Posted on 09/14/2021 8:17:06 AM PDT by Kaslin
Sometimes people forget that politics is not like math or science – at least this is something that I am often guilty of. In Math a number, theorem, or proof mean something specific and reproducible. However, in politics the meaning of things is both malleable and blurry. For instance, Sen. Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, is currently participating in policy negotiations around legislation that Sen. Bernie Sanders D-VT (Someone who is left of most Democrats) is excited about. The negotiations are over antitrust bills, and while it sounds like Grassley is only in talks surrounding one of the bills – all of the bills in the House of Representatives would take the power away from entrepreneurs and give it to the government.
So, while the political definition of conservative includes a drive toward a smaller government – it is obvious that Grassley doesn’t use that same definition.
However, this isn’t Grassley’s first venture outside of the general consensus definition of “Conservative”. It isn’t his first journey outside of the party’s definition of “Conservative”. It isn’t the first time he seems to think that what he is doing is “Conservative” even though it would be almost impossible to coral it into anybody’s definition of “Conservative”. This is politics not math, and Grassley doesn’t necessarily need someone else’s definition of conservative because from his point of view he has consistently done what he thinks is right for Iowans (even if it isn’t necessarily helpful to Iowans).
In fact, it is the Iowa part of Grassley’s strategy that is hardest to understand when it comes to any support he might have for antitrust legislation. Conservatives have consistently been opposed to the use of antitrust laws over the years – most notably when supporting Bork for the Supreme Court – but former President Trump recently supported using antitrust, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) has threatened antitrust laws, and a few other Republicans have joined into this new policy trend. So, politically, although the wrong conclusion, it could be argued that a new definition of “Conservative” is emerging. However, when it comes to Iowa the policy proposals that are public are more about punishing a few big tech companies for policies that the politicians do not agree with or maybe just fail to understand. But, at the end of the day these new policies would mean less access to networking and online marketplaces which seems like a bad move for Iowans in general and rural Iowa even more dramatically.
Outside of the politics of antitrust legislation the math is pretty simple. Everyone loses when antitrust laws are abused. Choices are limited, the biggest innovators are hamstrung, more regulations are added making it even harder to start-up competitors, and investors are turned away. Meaning, fewer products, higher prices, and less innovation. A lose, lose, lose policy decision.
Now, it might not be all bad. If Grassley is in these discussions pushing for the inclusion of a Bork style reliance on consumer welfare – then he could be doing something that is good for Iowans. He could be restoring faith in business. He could be restoring investors' faith in the government staying out of private sector decisions.
It just doesn’t appear to be going that direction. On the contrary it seems like a bunch of old Senators are mad about the modern world and are pushing back on it. And, it is easy to understand not liking the policies of a big business. It is a bummer that McDonald’s doesn’t always have the McRib, but that doesn’t mean that we need legislation. The right political answer is to drop out of politics and start a compressed meat sandwich company.
Grassley is a good Senator – he has represented Iowa well over his long career. Hopefully he realizes that what is best for Iowans is to make the most space possible for entrepreneurs and innovators, and if he feels that big tech, or any big business, is doing something that he doesn’t necessarily support he should use his soap box instead of his legislative legacy. Grassley should try to make it so that the next Facebook, Google, or Amazon is started in an Iowa garage – or barn.
‘Too big to fail’ is too big to exist.
Grassley is a good Senator …Thanks for wasting our time and bandwidth defending a RINO, Charlie.
“Big Tech Hate” is the Left’s successful deflection of the REAL problem today.
The REAL problem is the $4+ trillion mostly unconstitutional federal government beast poised to destroy everything we hold dear. Big Tech cannot hold a candle to what Big Unconstitutional Government is ready, willing, and able to do - and will do if they are not stopped soon.
Patriots, forget about “Big Tech Hate” and focus your angst on “Big Unconstitutional Government Hate” because they are the ones ready to destroy your freedoms and livelihood and life.
But it would be a reason to harm big tech right?
Never be sidelined by going for the wrong target.
The two are intertwined. We saw enough of that last November.
No, you’ve got to make the distinction because blurr is exactly what the Left wants.
“Big Tech” does NOT equal the $4 trillion mostly unconstitutional federal government.
Big Tech is privately owned to the degree government hasn’t bribed their way into illegal/hidden ownership. Private parties giving money to government for favors is not illegal. Government taking bribes IS unconstitutional, illegal, and grounds for impeachment.
Big Tech: CHOICE. As a consumer, you voluntarily buy or don’t buy a product from a Big Tech company. A Big Tech company can do nothing to you if you reject them. The answer to the Google’s and FB’s of the world is NOT more unconstitutional government takeover, but FREE AND OPEN COMPETITION from the rich and savvy Patriotic Right. To the degree there is free and open competition (no government interface), Big Tech will try their best to be your friend and attract you to their products. You, as the buyer have the final say.
Big Government: FORCE. Government FORCES you to use their product and if you say no, the IRS will come after you. Government is very good and efficient at taking away your money, your freedom and your life. No qualms about doing so. Big government is NOT your friend and has no interest in being your friend. Government has the final say unless you’re ready for war.
Infiltrate and gain control of big business.Remember that we may have “choice” here, but not necessarily in other countries. And remember Obama attempted to mandate purchasing his useless high-deductible health insurance?
— Communist goal #37
Exactly. So again, the BIG issue, problem, and threat isn't "Big Tech", it is Big Unconstitutional Totalitarian Government like Stalin's and like our feds now who want to take over our lives and livelihoods.
It's up to us Patriots to everything we can to keep our eye on the ball (unconstitutional government), to stop them, and reverse and dismantle the unconstitutional portion of the government beast.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.