What is “big government”? How can government have a “size”? Why are rules that protect the environment or make mandatory arbitration unenforceable criticized as being “government meddling”? How can statutes that outline legal rights for laborers be called “interventionist”?
These are questions I find myself asking lots of people these days. And the example that I have now to help me elide the point that I am making is the decision made by the USPTO some years ago to invalidate the Redskins trademark. The author of this article made a great observation that everyone else failed to make.
A few passages from the article:
POPCORN
2
There is no problem. In New Zealand you have the All Blacks and Non-Whites embrace their country’s team as do the Whites. Liberals need to wake up and stop being so sensitive.
You do know that neither of those names have anything to do with race and everything to do with the colour of the uniform right?
You do know that Redskins, Native Americans, American Indians or whatever you want to call them are not a separate race. Don’t you?
nothing offense with this.
It may be offensive- “offensive” is a subjective term. Everyone must decide it for themselves.
Offensive or not, it isn’t racist as claimed by the OP.
Inever claimed it was racist. Everyone is missing the whole point of the article.
Why would you want the govt running everything? It’s just odd!
The government isn’t running anything here.
Tguns
10
I disagree with this conclusion. Had the government pulled out of the trademark issue universally, THAT would be an act of “small government”. But that isn’t the case, here government decided to act in regard to a specific application of its authority thereby targeting a single instance it deemed unworthy…yeah, that’s big gummint type ■■■■ there.

Tguns:
I disagree with this conclusion. Had the government pulled out of the trademark issue universally, THAT would be an act of “small government”. But that isn’t the case, here government decided to act in regard to a specific application of its authority thereby targeting a single instance it deemed unworthy…yeah, that’s big gummint type ■■■■ there.
Finally, someone who addresses the issue at hand!
Tguns
13
That’s how I define big government anyhow, not only in the size and scope of its authority, but also in how it wields that authority is ways that allows it influence over issues it wasn’t directly granted authority over in the first place. I.E. rightly or wrongly, government has the authority to grant and protect trademarks. Using that authority to dictate what it deems to be acceptable is and increase in its authority (it’s size) over an issue it wasn’t directly granted authority in the first place. That is big(ger) government.

Tguns:
That’s how I define big government anyhow, not only in the size and scope of its authority, but also in how it wields that authority is ways that allows it influence over issues it wasn’t directly granted authority over in the first place. I.E. rightly or wrongly, government has the authority to grant and protect trademarks. Using that authority to dictate what it deems to be acceptable is and increase in its authority (it’s size) over an issue it wasn’t directly granted authority in the first place. That is big(ger) government.
It was a bad decision, but it’s bizarre to call selective validation of trademarks “big government”. It’s authority didn’t even increase at all.

Tguns:
That’s how I define big government anyhow, not only in the size and scope of its authority, but also in how it wields that authority is ways that allows it influence over issues it wasn’t directly granted authority over in the first place. I.E. rightly or wrongly, government has the authority to grant and protect trademarks. Using that authority to dictate what it deems to be acceptable is and increase in its authority (it’s size) over an issue it wasn’t directly granted authority in the first place. That is big(ger) government.
What if a government decided to halt foreclosures? That seems like “small” government to me.
I didn’t say anything about being offended. I’m explaining that revoking the trademark, in conservative language, the government shrank.
WuWei
17
I’m not. The motivation is wrong.
WuWei
18
Did it revoke the rest of the NFL trademarks?
If you are referring to the motivation of the USPTO, then I agree.
GA_LP
20
Yet they ignored the trademarks for the Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians, KC Chiefs, FSU Semimoles, …
Seems very odd to ignore all of the other trademarks based on Indian imagery.
1 Like
Tguns
21
It did increase as it’s using its granted authority, to grant trademarks, to dictate what is and is not acceptable for a team name.