Oreilly is making the point that governments should not be writing licensing policies. Only corporations should do that.
WHY THE HECK NOT?
There is something radically anti-democratic in the idea that the privilege of hamstringing everybody else in red tape, should be restricted to corporate entities. Our form of capitalism is quite feudalistic enough already thankyou very much:
Those of us individuals who hope to survive in this society, rely on the existence of just one "corporation" that we *can* lean on [the government] to be big enough to lean on other corporations when they misbehave. Why should it be hamstrung in the way Oreilly is suggesting?
I have never written a licensing policy to ram back down the throats of the dreaded corporate EULA writers--nobody would care if I did. It is entirely appropriate that they should get one small taste of their own medicine, just to keep them slightly honest.
Like most of the corporately-disenfranchised general public, I am entirely in favor of seeing public entities ram just a little bit of democratized "licensing policy" down the throats of our corporate commons-grabbing community.
Why the heck not?