The I-Phone and the Nanny State

Nanny-statist Senator Jean Francois Kerry, North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan, Mississippi's Roger Wicker, and yes, Minnesota's own Senator Amy Klobuchar think that AT&T's exclusive contract to sell the new I-Phone is somehow unnfaaair! Somehow these lame-brained senators think that free-enterprise (did I say free?) should be run like a kindergarten classroom, by making sure everyone gets equal toys. Competition, according to these mental midgets, is a baaad thiiing... because competition means someone might not do as well as somebody else, and someone might walk away feeling baaad. And for some unknown, godforsaken reason, competition is somehow bad for consumers.

So, in the interests of faaairness, and with a lack of other things of import on which to focus, these nanny-statist buffoons will take it upon themselves to convene a hearing on why it is sooo unfaaiiir that some wireless services should have so much while others have so very little, and to better understand why this is so.

Here's a clue, Senator Klobuchar: It's called CONTRACT LAW. It's called COMPETITION. Sprint saw the smoke signals that AT&T had an exclusivity deal with the I-Phone, and snatched up and pre-empted the new I-Phone release with what I believe is a superior phone, the Palm Pre. And not for the $599 price tag of the new I-Phone, but for a mere $200 semolians.

Being a Palm person myself with an AT&T contract, was I happy about it? Hell no. But that's the way the ball bounces. I know that after a while, the exclusivity on models runs out, and phones are then more widely available with a variety of carriers.

I don't need some government nannystaters to wipe away my tears, thank you.

The point is, competition is the force that ultimately provides the drive to enhance the quality and value of goods and services; while lack thereof fosters mediocrity, poor service and just not giving a damn.

Which is, when it comes down to it, what liberalism is all about.

(h/t Chris Baker)