience support the two major bafoons.

Absolutely well said. I really wish someone could go on all of the national TV stations during prime time and announce this. It boggles my mind how passionate people get about voting for their guy, because the other guy is purely evil! Really...why do we seemingly always end up with evil then? Why don't we stop voting for evil, and kick evil out. There's no room for evil anymore. Time to get a few people with a clue who aren't completely bought out to all of the lobbyist interests.

Sure, let's throw more money at the problem. Money solves all issues! We don't need brains, or make wise decisions. Just throw more money at it! How's that education working out for the Microsoft people lobbying Congress to do this? Not so well I see.

"As for your second paragraph; that's a political thing, as to whether or not the state (or in the EU's case, the Union) should interfere, and to what degree. However, let's say you did think Google was abusing its position, unfairly, causing you (perhaps as a website operator who needed those search hits to function/generate revenue, but were being punished for not being a Google product, or Google-friendly), what are you alone going to be able to do about it? Nothing remotely effective."

Who cares? In your fictitious scenario with Google (which would never happen the way you describe), even if it could be true, Google earned that right to be that dominant. People chose to use Google en masse. Are you (the all-knowing government) going to punish all of the people who chose to use Google and give it the dominant position? What if such an action caused Google such irrevocable harm that it eventually led to it going out of business? Was "justice" served? Or did the most dominant gang (i.e. the prevailing government), exercise its unjust force over a lesser gang (i.e. Google), crushing it? I would say in such a scenario, the government owes a lot of damages to a lot of people.

What's to stop the EU from systematically only targeting U.S. companies since they seem to be the ones with a lot of money? At what point does it not become completely corrupt and a scheme to steal money from the productive sector into the unproductive sector? I say it is always corrupt.

"For that to happen people have to be free to choose the best search engine"

Uh...they did...80% of them in Canada did. Are you saying people don't know how to choose?

Absolutely disagree. The only monopolies that exist are governments. Governments are the only ones that can hand out true monopolies to companies. Microsoft in the late 90s early 2000's was a classic example of what was mislabeled a monopoly. Many claimed that IE was too dominant and nobody could shake that. Now look at it (and no, it didn't have anything to do with the US antitrust suit against Microsoft. It had everything to do with Firefox being a formidable competitor and Microsoft getting soft).

The most telling line of your statement is "Be thankful that this is happening. It's good for you in the end." Well in that case, why don't you give me all of your money because I know (trust me) that I will better manage your money, and even grow your total assets for you! Oh, and you don't have a choice, because after all, it's going to be good for you.

I'd have to say I don't think it's such a bad thing, nor does it set a new precedent by any means. This type of things happens in languages (human) all of the time. In English, we still use words and phrases such as "he is in the lime light." How many people actually know that that refers to what they used to light stages with back in the early 20th century? Should we replace this phrase because it refers to something most of us have never physically observed? Of course not. Yet, some things in language evolve, morph and turn into something completely new. I don't mind the evolutionary/hybrid approach to language, and I don't mind it for UIs either.

Absolutely well said. Also I might add, 100% health insurance coverage does not mean better (or 100%) healthcare goods and services. Also, one last point to add...the U.S. still has, by far, the best and most innovative healthcare system (and coverage) in the world. I suggest anyone interested to listen to this podcast, look at the links, and do some reading here: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/07/scott_atlas_on.html

The WHO report ranking the world's healthcare systems has been proven time and again to be a ridiculous, and very unbiased set of conclusions from their "scientific studies."

Oh, you want **TAX DOLLARS** to go to the church schools! Fuck that. If my tax dollars are going to be used educating children then I want them to learn actual facts that will be applicable in the real world. If you want your kids to learn that the gods commanded that non-virgin brides should be stoned to death use your own fucking money.

I never said to give private schools tax dollars. Where did I say that? Please don't put words in my mouth. I merely said some of the major negatives of public education funded by tax dollars. Tragedy of the commons.

That doesn't justify what the EU does. If the EU imposes a law (hypothetical law) that says all companies must hire 100 women to every man hired, that doesn't make it right even when companies around the world start having to do that same practice to do business in the EU. Just because something appears to be moral and then enacted through a law doesn't make it so. There are still plenty of people who disagree on the morality of any given subject, and to force them to do something they don't want to do on all but the most basic of things (the tenets of a society, do not kill, do not steal, etc), that removal of choice is the thing that is, in fact, immoral.

I have to reply to #7. The idea that getting enough people together to get a certain "majority" of a vote to enact something doesn't make it moral or just. It doesn't make it wise, nor does it make it good. It just means, some people want something, and they're too lazy to enact change through their personal spheres of influence (i.e. their daily relationships). No corporations are not people, but they are made up of people, just like governments are. However, here's the key differences. Assuming that a company has no special monopoly from a government, if they mess up, they cease to exist. If a government messes up, they will not cease to exist until a revolution happens. Let's review what a revolution is: it's a way, with people being killed, women and children being raped and pillaged, and other horrible things. So given that juxtaposition, doing things through the private realm versus doing it through government is morally preferable. You may see this as a giant leap, but there's not enough time or space to explain the entire libertarian philosophy of live and let live. Since you quoted Wikipedia, I suggest you spend some more time there learning about this concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Also, the next time you assume that rights can be taken away from groups or individuals just because you prefer something, I'll propose taking away one of your beloved rights and see how you like it. Mind your own business and live your own life without trying to change the lives of others.