Monday, August 17, 2009

Regulating

I agree with regulation. I think it prevents chaos and breeds innovation that enhances creativity to find alternative and legal means to achieve similar and potentially better goals. However, I think that over-regulation creates underground chaos and ultimately destroys democracy.

What if the government were to regulate what is written on blogs about government issues? How much regulation is too much regulation? Just wondering what you thought....

4 comments:

Angela said...

Personally, I'm for government regulation if companies are corrupt and owned by lobbyists--which many are and who obviously have ulterior motives (aka filling corporate pockets with money). I'd love to say that I trust corporations to do what is best for the public but alas, after seeing what happened with Wall Street and insurance companies lately -- and working for the top GOP lobbyist in the USA (who was highly corrupt and lobbied for health insurance companies), so I'd have to say that gov't regulation is necessary. There have to be checks and balances, for the people and by the people. I've just seen way too much on the inside highest levels of corporate greed to trust corporations to do the right thing when their profits are more important. Just my 2 cents! :)

Tara Bergsjo said...

I think some is needed, but I also think the line can be crossed. You rock! Love ya!!

Whitney said...

Lindsay- I have been watching you for a while now...dum dum dummm! It is Whitney Herrod Sowby- I must admit I love stalking my friends via their blogs! I love your blog and am happy that you are happy! Since you asked for comments, I say the less government the better. Who regulates the government? The government keeps getting more and more power and more and more involved in affairs that they should not be involved in. I do agree that regulation is needed- but the bigger question is by whom? In order to have regulation, the regulators need to be regulated. Whew. That's a mouthful. My favorite government policy is, "When in doubt, vote them out." Have you seen how politics has become a profession now (look at Senator Kennedy)? It was never meant to be a profession, but a short service opportunity. People think that by staying in longer, more things are able to get done. I disagree and say that the longer people stay in office, the less gets done. By dragging out bills, laws etc, they are guarenteeing their own re-election. If government terms where set (like the Presidency), more would be accomplished. Why? Because time would be the regulator. And you can't go wrong with time. Sorry for my spill. I didn't realize I had all that in me.

Unstoppable Lindsey said...

Angela: Hmmm, I agree that government should be involved, but to what extent. Too bad we have to wait for a Utopian society in order for government to operate the way it was meant to. Checks and balances to keep greedy people under suite, it is very necessary. However, what happens when gov't controls what people write on their blogs?

Tara: What is crossing the line? Kiss to you and your cute fam!

Whitney: So glad you found me!! I agree, but find that there are some things that people (citizens) just don't want to do...and that is when the feds get involved. The more and more I study politics, the more I realize that sometimes politicians sacrifice what the people need and just give them what they want...for the sake of a vote. Integrity is certainly lapsing. What can we do to restore it?