Do you believe self regulation is more or less effective than governmental regulatory agencies?

In my opinion, I believe that self regulation is much more effective than government regulation. Although government regulations will affect societal mindsets I believe that in some cases they may create the opposite of their intended effect. As with illegal music downloading, I feel that the news of pending strict repercussions on illegal downloads caused a surge of such downloads right before the article took affect, since people realize that they will face a greater chance of legal side effects once the regulations take effect. However if there was more of a focus on why the regulations are being created, as to who in particular these acts effect, the act itself would begin to diminish. In other words if the effort placed in creating regulations was centered on spreading awareness on the issue at hand, there would be not only less of the harmful activity, but in addition the public would be informed as to why the particular behavior was bad. If the public understood how illegal downloading of music and movies effected the creators of this media, they may be more inclined to cease or at least limit this habit; more so than with regulatory prosecution where one particular individual is singled out for their downloading offenses and presented with an array of harsh charges simply to set them up as an example.

Do you believe that the government has regulated an area in particular too harshly?

In Response to Product (Red): Can a T-shirt save the world?

Do you think a partnership with Product (RED) can improve Gap’s image? Is it a sign that they are making a commitment to corporate social responsibility or do you agree with critics who say their involvement is an attempt to spit-shine the company’s image while continuing to do business as usual?

      Partnerships like the one between GAP and Product (RED) will undoubtedly boost GAP's image and appeal to socially concerned consumers, however I do believe that it many cases companies may latch onto charities such as RED primarily just to improve their annual returns. This is not to say that GAP is a unethical company in doing so, as I'm sure that the employees of GAP are concerned in aiding the struggle with HIV/AIDS in Africa, but the fact is that GAP is in business to sell clothing to their customers. In partnering with RED they know this new relationship will help them sell more shirts, as seen with Oprah's inspi(red) shirt which turned out to be their number one selling item in the past 35-years (as the article stated). However I believe that if they cannot continue to sell their RED products they will discontinue their line and adopt a new cause for publicity, instead of altering aspects of their operations that have negative repercussions  on the world (such as accusations of sweat-shop labor in countries such as Africa). 

After examining the GAP official website it would seem as if they did just that. In studying their homepage and even searching for Product (RED) attire, I could not even find their best selling RED item. However instead it seemed as if they had adopted a new cause: P.A.C.E. to help the advancement of women in other countries. 

So say if GAP really is just looking for ways just to extend their annual returns, do you believe this to be unethical? and also do you believe that consumers tend to catch on to this type of organizational behavior, and that they would feel strongly enough to change where they shop?