1998-02-10 - Re: Cyber ‘Nannys”

Header Data

From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
To: “WebWarrior3@InfoWar.Com>
Message Hash: ca0e8c027b26e1a0d6aa51f34b333b2d0de65a096ed6cfbebcd93b1957e5ffce
Message ID: <v03007802b10648ad662d@[]>
Reply To: <v03102804b105af4a91ed@[]>
UTC Datetime: 1998-02-10 18:26:13 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 02:26:13 +0800

Raw message

From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 02:26:13 +0800
To: "WebWarrior3@InfoWar.Com>
Subject: Re: Cyber 'Nannys"
In-Reply-To: <v03102804b105af4a91ed@[]>
Message-ID: <v03007802b10648ad662d@[]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

There are many bad laws on the books. Doesn't mean they're good ones,

Many "consumer protection" laws in truth hurt consumers through more
government regulation, reduced competition, and higher prices.


At 03:40 -0500 2/10/98, WebWarrior3@InfoWar.Com wrote:
>Ever hear of consumer protection laws? There are many cases where consumers
>are allowed to "demand" information regarding their purchases...you were being
>flippant. One subscribes to a magazine because one knows what the focus of the
>content is and one chooses to receive that periodical; not because the
>magazine MAY have an editorial policy to not cover any stories on the
>"Oddities of Toenail Fungus in Bleached Blonde Yaks from Manhattan."

>There are already consumer protection laws.  I don't think that this is a
>concentration of extensive economic controls in the State, do you?  Really,
>It is neither my option nor is it my responsibility to change someone's little
>paranoid mind should they confuse consumer protection with statism, that is a
>job for a psychiatrist or a professor.