Slashdot Mirror
Bogus Experts Fight Your Right To Broadband
An anonymous reader writes, "Karl Bode of Broadband Reports takes aim at supposed telecom experts and think tankers who profess to love the 'free market,' but want to ban the country's un-wired towns and cities from offering broadband to their residents. If you didn't know, incumbent providers frequently determine towns and cities unprofitable to serve (fine), but then turn around and lobby for laws that make it illegal to serve themselves (not so fine). They then pay experts to profess their love for a free market and deregulation — unless that regulation helps their bottom line. A simple point: 'Strange how such rabid fans of a free-market wouldn't be interested in allowing market darwinism to play out.'"
If you are really a fan of a free market, you'd understand the reality that regulation means that it isn't free. Restrictions mean it isn't free. Taxation means it isn't free. Licensing means it isn't free.
What we really see here are Statists who use the words "free market" are just pro-State pundits who, as the anonymous reader wrote, are paid to profess support for their employers while sounding pro-freedom.
This is no different than war supporters who think that soldiers and previous war protect freedoms (they don't). It is no different than neoliberal Senators who think that minimum wage laws protect the freedoms of workers (they don't). It is no different than the Federal Reserve Board of Governors who believe that more liquidity means more freedom for the consumer (sorry, wrong).
There are two ways to conduct business: competitively, or with the help of the State. Regulations, licensing, taxations, embargoes, tariffs, duties and other "pro-market" structures are "legal" uses of force by the State for one thing and one thing only: to take care of the businesses friendly with the State.
I love the free market because I love watching markets change to meet the needs of the consumers (demand) as well as the manufacturers (supply). I love seeing both sides of a barter or exchange profit from that exchange, rather than one side gaining and one side losing. The free market is not zero sum: it is mutual gain. This is capitalism. The State-licensed mercantilistic market is not zero sum -- one party loses, one party gains. This is socialism or Western State mercantilism.
Are you surprised? In my 24 years existing as a United States citizen, I have witnessed this time and time again: The rich get richer as the working class gets fscked.
It's easiest to make money when you have money.
My work here is dung.
Goverment helping people or doing nice things for them is Socialism. Socialism is BAD.
Throwing them to the wolves, however is not Socialism, therefore it must be good.
"Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
Look, I'm clearly being thick. Can anyone explain to me what this story is actually about, in really simple terms, because the story summary makes as much sense as dressing an avocado in knickers, and I'm really not used to that.
Whenever a business (lobbyist) says that their laws (proposal) is to protect the "public" - watch out!
Look at your own state. Why is that manicurists are regulated but not electricians in some states. I don't know about you, but I've never heard of someone dyong from a manicure - from faulty wiring - yes.
It may different in your state or country, but Governement regulation is GOOD (TM)!
If I'm in business, I would love it if the Government kept competition from entering the market!!!!
See AMA.....American Medical Association - the ultimate in barriers to entry!!!
Those communites may be unprofitable to service today, but if in five or 10 years the technology comes along to make it profitiable, then their lobbying will put them in a position to exploit it. As for the consumer in those communites today, tough. The customer first fad is over.
Obviously, no one has an intelligent design for creating new markets where none exist.
You make a very good point. I think one example that geeks can easily relate to is the GPL versus the BSD license.
The GPL claims to promote freedom, but attempts to do so through the application of numerous restrictions. What it ends up doing is limiting the freedom of many people, namely those who wish to be free to not redistribute GPL'ed source code they might happen to modify.
The BSD license, on the other hand, makes no such unreasonable restrictions. The minor restrictions it does make are justifiable, and do not really hinder the freedom of anyone to modify and redistribute such source code as they see fit.
I suppose we'll never have to worry about seeing a Broadband Unification Board, will we?
All the world's an analog stage, and digital circuits play only bit parts.
What's that, eight politics story on the front page of slashdot for today? Where is the news for nerds? I know Election Day is coming up, we don't need to editors to bash us over the heads with political stories to steer the election.
Slashdot has really jumped the shark when stories in the linux section gets outnumbered by politics.
for your right
to brooaaaadband.
God spoke to me.
Nobody wants to hear it but I'll say it anyway: Municipally owned and operated ISPs are a bad idea. No matter how hot your technology is today, tomorrow's technology will be hotter and the municipality won't be able to react. Governments and government contractors never can. Their taxpayer-funded presence in the market will, however, serve as a very effective means of encouraging for-profit companies to go elsewhere.
I have direct experience with this in the dialup market in Altoona PA in the late '90s. If you weren't happy with the sponsored ISP, tough luck. The small ISPs pulled out when they couldn't compete with Joe Taxpayer. I worked for one of those ISPs.
You want municipal wireless? Fine, but understand that means you'll ONLY get whatever products and quality of service your town's government is capable of. Servers and static IPs? Ho ho, good luck. And you'll be the last town in the nation to get anything better.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Free market darwinism would be allowing private entities to compete for the dollars of customers on the basis of quality of service.
This is taxing everybody to create a service that will be useful to a small portion of the population. I like my Internet connection to have a low latency, and a citywide wireless network would definitely not provide the latency I need for gaming, so I would just be paying for a service that would be useless to me as well as the broadband access I'm already paying for.
Strange how such rabid fans of a free-market wouldn't be interested in allowing market darwinism to play out.
Government "competing" with industry is not a free market and there is no "market darwinism" to play out. Of the two competitors here, one can confiscate any amount of money they choose from everyone to pay for their service. It doesn't matter if anyone wants it, they need no voluntary "customers." They take whatever money they want and provide whatever service they want.
Pretending that a company can compete with government, where government forces everyone to pay for their service, is a terrible twist of the word "competition." It's like saying that Wendy's can "compete" with McDonalds if the government passes a new law that everyone has to pay to eat all their meals at McDonalds, and then can show up and get the food they already had to pay for for no additonal charge. In order to go to Wendy's, you have to also buy a McDonalds meal and throw it away. That's not "free market competition."
Note that I'm not saying anything in this post about whether or not municipalities should be allowed to offer internet access, or (and this is an entirely separate issue) whether or not they should do so. I'm just saying that calling government "competition" with free enterprise companies some sort of free market is absurd. It's not competition when one of the competitors gets to force everyone to "buy" their product, can charge whatever they want, can loose any amount of money without fear of going out of business, can provide any service and quality level with no effect on revenue, and can tax and regulate their competitors. Yes, there are some areas where a company manages to service the same sector government services in a different way, and I'm not saying it's impossible that some people would pay for another internet service even after paying for the government one, especially if the government one is run as badly as many government things are. But even if a lot of people end up paying for both the mandatory government service and a second, private service, it's still not free market competition.
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
The assets deployed for the old tip-and-ring telephony were and are public trusts; protected monopolies for municipal utility use. Telcos have stolen these assets, their incumbent rights-of-way and easements for their own purposes-- shareholder return and equity. This massive theft goes untested and unnoticed.
The low-hanging fruit of public assets-- the big cities-- are easy pickings. High-density infrastructure pays first. Rural areas and marginal density suburban areas pay less and cost more. Gone is the idea that rural deployments can be subsidized because the telcos believe that their depreciation costs are too high to afford subsidizing low-density deployments. The results: the Congress, already in the back pockets of the telcos, has yanked from the states, the authority to regulate the telcos.
The net effect is that the telcos have the ability to hold consumers hostage in this 'free market', where the telcos have consolidated from nine to just four, depending how you count them. Ah, the free market, where 'free' means 'for shareholders'. Flamebait? Look in your heart.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Cable Tv companies make deals with localities they come into to make competition "illegal" so they dont have to compete. Hell TCI cablevision, now called Comcast demanded that not only cableTV operators could not come into the town I lived in when they started up, but also asked that community TV in neighborhoods, be licensed and regulated to the point they all went away. (Community TV was a single large tower with antennas and a couple of C band dishes ot put Free to air content onto a small neighborhood cableTV plant that all the residents paid to maintain by the association fees.)
Oh no, CATV this type of tactic is old-skool. GTE was also known for such a tactic as well in the 60's and 70's.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
For the Bells, the motive is clear: money.
FOR THE BELLS, THE MOTIVE IS CLEAR: MONEY.
More news at 11.
That's maybe true in a totalitarian state, but less so in real-world US of A.
Take the Post Office, for example. It's technically a government service, but for years it has been operated pretty much as a business, and a profitable one. And it's a business that competes with other, private businesses -- take, for example, UPS.
What's more, the USPS has for several years signed business agreements with FedEx, UPS's main competitor. If that's not the government messing around with the free market, I don't know what is.
Full disclosure: I think UPS is a great company. I own stock in UPS. And, quite frankly, that stock is doing just fine.
My point? While what you say is superficially true, as with most issues, the world doesn't really work as black-and-white as all that. Yes, there are opportunities for businesses to compete in areas that local municipalities operate in. Some private businesses even compete directly with branches of the federal government.
Is UPS happy about the USPS's relationships with FedEx? Oh hell no. They complained til they were blue in the face. But at the end of the day, they keep their business running, they seize their opportunities, and that's life.
Breakfast served all day!
This is similar to the ridiculous advertisements the cable/telecom industry has been putting on TV regarding net neutrality. They proudly proclaim that they are defending the consumer against evil money-grubbing corporations like Google or Cisco, offering no concrete argument as to why their assertions might be true (if you say it often and loudly enough, it must be true!). At the same time, they deny the truth: what they really want to do is eliminate consumer choice re: VoIP and VoD.
My history teacher told us that there are three keys to understanding American history:
1. Great Britain.
2. People are stupid.
3. Follow the money.
Great Britain doesn't apply here, of course, but the other two are universal...this article is news, but it isn't new. We should expect people to do things entirely for profit. And we should expect people to be blatantly two-faced. Plato or Aristotle or someone like that said that "Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being ruled by those who are stupider." Or something like that. Stupid people + money = corruption, but corruption != surprise.
The heavens do not fall for such a trifle.
Very very true...
I'm stuck on 128k Dialup ISDN just because the fsckin' telco (BellSouth) can't install a DSLAM in the right location. This connection is shared on *3* computers in a home LAN. Not only that, but 90% of the time the 2nd channel drops and I'm on 64kbit. 46ms first hop ping is nice though.
lets go to kuro5hin, screw these guys.
I mean, I like broadband as much as the next guy, but who said one has a "right" to broadband?
Boy, James Madison, George Mason, and the rest of those guys were sure forward thinking individuals! And I never even knew this was a right!
No its not, now its a marketing gimmick companies like AOL and major banks use to attract new customers.
Until you have signed up with them, they will do everything the can to make you feel like you are coming first, then as soon as they have you, they give you a number and tell you to wait in line.
This issue is easily resolved.
As you know, the USPS (and similar entities) are sponsered by the government - however, the primary (and most visible fee) is the stamp on the envelope. While you may also have to pay taxes if you don't use the postal service, it is still based around use. Regardless of whether you pay for services you don't use, UPS and Fedex are still prosperous and highly recognized alternatives. These two companies survive against government competition because they specialized in large package shipments.
Municipal-sponsered Internet access can also be set-up in this fashion. The city may have an initial setup fee that appears in taxes - however the municipality has it's main charge for it's usage. Any telcos that want to compete (especially for profit) can attract customers from the municipality by giving service that the municipality can't (e.g. faster speeds, technical support, etc.)
If Canada has developed the concept of a Crown Corporation, then so should the United States. While there isn't usually much competition to crown corporations (because they fill a specific need that for-profit enterprises don't go after), there is competition for at least some of those businesses (e.g. CTV competes with CBC.)
Erm, you do realize that it is illegal for you to carry and deliver letters for money, right? It's called a monopoly, and the USPS has one.
Whoops.
...of bullshit.
The Reason Foundation is yet another free-market think tank that believes that eliminating government oversight in the broadband sector will result in broadband utopia.
In my neck of the woods, there is a small community called Lake George, MN. Lake George is a nice small lakeside tourist town, population ~150 and growing. It's got a few nice cafes, some tourist shops. They just got their first apartment complex, and there's a lot of tourist dollars that go there every summer. There's a lot of people that would love to live there year-round, but there's a problem. Their phone provider is CenturyTel, based out of Louisiana. CenturyTel has NO PLANS to build broadband infrastructure there in Lake George. From a business standpoint, I can understand. There's no reason to. It would cost to much to create that kind of infrastructure just so that maybe 50 households could sign up.
But everybody in the area knows about Paul Bunyan.net. They're a regional provider that delivers phone, internet, and cable all in one package for $80. Nobody can offer a better bundled package. Sure, we can sign up with Charter for cable internet and TV, and Qwest for phone access, but it's not the same price. Paul Bunyan Coop has been doing a fantastic job offering cable and broadband internet access to rural areas surrounding Bemidji, MN. (Here's a map showing their whole service area. Mind you, Laporte is a town with 150 people, and they offer service in the ENTIRE township.)
Now, why do I bring these two different companies into the picture? Because Paul Bunyan just got awarded a government contract to lay lines into Itasca State Park. Itasca State Park is located about 10 miles west of...guess where...LAKE GEORGE!!! They were laying the lines right down Main Street in the town just last week! And yet, legally, they cannot build infrastructure in Lake George. They have to run the line straight through. And why is that, when they're laying an access line right through the town? Oh, here's the kicker everybody...get this...since Lake George never was owned by Ma Bell (and many rural areas weren't...there's a specific legal name for this condition...can't remember it for the moment), since Lake George's phone lines were never built by Ma Bell, they aren't subject to deregulation laws like the larger communities are. So, CenturyTel has exclusive rights to offer telecommunications service to Lake George. And they're not selling.
Deregulation my ass. Companies will do whatever they want with whatever they have exclusive access to. Big Business isn't going to build jack squat in rural America. Three cheers for the regional Coop's that are willing to bring modern telecommunications access to the rest of the country.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Government helping people in the US is socialism. In fact, any social spending or infrastructure spending in the US is socialism. Paying for grandma's health care is socialism.
Paying Haliburton and other US contractors to rebuild Iraq--that's not socialism. The discriminator is this--who makes the money? If money is being spread among a bunch of little people, then that's socialism. If money is poured into a few large corporations whose executives make tens or hundreds of millions, then that's the free market. If it's profitable for the rich, it's the free market, but if you're giving money to a single mother of 2, then that's socialism. If you're helping the working poor pay their medical bills, that's socialism, and probably creeping totalitarianism.
But we can brag on TV about building schools for Iraqis, and that's NOT socialism. But--you guess it--large American corporations have won contracts to rebuild those schools, along with those huge military bases over there. What is an what is not socialism has more to do with who gets to pocket the money than it does with any fidelity to Karl Marx. Care to look into how much federal money was spent rebuilding New Orleans, compared to how much is spent on rebuilding Iraq? If you spend money in New Orleans, then small local firms may get some of the contracts, and the money may be spent, and most importantly earned, locally. If you spend in Iraq, all of the money goes into the coffers of large companies with sweetheart deals, such as Haliburton.
Small mom-and-pop contractors don't have contacts in the Department of Defense and White House. But if you get big enough, you get to engage in nation-building as part of someone's "vision," like PNAC, and then that isn't socialism, even if you're building the very things that WOULD be socialism if you were building it for Americans back home.
If false is the law of the jungle and true is totalitarianism, then whether a particular enterprise is regulated by the state is a fuzzy-valued membership function, not a boolean-valued indicator function. The prohibitions of murder and bank robbery are state regulations; therefore, all business is state regulated to some degree. Your way of defuzzifying this, by rounding all fuzzy values greater than false to true, makes your logic useless.
get out the crimper, buy lots of CAT5e and start running wire door to door, use wireless, routers, servers, back up the power supply with solar and wind.
What's stopping us?
I haven't paid money for internet and I don't intend to give anyone money to do so. Once the infrastructure is in place there is no need for the Enron's of the world, we don't need them.
This isn't quite true. You see, there were market forces at work when the franchise agreement between Cox Cable and your town or county was being negotiated. Whenever your area was making a move from broadcast programming into the cable world, there were probably a number of cable television players vying for the contract. For whatever reason--we would hope, as a result of offering the most competitive terms--Cox got the contract:
1. Sometimes these agreements are exclusive, sometimes not. Sometimes they are written to not necessarily be exclusive, but they might as well be because the existing cable company owns all of the infrastructure and is unwilling to lease its property to a potential competitor. Other times, it is your local phone company that is responsible for keeping competition out. You see, many phone companies actually lease the space on the top of their phone poles to cable companies that need to use them to string cable lines. You want to talk about a racket? The price is calculated per pole and usually to the cable company's detriment. The phone company has a sweet, parasitic thing going, and is often either unwilling or contractually unable to jeopardize it by leasing to others. Incidentally, if you've ever stood on the sidelines while one utility company totally screws another utility, it's about the funniest thing in the world.
2. Note that franchise agreements are subject to renewal, and if you really felt like Cox wasn't doing right by its customers, you could raise those issues when it was time for the agreement to be renewed. There is a simple appeals process in place that covers that exact situation. It's not common, but it's been known to happen. Then, as Cox's world comes crashing down, their franchise agreement no more and their property has been sold off at fire-sale prices, you will see plenty of cable providers come courting, promising you the world.
..but I lucked out, got the wimax. The local telco and the local cable guys won't run one stinking more foot of wire or coax that they don't have to, hence, no broadband for folks outside the city. None, zero. A local mom and pop saw an opportunity and threw up some wimax and I was on that like a duck on a june bug, works great! And even IF those fucked up old industries finally run better copper out here as far as I am concerned they can suck it, I'll stay loyal to the little guys who actually cared enough to do it first.
When you look at what sort of obscene amounts of truckloads of cash the big cable and telephone guys are sitting on, and how little it takes to do wimax to get out to the customers they don't reach, I can *never* forgive them for just telling all the marginal customers to eat it, they can go to hell for all I care for them. I will NOT ever use them again, at least directly. My money will go to the people who care about their neighbors, not some giant faceless bogus corporation, as much as possible.
With that said, go look at what the equipment costs, it really isn't that much if you really want wimax. Maybe see if maybe you can do a rent to own deal with them to get a little repeater setup (solar powered maybe??) to supply you and your neighbors. The price you pay just to start satellite internet is STEEP, to get bogus service, see if you could use that money better, offer parity to the wimax guys, see what they say. Maybe if you could get just a few neighbors to all offer similar it might tip it in your favor.
Us citizen's should recieve whatever benefits we voted for the government to provide. I'm a strong supporter of a free market, but my democratic principals easily trumps my economic principals. If it won't work or isn't the most effective, so what. It's our right as voters to choose.
Economic principals are should be based economic thoery and be a matter of correct or incorrect.
Democratic principals is a moral matter of right and wrong and being able to choose the form of your government.
Heck, existing certification mark laws would work. A lot of people and computer repair shops would hire somebody with a CompTIA A+® certification over somebody without a recognized certification. Likewise, if the law prohibiting practicing medicine without a license were repealed, the AMA would warn the public to "look for the logo".
However, allowing everybody to practice medicine has some implications that you may not have thought about. Would you want somebody high on self-prescribed cocaine or methamphetamine to operate a 500 kg machine that could ram into your bicycle?
It is? Would you care to point out to me what law says that?
It was the telegraph that caused the Pony Express to go under, not a law.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Frankly, I'm shocked that you would think that states should be forbidden to provide services THAT THE FREE MARKET DOESN'T PROVIDE. Small towns can't get high-speed, because no merchants want to provide it. It's not worth it. But if the people of that state feel that they want that service, and are willing to pay for it, what's wrong with them banding together to set that service up themselves? Should construction firms be able to pass laws preventing you and your neighbour from collaborating to build a tool shed that you can then share? A state is no different from you and neighbour working together -- it simply occurs at a larger scale.
Finally, state-run businesses don't necessarily interfere with the functioning of competitors. Frequently, governments will create an organization to supply some service that the free market doesn't provide, and then once it has been established, they split it up and sell it off to merchants who are willing to run these services now that they've been established and proven.
Socialism vs Capitalism isn't a one-or-the-other choice. There are productive balances that can be achieved between total government management of everything and slavery to an oligarchy of industrialists.
But seriously -- how do YOU think small towns should get services like broadband, water-purification plants, sewer systems, and whatnot?
Lastly -- "neoliberal Senators who think that minimum wage laws protect the freedoms of workers"?! You sir, are officially a retard. Neoliberalism is exactly the opposite of that. Neoliberalism is the philosophy that YOU are endorsing in your post -- that of total deregulation. Sorry man, but you're a neoliberal. I know, I know, anything associated with the word "liberal" is automatically evil because of that association with freedom, but deal with it.
I just finished my comment when I noticed yours. Just to clarify, this isn't a "state-mandated" problem by any means. Also, the contract signed between the city and the cable company may not necessarily be exclusive--it may be that there are just significant financial barriers to entry in the market that have created a kind of constructive monopoly (nitpicking, I know, but it is important to distinguish between purely contractual and purely economic restrictions or else risk misleading others).
"Petitioning your city council" will do approximately jack shit. There is usually a formal process in place whereby disgruntled cable customers can voice their concerns, and it's well-timed with the franchise renewal process, which could be years and years away. Unless the cable provider were to breach (very unlikely--they'd practically have to burn down the town) then the battleground will be the franchise renewal period. I'm a lawyer by trade and have at least a passing familiarity with how these franchise agreements work. But you see, like most legal professionals, I tend to be a bit of a lush, and after my 6th beer it becomes harder and harder to link to the information that I know to be true. Feel free to Google away in my stead.
Sure, they're called the Private Express Statutes.
Only the USPS gets to carry normal mail. If you want express from someone else, it either costs (by statute) significantly more than the Post Office does, and/or you have to pay the post office what they would have gotten anyway by buying and canceling stamps in addition to the private postage.
This
The Canadian Coalition for Fair Digital Access sounds like a positive group. In reality they are a group of retailers attempting to abolish the media levy in Canada to make the environment more friendly to suing file sharers and otherwise pushing online music sales through turning their customers into instant criminals.
w ww.ccfda.ca/subsections/eng_whoweare.html+site:www .ccfda.ca+Canadian+Coalition+for+Fair+Digital+Acce ss%22&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=2
+ site:www.ccfda.ca+Canadian+Coalition+for+Fair+Digi tal+Access%22
They claim they want to protect Canadians from an "unfair" tax, when in reality they want to abolish the small media tax we pay to impose a bigger cost and restriction on those who use MP3s. While not claiming to be experts, its the same thing. A group of individuals claiming to be on the side of freedom and the consumer who have their own ulterior motives.
Website is currently down, so here are some cached links:
"Who we are"
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:2mAYYuIzwqsJ:
Google search with cache links to most of the site: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=
One man's open letter response to their position:
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/discuss/1645
FedEx and UPS are not "alternatives." They provide separate services from the primary role of the post office (first class letter delivery), and are required *by statute* to charge significantly more for it.
I can't legally start delivering mail in the US tomorrow for 37 cents an envelope.
This
Why on Earth not?
Specifically, what is it about municipalities that will prevent them from "reacting" when a for-profit organization can?
I think your statement betrays your personal bias, but says nothing about any inherent ability of any particular type of organization to provide high quality service to its customers.
Given the rather shitty nature of high speed internet service in many parts of this country, it is quite clear that we cannot rely on the private sector to provide versatile, high quality, high speed, reasonably priced data services, let alone with any commitment to responsiveness or customer service.
With a municipal utility providing data services, or providing non-exclusionary bulk access to publically owned data infrastructure, the community can control its own destiny regarding high speed data services -- rather than merely being able to hope that the local telco monopoly or cable company will decide, someday, to make things better.
I would be thrilled if my local publically owned utility would offer data services. It has a track record of excellent governance and service to the community since the early 1900s. I can't say the same about Qwest (aka "US Worst") or Comcast -- the only two games in town when it comes to high speed Internet service (they don't even compete with eachother directly since they offer products that don't really overlap the other's market segments). I have a hard time imagining the public utility, governed by local board members, and intimately close to the needs of the community, would do a worse job or be less able to "react" than Qwest or Comcast.
It sounds like your municipal ISP did a poor job of serving its community. Maybe the lesson from that is to not do what happened in your town, rather than leaping to the conclusion that any municipality will necessarily do a bad job?
http://images.slashdot.org/hc/43/867b91339c99.jpg
"The State-licensed mercantilistic market is not zero sum -- one party loses, one party gains. This is socialism or Western State mercantilism."
This is dada.
This may be the beer talking, but I just re-read your post and I seriously can't point to a single statement you made that is even true. It's not personal, I'm sure you were just trying to be helpful. It's just discouraging because I'm sure you will be modded up further as "informative", even though you're not informing anyone--you're feeding them lies. I mean even if you were to go so far as to break down every sentence into independent and dependent clauses, it reads like "wrong"..."wrong"..."nope"..."no"..."wrong"...do mods even verify what they moderate or do they just mod up whatever seems authoritative? :( You see that? That's a text frowny face. That represents my new attitude towards your post.
there is nothing to see here. It's how capitalism works...
As much as I'm in favor of letting local communities provide broadband it isn't part of a real free market.
I mean imagine if I argued, people who don't want the government to provide health care don't really believe in a free market since they don't want the government to compete in health care. This would be absurd. If the government offered everyone free health care the fact that other people could sell health insurance wouldn't really be relevent.
Similarly towns have powers of compulsion that corporations (should) lack. They can fund broadband infrastructure with tax dollars and guarantee they are the only game in town.
The reason I'm in favor of municipal broadband is that true free market competition isn't possible. Cable and phone companies get monopolies on providing service anyway. Forbidding municipalities from offering broadband just guarantees we get the worst of both worlds, the lack of accountability and profit focus of corporations combined with monopolistic power.
However, the argument that free market people should support municipal broadband as part of a free market philosophy is just absurd.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
I hate to break this to you, but at least where I live, they're neither compulsory nor directly tax-supported.
Instead, the city contracted with a private company by giving them right-of-way on public land to put up wireless access points and asked in return that they provide certain public benefits (e.g. you can visit the local university's web page for free). Otherwise, those of us who wish to subscribe to their service and have a pretty normal ISP.
Forgive me for not thinking they're a bad thing, and that cable companies in particular are absolute hypocrites if they complain about such arrangements as this one.
In high school, I thought it would be cool to have a democratic principal, rather than the authoritarian one we had.
I am not a crackpot.
A county public power utility did this in Grant county, Washington. It wasn't economical for the cable or phone company to supply broadband. Much of the place is populated like northern Nevada. See here. The power company funded a plan to use internet-enabled power meters and ran fiberoptic cable to every property they could, defraying the cost by offering broadband Internet. I think it's a full gigabit pipe. The cost is much less than most people pay for DSL or cable broadband.
The meters fell through -- the mfr had some trouble delivering. The customers don't care. It has more than paid for itself.
Big companies are not always stupid. Shortly thereafter they pushed a bill through the state government protecting the citizens of the state from such rogue government entities. Grandfather clauses being what they are, the folks that already had it got to keep their killer broadband.
The county? Was wheat farms and cow country. Now Yahoo and MSN are building huge server farms. The place is a geek magnet. Last time I was there the paper was running articles about how many family ranches had increased in value and taxes 10x or more in a few years, and the poor fixed income retirees were having to cash in and move to less free range digs. You wouldn't believe what a 40 acre homestead on the river goes for in silicon valley.
Two counties and a couple cities were grandfathered in. Gigabit, 100 megabit, 10 megabit, symmetrical. Sound nice? Everybody else has to pay if they can, or wait if they can't.
Yeah, I don't like this particular aspect of market economics.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
As I read the regulations, if perfectly legal for me to contract a special messenger to deliver private mail. In fact, it's written into Title 18, Part I, Chapter 83, section 1696(c).
Post Office Publication 542 (pdf) makes repeated mention to Title 39, mostly in Chapter 3 (which is all sections starting with 3xx). You will notice that the US Code site does not list Chapter 3. Since I can not find reference to them, I'm forced to assume one of three things:
1. they've been repealed
2. they've been updated somewhere
3. the government is intentionally hiding them
It's really hard to follow the laws if you can't read what they are, and I mistrust an organization who can only claim (same pdf as before) things in their favor while pointing to legislation now purged from the lawbooks to back it up.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Apparently there are two definitions of neoliberalism: the standard one and the American one (kind of like how liberalism has been redefined in the States). From Wikipedia (I'm too lazy to check elsewhere):
And:
I'm quite familiar with the usage in Canada, but I've never heard this second definition before. I think it's significant that the Wikipedia article seems to stick to the first definition throughout.
The definition of the term is a distraction, however. Mark MF-WN is spot on. Markets require regulation to function - quite extensive regulation in fact. Regulation of contracts, of money, to create and enforce property rights (from land to copyright), and so forth. The market as a dominant institution in society is not a natural state of affairs - or rather (since either nothing or everything human is "natural"), it is a recent phenomenon. The history of the market has been one of deliberate expansion into new areas - from the enclosure of the commons to (in this case) regulation to prevent cities providing broadband.
You (dada21) say, "The free market is not zero sum". This is true. But the ideal situation you describe, in which "both sides of a barter or exchange profit from that exchange" ignores the typical inequality of parties to any deal. There are numerous reasons for this, but I'll pick on one. Frequently, one party has the freedom to "negotiate", while the other does not. When was the last time you negotiated the terms of a software license agreement? The onerous terms of Windows license agreements, region coding on video games, and disabled ad-skipping technology in DVRs are all products of the free market, not state regulation.
First I'd just like to compliment you on your well-said, rational post.
I consider myself to be basically a small-government borderline libertarian, and I agree with you. I have seen very little evidence to convince me that a society completely devoid of regulation, either in the criminal or economic sense, would be a nice place to live. Maybe it would be an interesting place to visit -- I mean, who wouldn't want to play at being a ruthless vigilante? -- but I wouldn't want to live there permanently. (And this completely ignores the fact that in an 'unregulated' society, I suspect that people would form together and produce something not dissimilar to a 'government' pretty quickly; in time, you'd probably produce a society similar to what we have today. There's no 'natural regulation' in our society; everything we have is our own creation. Thus, we are the steady-state solution to the problem.)
Here's how the market economy works, or ought to: the people, by way of the democratic process, decide on what they want the outcome to be. They decide that "we want to have running water and sewer and electricity." If that need is not already being met by the market, then there is a place for the government (democratically elected!) to inject itself, and provide the absolute minimum incentive structure necessary, in order to accomplish the outcome desired by the electorate. The interference should always be minimal, and only after there is no alternative that doesn't involve interference.
There is no point in even having a government, if it is powerless to interfere in the "market" when that market isn't producing the outcomes that are desired by the citizenry. If it can't, then it's just redundant: you might as well get rid of it and just let the market be your government, because the layer of powerlessness isn't doing you any good.
If people in a community want high-speed internet, and the market isn't providing it, then there is a place for the local government to put it in place, or create an incentive structure sufficient so that it is created, just like any other type of infrastructure development project. There is ample historical evidence for successful infrastructure projects done using public funds, for public benefit; it's not a completely foreign concept. And it doesn't even need to be done with public funds per se, like some gigantic Stalinist Central Planning committee; a government might just need to provide loan guarantees or otherwise mitigate risk in order to spur commercial development. As I said earlier, the incentives to create the desired ends should always be approached from a minimalist perspective: the least interference is best, because it means the least chance of unintended consequences. But fear of interference shouldn't paralyze local governments from acting when they have a mandate from their people to do so.
So even as a fan of small, decentralized, basically weak government, I can see very valid reasons for public action in infrastructure development. If a government isn't allowed to do something this basic, and this simple, then it's hardly a functioning government at all.
Of course, such compromises are not as fun to make from a rhetorical perspective as lazy black and white distinctions, however false they may be.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
There are two ways to conduct business: competitively, or with the help of the State. Regulations, licensing, taxations, embargoes, tariffs, duties and other "pro-market" structures are "legal" uses of force by the State for one thing and one thing only: to take care of the businesses friendly with the State.
Actually there's a third way, have the local infrastructure owned by the local community but have them open it up to all comers. IEEE's "Specturm" has an article on A Broadband Utopia. Several cites and communities in northeastern Utah got together to lay down fiber which they then allow businesses to access and sale services. They are able to offer speeds of 30Mb/s now but the spped can go up to 100Mb/s. The service providers can offer internet access, phone service, and tv service or any combination of them. I believe this is a much better idea when dealing with natural monopolies like landlines or cables than with granting a business sole right to the monopoly, right of way.
FalconShould there be a Law?
US successful "free market"
== With enough Will Power, one could move mountains. With enough Brains, one would just leave them where they are ==
The thing you hit on here that is the crux of it all is the part about local governments. Doing things at the most local level possible keeps the mandate pure, keeps the costs and benefits local, and maximizes accountability. That's where America's founders had such great insight, and where modern America has lost its way. Compare that Canada, which has been struggling to move in the opposite direction -- gradually transferring power, responsibility, and budgetary discretion to the provinces and even municipalities in some cases. I use the word struggle deliberately, since this kind of thing runs directly against the Human tendency towards centralization, and it's by no means clear that Canada has been particularly successfull at decentralizing. Still, America often seems to have given up on it entirely.
Libertarianism is so dualistic it makes Nietzsche cry. It's a great idea, in theory, but in practice it just cannot work. There is no such thing as a free market, ever. Hence the need for government with something so flawed as capitalism. What's that, you are on the verge of death and I can save your life but only if you pay me millions of dollars? Oh, is that okay with you? So you prefer death or serious permanent injury to cash? What the hell do libertarians think about all day when it comes to the reality of something so simple as health care? Oh golly gee, I wish this was a free market, then everything would be perfect! To which I say this: if you can't feel Smiths Invisible Hand up your ass yet, I can easily replace it with my boot, which, as it turns out, regulates modern markets better than your Invisible Hand ever will. /rant
Sorry for the angst, but I have too many smart friends who are enamored with the free market scam. It's all just some whiny conservative propaganda for removing pesky government regulations so they can make more money. Greed. For all it's worth, I hope they choke on their money.
lack of regulation would lead to less competition. So, lack of regulation can also be a way for the state to "help business."
Actually in many cases regulations make it harder for a new competitor to enter a market to the benefit of already established businesses. Don't believe me? Try starting your own radio station without getting an FCC license. Or a restaurant or bar without licenses. Luckily this isn't true in all professions yet, such as programming, but it is true in others.
FalconShould there be a Law?
That's true in some cases, but in many cases it has the opposite effect. For example, anti-trust regulation, or government regulations that allowed new players besides Ma Bell to enter the market. So, things aren't as black-and-white as many make them out to be.
I never argued that there weren't regulations that make it more difficult to enter the market. Just that not all of them do.
... and then they built the supercollider.
I think the point being made is that these
companies talk about free market, ra ra, but then do all they
can to keep any competition away from them. The attempts by
the companies to enact legislation ( where successfull, and
maybe even where just threatened ) is where the issue is,
and it seems to me to be a valid point.
emt 377 emt 4
This is the prime example of what is wrong with market fundamentalism.
//they're not even in//. This shows that they're not satisfied with just choking out communities with no braodband access - they're looking for governments to give //them// the money they wold have spent providing their own solutions.
"Let people do whatever they want - unless it involves forming an organization which distributes voting equity per voter, rather than per dollar. That should be illegal."
Although it's despicable, it's understandable to see telcos and cable cos lobbying to protect markets they monopolize; This, however, is the first situation I've seen where they're trying to protect markets
"Bill Moyers on America" recently aired a great documentary (watch the show online) in which the salient points made were that telecoms were given tax breaks to the tune of $2000 per household to wire them with fiber optics (back in the 90's) and that they are now trying to charge us again for that promised infrastructure while not allowing consumers the full benefit of the new higher speeds.
Also, it seems that the telecom's foot dragging may well have cost our country $500B to $1 Trillion dollars in lost economic opportunity!!! P.S. I tried to submit this as a story before but the dimwits in charge denied it twice.
I haven't heard of any municipality that puts it's own wired or wireless access up give it away for free. While it doesn't say how it's going to be paid for in this article the articles I've read that have said how the infrastructure is being paid for have said that either a private company or subscribers are the ones who pay. This is what Earthlink and Google are doing in San Francisco. The two companies are building a wireless network with thier own money. Now they are offering two plans, free access with slower speeds, advertizing pays for this, and a paid subscriber plan for faster speeds. I'd bet if the same thing were offered in Lafayette, La they'd take it, but it isn't.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I will point out that a great many Mac owners have purchased windows emualtion software and a copy of windows to run with it.
I plan on ordering a MacBook Pro in a couple of weeks and though I plan on running at least one Windows app I won't get XP, instead I'll get CrossOver Mac to run it in. Now if I can find a Mac app like the Windows app I want to use, XMLSpy which I've already checked to see if it will run in CrossOver, then I'll go ahead and give it a try.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Pretending that a company can compete with government, where government forces everyone to pay for their service
Ah, again I have to ask my question, maybe I'll get an answer this tyme. I've read the article three tymes but I haven't read where it said how the municipal plan was going to be paid for, can you tell me where it says this? Or where is says it's going to be free? Or where it says no other company is going to be allowed to offer the service themself?
FalconShould there be a Law?
You're not interested in making money yourself but want broadband? Get together with like minded neighbours and start a co-operative. It isn't local/state/federal government so the state isn't competing with commercial organisations. Profits can either be returned to the members or re-invested in updated services.
Deleted
Would you want somebody high on self-prescribed cocaine or methamphetamine to operate a 500 kg machine that could ram into your bicycle?
How about a diabetic having a seizure while driving a moving van and hitting you while you're riding your bike? That's what happened to me.
FalconShould there be a Law?
So you'd rather people set up radio stations on police/ambulance/coast guard frequencies or the frequencies of their rivals and created a system whereby its impossible to listen to any single station over distances over 5 miles ?
Or you'd enjoy eating in restaurants where to save costs the owners didn't give a damn about any pesky food hygiene issues and killed you with food poisioning ?
This is just another instance that would have shown up in Chris Mooney's book had it been reported a couple of years ago. The tactics and arguments are the same as those used on many other issues and point out the desperate need to revive the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment that was destroyed by the Republican majority in the House following the 1994 election.
utter rubbish
"Of the two competitors here, one can confiscate any amount of money they choose from everyone to pay for their service. It doesn't matter if anyone wants it, they need no voluntary "customers." They take whatever money they want and provide whatever service they want"
Which competititor is this?
"Strange how such rabid fans of a free-market wouldn't be interested in allowing market darwinism to play out."
What a stupid remark.
Darwinism doesn't have to be allowed to play out. That's the whole point of it.
Verizon's hemmoraging of telecom customers to VOIP providers such as Vonage has finally made them realize that who ever delivers the fattest pipe at the best price to the home will win. They are working on a massive rollout of last-mile Fiber (FiOS) that will let them compete directly with cable companies for the same services. In the meantime the telcos will have to suffer (deservedly) the gradual loss of their customer base to broadband Internet access.
Holy bandwidth Batman san!
I know I pay a price for living life in a rural area, but it would be nice if the 'price' was a $ amount as opposed to "unavailability". I'd sign up for that bandwidth at a price of $150/month in a heartbeat, and could surely be squeezed for a little more.
Back to the topic at hand, the depth of hypocrisy in these companies is unfathomable!! "Free Market until you try to circumvent our monopoly" ? Double Insanity!
I think if you check out most of those provider's opposition to municipal broadband systems, they are usually very general in scope. The big telcos and cable companies really don't care about small municipalities and counties opening their own broadband setups. What they don't want is to have to compete against a local government in a viable broadband market.
If they have invested the resources to provide broadband in a city, they don't want that city (which pays no taxes and is exempt from most other regulation as well) competing with them for customers.
Sounds like a reasonable attitude to me.
Under an intelligent regulation system, unserved areas would have the right to file plans with regulators to form their own broadband systems, giving the incumbent telcos and cable outfits a short time to object and a reasonable time after that to serve the affected area or cede it (along with a meaningful monetary penalty if they objected and then didn't come through with service) to the municipality. This would be a very good alternative to the statutory/regulatory framework that some of the incumbent carriers are pushing to restrict municipal systems.
Yeah, who would want to upset the Utopia we've created under Republicanism and Democratism? Maybe we should give this fascism thing a try as well. We wouldn't possibly want to incorporate any evil Libertarian principles into our government.
I don't know where you got your info, but Libertarians realize that a "completely" hands off government can't work because the cost of goods and services is out of balance when companies can force their production costs onto society. I doubt that you could find a Libertarian that would suggest we have multiple independently owned sets of wooden or metal poles running along our streets either.
Health Care? Are you implying that society should pay the cost for the most advanced(million dollar) treatments for every single person in the nation in attempts to preserve every second of life? Even in countries where health care is "free" there is rationing and prioritization. Furthermore, in a free society it creates the wrong incentives when costs of particular behavior, individual or business, are mis-allocated. A company dumping mercury into a river creates products which are artificially cheap because the cost has been placed on society. The same is true for an obese chain smoker in a socialized health care system.
We need to make a fundamental decision about how much of our collective income we want to have allocated through the public sector. 40% of GDP is NOT the right number. One primary belief of Libertarianism is to put a leash on renegade government spending. When we do that, our true spending priorities will emerge, and I guarantee that a $500B war will not be one of them.
Put a GDPx.20 cap on all government spending at all levels and let our elected officials make the hard choices we empower them to make. If a socialized health care system and publicly funded broadband are deemed to be priorities, so be it.
P.S. Electing a few Libertarians to Congress and the Senate doesn't mean that they'll seize power and enact their entire doctrine overnight.
The crown and co-op models do allow for shareholder investment and bonds, so there is an ROI aspect to their business, but it's one built around a stabilized return, not maximized profits. Blue chip vs. high risk.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
And what if they do so despite there being market offers for the same, for whatever reason (e.g. they do not trust the declared quality of service offered by market providers to be sufficient)?
That's not an entirely consistent statement. If what they want is available on the open, competitive market, then they should take that; however if they're not satisfied with the quality of what's available, then they're basically asking for something that's not available on the market anymore. Quality of service and reputation are rather essential qualities -- if people "do not trust" them, then they're demanding a different (probably more expensive) product.
If people want good electric service, and there's only one company available delivering it and they do a really shitty job, then the people can petition their government to encourage the creation of an alternative utility. This is allowable because what the people want -- reliable electrical service -- isn't being delivered by the market. "Reliable electric service" and "shitty electric service" are two separate products.
Now I wouldn't take this to be a carte blanche for the local government to start its own power company; as I said earlier, at least initially, new challenges should always be approached with a light hand. The first steps to take would be ones that encourage competition and investment by other private power companies; if that doesn't work, then you can always escalate the public-sector involvement.
Now there's a point where a leader has to tell the people what's possible and what's not. "A chicken in every pot" just isn't practical; no matter how you mess around with the market, you can't create Utopia. So expectations always need to be realistic and attainable. Distilling realistic and attainable goals, and communicating what's reasonable and what's not back to the electorate, is the job of politicians (or ought to be, anyway). And people need to be educated that that government isn't the solution to all of their problems; in most cases, if the market is not delivering something, it's because people aren't willing to pay enough for it. Hiding that cost in tax dollars (and possibly forcing its purchase on people who aren't interested) is rarely a good solution.
As for a government providing more than a minimum structure; it's not necessarily unjust as long as the government is basically just and representative. (The standards for that are a whole different discussion, but here we'll just take it on premise.) At the same time, just because the government might have a mandate to do something, doesn't mean that doing it is a good idea. People can be wrong, and can make bad decisions even collectively. If people start demanding that their government interfere in the market too frequently or too much, then they're probably going to hurt themselves in the long run, by damaging that market. In the example of electric power above, if the government injects itself too forcefully, then it might drive the private industry out and then people would be left with only one provider of power -- the government -- which will probably be terribly inefficient and, over time, cost them more than a competitive market would have. (Historically, centrally planned economies have sucked.) So they've just shot themselves in the foot with their meddling.
If the marketplace is a playing field, and government's job normally is to keep it level and flat, what I'm basically describing are situations where it's permissible for government to shim one corner of it a little bit, in order to produce certain desired objectives. However, if you tilt the playing field too much, then people just won't play there anymore, and you'll be stuck with a barren dirt patch, with nobody to play with besides yourself. And that's no fun. (Well...let's not go there.)
Bringing this all back to the question of internet access, if people in an area decide that they really want internet access, and it's clear that the unaided market is not going to del
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
http://carcino.gen.nz/images/index.php/00b9a680/46 3c5922
See http://www.newamerica.net/programs/wireless_future /broadband_policy_and_community_wireless/, for example.
At least some regulation is a given with anything telecom-related, but "regulate" doesn't have to mean "discourage" or "prohibit"...
(Note: I work at this think tank, but am not involved with the Wireless Future Program. I do like the idea of community wi-fi, though!)
I call astroturf - no one is *forced* to pay for community wifi - it is funded and operated entire by independent ISP's. No tax dollars are used. All the govt provides is help with cutting through right-of-way and tower access red tape, and perhaps give the project a stamp of approval. Oh, and pay for service for government offices at rates much better than they would pay the telco to run T1's in.
The USPS does not receive any funding from federal taxes. At all. It is funded entirely from postage paid by the senders of mail.
We need a new word for such laws instead of law. It seems that banning municipalities from providing WIFI is not a law in the same sense that banning people from killing other people is. I will start the guesses out with corpolaw or maybe corpla.
If the broadband is funded by taxpayers rather than by subscribers, then it is near impossible for any commercial outfit to compete in that market. That's why the vendors fight the subsidization of what would otherwise be a commercial service.
Subsidized industries usually become dependent on subsidies and end up provided a lesser quality product for a higher price. Look at Detroit, Amtrak, Enron ( yes, Enron was subsidized throughout the 90s).
If you think that having users pay for the state managed broadband means that it's unsubsidized, even if it's true now, it won't be true in the future. The cities will find they will be forced to pour non-users' tax money into a system that caters to a minority. That will entrench the state run offering and turn it into a monopoly because costs will be hidden by passing them on to people who couldn't find the internet if the co-ax was attached to his cerebral cortex and wouldn't care if they did.
Even if you want to debate that the value of state-run broadband is higher than a commercial vendor's because it's less efficient ( the Marxist labor theory ), it doesn't address the other issues at stake.
#-#
Ad Astra Per Aspera
A rough road leads to the stars
I was mostly being facetious. I do realize that a moderate Libertarian is not the same as fanatic Libertarian. I was using the post as a catharsis for my angst against the fanatical types (see fp).
On a more serious note, I'd rather the partisan bullshit went and the real issues came out... we spend so much time parading about and coloring our feathers that it seems the actual issues of effectively dealing with the problems of today just aren't important. I am an engineer. I care about the problem, the solution (design), and the implementation. I don't give a shit about Reblican, Democrat, Anarchist, Libertarian, Conservative, Neo-Nazi, Liberal, Green, somebody's feelings, etc. because as long as we care about how something "looks" and not the underlying structure there will be no progress. So long as politicians are stuck with posturing and low-brow "your mother wears army boots" BS, they will never, and I mean NEVER, have a reason to support each other in the recognition of a problem, the design of a solution, or even the implementation of the solution (how many times can you think of the Democrats or Republicans poisoning a bill by making it too costly to enforce or implement a good idea because the other side came up with it?). Oh what about patriotism, you say? Patriotism is for fascists. Loving your country might do it, but where's the money in that? It's a wonder anything gets done at all around here.
Competition is like free trade: it's something you want every one else to do, without having to do it yourself.
So you'd rather people set up radio stations on police/ambulance/coast guard frequencies or the frequencies of their rivals and created a system whereby its impossible to listen to any single station over distances over 5 miles ?
There's plenty of radio spectrum available without using emergency frequencies. I don't recall the frequencies for am or fm radio but radio stations can withstand frequencies a lot closer than they are now without interference. The standards used now are based on technology available in 1934 when the Communications Act of 1934 was signed which replaced the Federal Radio Commission. Today's much better tech means there can be more stations in the same frequency spectrum, however the mass media doesn't want more competition, they don't like the freemarket.
Or you'd enjoy eating in restaurants where to save costs the owners didn't give a damn about any pesky food hygiene issues and killed you with food poisioning ?
One, restaurants depend on returning customers, if they serve bad food people won't eat there. And two someone who becomes ill because of something they ate at a restaurant they can sue the owner. A restaurantier can easily be driven from business. Now I'm not saying there shouldn't be any regulations of restaurants, there should be some health regs, however I also mentioned bars. Maybe you missed it. But bars require a license to sale alcohol, the only reason to require one is to control the distribution of alcoloholic drinks. At the same tyme what most people don't know is that a person can legally make alcohol, up to 100 gallons a year of beer and/or wine and if someone wanted to they can distill it as well. Though it's been some years, I have made both beer and wine myself, and I plan on getting back into making then again. I just need to make space to setup my equipment. Now I'll probably have to replace some of it but there's homwbrew shop near me, Midwest Homebrewing and Wine making supplies. In some circles homebrew is getting popular again and brewpubs, where beer is made onsite, are booming.
FalconShould there be a Law?
So, what about roads? Should private companies be solely responsible for planning and building roads? There isn't really any technology that eliminates the need for roads yet, or eliminates their impact.
One, restaurants depend on returning customers, if they serve bad food people won't eat there. And two someone who becomes ill because of something they ate at a restaurant they can sue the owner.
But how can they sue anybody, without the government to run the courts and legal system, and to enforce the decisions? That would be government interfering in the free market!
And how would people know about the bad restaurant, if they never hear about it - for example, because the restaurant chain also owns all the media?
... and then they built the supercollider.
How did you manage to equate carrying "normal mail" and contracting a "special messenger" to carry "private mail"? The section you cited is clearly intended to grant the USPS an incomplete, but effective monopoly on the delivery of non-parcel mail:
Sure, you can hire a private courier to carry a single letter. As the courier, though, I'd have to carry the letter for free and/or avoid all repeat business, and never carry more than 25 letters for the same customer. The only time someone would use such a courier -- guaranteed to be expensive due to the limitations -- would be if the document was itself valuable and/or confidential. The government doesn't care about special deliveries; I doubt they care much whether you use the USPS to carry major contracts or confidential information, as that occurs relatively infrequently. These regulations exist purely to keep UPS/FedEx/etc. from competing with the USPS in the far more lucrative commercial mail business.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Someone might claim that beaming a signal through somebody else's head harms the person, and running wires under their sidewalk harms his property.
As I understand it, specific crime statutes such as robbery are an attempt to define what constitutes harm.
So, what about roads? Should private companies be solely responsible for planning and building roads? There isn't really any technology that eliminates the need for roads yet, or eliminates their impact.
This is one of the few areas where I disagree with the general Libertarian positions, on roads. I don't believe in privatizing roads, they should be owned and maintained by government. However a tax on fuel is what should be used to pay for building and maintaining them. In other words a user fee, the more you use the roads the more you pay. Now the government may hire or pay businesses to build and repair roads but bidding should be an open process. And it's not only roads government should own, I've been thinking a lot lately that local communities should own more of the local infrastructure, power and phone lines, cable, fiber, and so on. Those things that require a government granted natural monopoly.
But how can they sue anybody, without the government to run the courts and legal system, and to enforce the decisions? That would be government interfering in the free market!
I didn't say get rid of all government, no I firmly believe we have to have a strong court system. My big gripe with government is with the executive branch of the federal government, and the laws passed by congress and signed, with signing statements by Bush, How federal government does things that are not specifically authorized by the Constitution of the USA. The Constitution sets a limit on the government, it lays out exactly what the government do and what it can do is enumerated. If the Constitution does not say government can do something then government can not do it.
And how would people know about the bad restaurant, if they never hear about it - for example, because the restaurant chain also owns all the media?
One, how many media chains and restaruant chains are owned by the same entity? And two there's always word of mouth. I ask others what they think of this place and that place or where a good place to get this or that, and when I'm asked I give my opinion. If I wanted to I could stand out in front of a place and tell passersby or those who want to enter what I think of the place, as long as if they ask that I stay off their property and I do there's not much they can do if I'm hurting their business.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I totally agree that mutual respect for individual rights is the basis of, well, pretty much every positive aspect of society. And I'd certainly agree that the founders of the US had great vision in establishing constitutional limitations on the federal government, to shift the responsibility of democratic governance as close to the people as possible. Democracy is the most primitive form of government; small groups naturally function democratically. That's why democracy is best at the local scale, neighbours and small groups of associates working together to achieve their common goals and to support each other in their individual goals. That's why small businesses can often run circles around large ones, and why so many corporations are trying to decentralize. That doesn't mean that democracy is bad -- it just means that it functions best when power is allowed to spread out to the fringes. Getting the people at the very top to do that is just as much a democratic choice as any other. The modern republic is the result of the people choosing to formalize the functioning of their democracy in a particular way.
We all know of Winston Churchill's famous quote about democracy, so I wont repeat it. But it certainly warrants contemplation from time to time. Democracy is as much the freedom of the people to choose a constitutionally-limited Republic as it is the freedom to have the least popular 50%-1 of the society put into camps and turned into a cheap source of orphanage-grade heating-oil. That's why it's so great. The people can choose to centralize or decentralize administration as much as they like. They can choose welfare state policies, socialist policies, or libertarian policies as they like. They can change the constitution, reframe the Republic as needed to meet the changing times. After all, a loose union of states couldn't have achieved some of the things that the US has done. A loose union of states could not have performed the USA's phenomenol industrialization effort that made the waging of World War 2 possible. During World War 2, America -- like every other nation that successfully participated -- was practically communist. That's how wars are one, by the state marshalling every single resource it has and throwing them at the enemy. And afterwards, the US went completely back to whatever it is that you prefer to call the American post-war political and economic landscape. That's the great power of democracy -- the ability of the nation to be whatever it needs to be.
I think I'm babbling at this point, a side effect of too much coffee to prep me for work. Needless to say, I love democracy. I have trouble even conceiving of why anyone would want anything else, given its ability to emulate nearly any government structure one could care to have, from theocracy to socialism to free-market welfare states to the most hardcore forms of capitalism.
Should we be striving towards the ability to live without authority over us? Sure! That would be great. We should also strive towards a society where people don't labour to stave off death for another day, but rather labour to become more wealthy and to better themselves and their community. We should strive towards a society where people respect each other, and the thought of doing anything that might hurt anyone else would be competely repugnant to most people. Will these things happen? Maybe someday. But right now, anarchy is as silly as communism. There are too many things that only a large organization can provide, there are too many peope that will try to exploit others, the economy is far too prone to pathological behaviours.
I suppose the difference in opinion stems in large part from how one thinks of the government. Being Canadian, I tend to think of the government as a bunch of people that are there to do my bidding. When I needed student loans, I tell them to give them to me. When I think that the government is making the wrong decision about something, a letter telling them to shape up is in the mail (or in the opposite situation, a letter telling them that I approve). When it bothers me that there are so many homeless, I write to my MLA and inform him that we need more affordable housing and maybe to reopen the psych hospitals (the homeless in my area tend to be people with mental illnesses, junkies, or both). I generally think of the government in terms of what it can do for me and my community -- in terms of how to maximize the value generated by the taxes we pay. Someone whose contact with their government is different -- say, a small business owner -- could very well have a quite different perspective. Someone whose government behaves authoritatively would certainly see their government as more of as a force of control and dominance, rather than as a service organization. Someone whose government generates no value for them would be quite unlikely to see much benefit to government whatsoever.
So maybe I'll say this: the problem may be less about more versus less government, but about the attitude of government and towards the government. Is the government there to rule, or to serve? Decide for yourself, convince your neighbours, and elect leaders that much that attitude. But you know what? The moment someone shows me a practical way to dispense with most aspects of government -- a way that doesn't involve me tripping over frozen hobo corpses everytime I leave my house, or dying of diptheria because the jackass next-door doesn't think that he needs innoculations, or having to whip out my VISA card if I want the fire consuming my house to be put out -- I'll be right there in the anarchist camp. Just like I'll sign-on with the communists when I see robots that can repair each other and replace the majority of human labour. Until then, I'll just tell the feds to pass their responsibilities to the province, and the province to pass them to the municipality, wherever feasible. Until then, I'll focus on finding a nice balance where the hobos get some kind of effort to uplift them, the innoculations are mandatory, and the housefire gets put out at cooperative expense.
Damn, I'm babbling again. Rembmer kids, head-colds and coffee don't mix.
Gangs and warlords aren't examples of anarchy -- they are examples of what anarchy degenerates into. You know, in chemistry, there are all kinds of interesting but worthless compounds that have wonderful properties -- but under real-world conditions they decompose too quickly into worthless and uninteresting byproducts. Anarchy could be fantastic -- but a few hours later, someone enslaves you. Sure, you've got a gun, and your neighbour has a gun, but when the tyrant comes with a hundred men and a gun, your choice is slavery or death. And most people will choose slavery. If you're not one of them, good for you. But you can't possibly believe that the willingness to die for freedom is anything other than a rare, precious quality possessed by very few. It doesn't take much to cow people into submission. So anarchy dissolves into tyranny.
Is nature anarchistic? Even that is ascribing too much order on the universe. But check out any species of social animal. They live or die by their ability to organize and establish authority and dominance structures. Few would call an ant colony "anarchy". And America? America was a highly anarchistic place once, populated by a number of peoples who didn't feel any particular need to organize into nations or states. And they were armed. Then people who DID organize into nations and states came along, and almost completely exterminated them. So much for anarchy. Over and over again throughout history, any group of people that have tried to live without organization get annihilated or assimilated by people that do organize and consolidate power. That's what your precious nature does best -- allow the strong to replace the weak. And those who cooperate are far, far stronger than those who don't.
But, since you're so well-armed, why not depose your huge authoritarian government and "kill the idiots in short order"? Form an anarchistic state. Then count the minutes before either a government emerges and initiates some social programs, or some other state organizes a government and takes control of your state. After all, the US came to be, despite an independent streak a mile-long among many of its citizens.
Your point?
Mine was that the USPS delivers packages, also, but UPS still manages to compete.
I wonder whether UPS would even be interested in getting into the letter-post business if that opportunity was available to it. UPS's expertise is more in large scale shipping logistics.
Breakfast served all day!
That quote looks funny. Maybe because it's actually
Which is wrong... in specific circumstances.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
for elements of a market system to try to dominate or game the system, even if the means by which they attempt it include invoking terms like "free" and "darwinian" to imply that they aren't try to game or dominate it? both sides of the argument hold that the playing field should be leveled in one way or another, leading to a confrontation where each side tries to annihilate the other. natural playing fields are never level, and keep shifting as well. attempting to control the shift towards some given arbitrary level only causes destabilizing resonances and threatens to make the field unplayable for all participants. but even this effect is still completely within the paradigm darwinian evolutionary theory.
Fine, the OP was wrong to say that all carrying and delivering of letters for money was illegal, since it isn't. That doesn't mean the USPS isn't granted a protected position, though. As the OP said in a more recent post any private carrier must pay the USPS for the delivery in addition to normal delivery costs (section 601(a)(2), cited from the linked Wikipedia article). I think that matches the OP's statement "you have to pay the post office what they would have gotten anyway by buying and canceling stamps in addition to the private postage." It is, in other words, legally impossible to undercut the USPS on price. I'd say that gives them an effective legal monopoly on letter delivery. Also, 601(a)(1) prevents private couriers from carrying any mail that isn't in an envelope, which would rule out most bulk mailings entirely.
I shouldn't respond this late. My apologies if my response seems a bit harsh; it wasn't meant that way.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Well, that means you disagree with Libertarianism and the so-called "free market."
One, how many media chains and restaruant chains are owned by the same entity? And two there's always word of mouth
In a hypothetical Libertarian world, they would probably be all owned by the same people. World of mouth would be futile against monopolies of this scale. You could protest all you want, but in a world where corporations controlled everything, it would mean diddly-squat.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Lots of retailers across the United States accept VISA and MasterCard payment methods, yet few if any people have complained about VISA or MasterCard or the issuing banks tracking their shopping habits.
This was the situation before Diners Club came around. In 1950, Diners Club introduced the first charge card accepted by a variety of retailers. See also History of credit cards on Wikipedia.
I didn't say get rid of all government, no I firmly believe we have to have a strong court system.
Well, that means you disagree with Libertarianism and the so-called "free market."
I know of no Libertarian who advocates getting rid of courts, the only grous I know that does are anarchists. Taking the World's Smallest Political Quiz it says I am a Libertarian. This from one page of the Libertarin Party website says "By the way, 'Who's to says WHO has property rights?' The Courts, one of the FEW legitimate functions of government is to zealously protect the property rights of individuals and enforce contracts. Not a very 'anarchistic' stance is it?" Libertarians do believe in a strong court.
In a hypothetical Libertarian world, they would probably be all owned by the same people. World of mouth would be futile against monopolies of this scale. You could protest all you want, but in a world where corporations controlled everything, it would mean diddly-squat.
Ah but in that Libertarian world there woudn't be the Corporate Aristocracy we have now. Probably the best example of a Libertarian Founding Father of the USA is Thomas Jefferson and that is one of the things he warned was a threat to democracy, the Corporate Aristocracy, especially as concerned banks. He believed that as they get bigger they gather more and more power unto themself. Monopolies wouldn't exist in the libertarian world. Actually at first Jefferson didn't like or believe that patents should be issued, it was only after his friend James Madison talked with him when he thought patents would advance science and society. Once convinced he sat down with actuary tables and calculated they should last 14 years with one 14 year extension possible. This he felt was the optimum length of tyme to encourage inventors to keep coming with new things.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Does the word "anti-trust" ring a bell?
Frankly, I'm amazed that this red flag hasn't been raised yet... or I'm just too lazy to scan the three-hundred-some posts for it.
Let's break it down: (A) The company saturates the viable market-share in the heavily populated areas, (B) this company also identifies "unprofitable" regions where it deems that service will not have a net gain, and (C) they buddy-buddy with the regional chambers to limit any competition. Free market, my ass!
Isn't this the very definition of "monopolistic endeavors"? See for yourself here.
What are we coming to? Are we going to be the next Russia?
I utter yet-another groan at the blatant whittling-down of consumers' basic right to a free market... damn you, Microsoft.
This post © Copyrite Duggeek, all rights reversed.
The constitution of the USA does indeed limit what the FEDERAL government can do, but it affords virtually LIMITLESS power to state governments. The constitution is completely unambiguous about that -- states can do absolutely ANYTHING that the constitution doesn't directly forbid them from doing. States can appoint noblemen, appoint a governor-for-life, hike taxes until your eyeballs bleed and you have to hock your spleen for rent money, make doctors and other magicians illegal and punishable by death, put Mister T on the state flag, declare poodles to be the only legal breed of dog, grant suffrage to some of the more notable species of fern, etc. And the US is
America not a democracy ... where do people get this ridiculous nonsense?
So, how is it possible to support a "free market" and still have courts of law? by definition, courts of law are government interference in the market. Rather, it seems you do not mind certain types of government interference with the market. How can you have a market free of government "interference" if a government exists that has any power?
Ah but in that Libertarian world there woudn't be the Corporate Aristocracy we have now.
Why not?
Monopolies wouldn't exist in the libertarian world.
Why not?
You assert these things, but don't give any reasoning or logic for it. Sounds more like "my private fantasy world" rather than a rational analysis of libertarian philosophy and its implications. What is there to stop monopolies or corporate aristocracy from happening under libertarianism? Your argument sounds a lot like some people who say "under political philosophy X, there would be no wars, and humans would not be selfish."
Once convinced he sat down with actuary tables and calculated they should last 14 years with one 14 year extension possible. This he felt was the optimum length of tyme to encourage inventors to keep coming with new things.
Isn't that government interference in the market?
... and then they built the supercollider.
So, how is it possible to support a "free market" and still have courts of law? by definition, courts of law are government interference in the market. Rather, it seems you do not mind certain types of government interference with the market. How can you have a market free of government "interference" if a government exists that has any power?
And ending slavery was interference in a freemarket as well, free for those who owned slaves but not for the slaves themselves. You're right I don't mind some government interference such as courts protecting those who don't have money or power to buy thugs. Courts can enable a more level playing field. I was a party to a lawsuit when I was hit by a moving van while riding my bike, if it hadn't been for the court system I would of been left high and dry, my stay in the hospital and in a rehab house cost more than $120,000. And I was a student then, riding my bike from campus when I was hit. By suing the company the driver of the van that hit me worked for it was held responsible. Without the courts there wouldn't of been any freemarket, the company could of just walked away. A freemarket, being a voluntary exchange of goods, services, and/or cash, demands not just being able to whatever you want to make profits but being held accountable for actions taken as well. Along with freedom Libertarians demand responsibility.
Monopolies wouldn't exist in the libertarian world.
Why not?
You assert these things, but don't give any reasoning or logic for it. Sounds more like "my private fantasy world" rather than a rational analysis of libertarian philosophy and its implications. What is there to stop monopolies or corporate aristocracy from happening under libertarianism?
Libertarians wouldn't of created the natural monopolies the cable, electrical, and power companies have. Local governments granted these companies a monopoloy to the rights of way these companies used to string up or bury their cables and fiber. Under a Libertarian system anyone who had the resources the lay these lines down would of been able to do so, instead of only having one choice as to who you got your cable, phone, or power from you my of had more than one choice as to who provided these services. Broadcast tv and radio are similar in that you have to have an FCC license to broadcast, however the radio spectrum was setup in the 1930s when having stations too close caused interefence with each other. This restricts how many stations can exist in a given area. However with today's technology those stations can be much closer thus allowing more stations in an area. And that's just how the mass media wants it to stay, being natural monopolies they don't want anymore competition. If they were made to compeat in a freer market like cellphone service providers do they'd have to actually compeat just as cellphone providers do thus driving costs down. Heck all I've got for phone service is a cellphone, and it's cheaper than a landline phone is. To me that's an essence of a freemarket.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Well, I'm glad we agree on that. So, why do Libertarians insist on saying that they are for markets totally free from government intervention? If you took the philosophy and their rhetoric at face value, one would believe they were totally against the existence of government.
Libertarians wouldn't of created the natural monopolies the cable, electrical, and power companies have.
Why not? From my research, economic libertarians believe in the right to private ownership of property as their most fundamental value. So, if someone owns a monopoly on a cable network, then isn't it their right to profit from, however they see fit? Taking their property away to break up the monopoly would be downright un-libertarian.
Under a Libertarian system anyone who had the resources the lay these lines down would of been able to do so, instead of only having one choice as to who you got your cable, phone, or power from you my of had more than one choice as to who provided these services.
So, what if only one person/company had the resources to lay down the lines? Wouldn't they have a monopoly? There are many monopolies that don't rely on government-granted licenses.
If they were made to compeat in a freer market like cellphone service providers do they'd have to actually compeat just as cellphone providers do thus driving costs down.
So, how do you explain why there is so little competition in the cellphone market?
... and then they built the supercollider.
Well, I'm glad we agree on that. So, why do Libertarians insist on saying that they are for markets totally free from government intervention? If you took the philosophy and their rhetoric at face value, one would believe they were totally against the existence of government.
I included a link and snippet from the LP about how courts were important, that Lbertarians believe they are important. What I didn't say though is that most Libertarians want the federal government to state within the limits enumerated by the USA Constitution, with small congressional and executive branchs. Many of the agencies, bureacracies, and offices are not specifically authorized by the constitution. Take the Department of Homeland Security. The constitution says nothing about having one. Nor does it say anything about the Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services, or Department of Energy - DOE. I along with many other Libertarians would be happier if all of these that are not authorized were stricken from the records.
Besides, thinking about the Department of Homeland Security makes me think of the Fatherland or Mother Russia, the Gestapo or KGB
FalconShould there be a Law?
So, why is it that most libertarians spend so much time talking about private ownership of property, and business? Why is it they spend so much time railing against the existence of government, but hardly any time talking about the Constitution or human rights?
I'm serious about these questions, because most of the Libertarians I encounter seem to care mostly about profits and wealth, and don't pay much lip service to human freedoms and rights. Basically a socially Darwinian approach, it seems. I find it frustrating, because of the way "liberty" is at the root of the name, but it only seems to apply to the "liberty" to make a profit at all costs, and hardly ever to human liberty.
... and then they built the supercollider.
What are anti-trust laws, if not regulation? If my company is truly unregulated, then I can make any kind of deals I like to get ahead. I can fix prices in any manner. I can get together with my "competitors" and make an arrangement that locks out distributors that don't play by our rules -- rules which consist of them locking out any new competitors for us. That's deregulation. Telling companies that they can't do business that way is EXACTLY regulation.
This is why no one takes libertarians seriously. The hypocrisy and inconsistency.
They whine about socialism and taxes, while supporting the single most expensive and socialist budget item that any nation on earth supports -- the military. The military could be volunteer -- that is, soldiers don't get paid and have to buy their own weapons with their own money that they earn doing REAL jobs rather than suckling of the public teat. It could be private -- this is, if you want a war with Iraq, vote with your dollars by writing a cheque to your local militia for bullets and plane tickets, allowing the rest of us who oppose military squandering to save our money. Wouldn't that be radical? Actual freedom from taxation, a kind that no libertarian has the guts to call for! Cutting every program other than the military would only marginally decrease taxes. That's how costly even the most modest armed forced are, let alone a world class force.
They say they want free market and a government that will enforce the law, but no regulation. Well guess what: LAW IS REGULATION. Protecting freedom is regulation. Anti-trust laws? That's regulation. Monopoly-busting? That's regulation. Telling corps that they can't buy slave labour overseas? Regulation. Hell, simple bans on things like selling opiates or assasination is a form of regulation -- assasination is definitely a way to get business done. It's happened in America before, and still occurs in many places. Corporations in Africa have been known to hire mercenaries to slaughter employees that try to unionize, or to kill people who simply wont let the corporation sieze their land. Want to enforce laws against that kind of thing? Sorry, but you're telling businesses what they can and can not do. THAT'S REGULATION.
You can call it something else, but it's regulation. You love regulation and couldn't live without it; it's just sad that you're so committed to an ideology that you try to play semantics to avoid having to accept that reality.
Oh, and we (specifically you, I'm not American) DO live in a democracy. The constition, as so many deluded libertarians forget, only limits the federal government. Your state government can do absolutely anything it likes to minorities. It can sell their organs to zoos for meat, if it likes. You'll note that they even fought a war over their right to consider certain minorities to be property -- thank God the feds decided to regulate how they do business and stomped their slaving asses into bloody chunks.
If you doubt that you live in a democracy though, ask yourself why pacifists can be forced to pay for wars? Why anarchists can be forced to pay for the salaries of the president and other assorted parasites? Why farmers get tax breaks at the expense of everyone else? Your constitution is only a meaningful as the force behind it, and there's no force so it doesn't mean shit. You DO live in a democracy, the majority DOES impose its will on minorities with impunity, and that's simply the nature of the modern nation-state. You get to choose between oligarchical tyrants, or the tyranny of the majority. No nation has EVER avoided going down one of these two paths.
When I see libertarians ca
So, why is it that most libertarians spend so much time talking about private ownership of property, and business? Why is it they spend so much time railing against the existence of government, but hardly any time talking about the Constitution or human rights?
Libertarians talk about private property because they strongly believe in private property and property rights. When government owns all the property you have communism which means big government. Business is an extention of property and Libertarians believe businesses can do better and more to improve the economy and people's lives. There may be other things they consider but I can't enumerate them now. As for human rights, government is the biddest violator of them. A small and limited government wouldn't have the power to violate those rights. The National Platform of the Libertarian Party explains what the LP states for better than I can.
I'm serious about these questions, because most of the Libertarians I encounter seem to care mostly about profits and wealth, and don't pay much lip service to human freedoms and rights. Basically a socially Darwinian approach, it seems. I find it frustrating, because of the way "liberty" is at the root of the name, but it only seems to apply to the "liberty" to make a profit at all costs, and hardly ever to human liberty.
Some libertarians, notice here I used a small "l" whereas above I used it capitalized, do believe corporations should do whatever they want. I and others call them something like corporate libertarians but to us they aren't real libertarians. This division isn't much different than divisions in the Democrat or Republican parties. Take the "conservative" Republican who claim to believe in small government, I say claim because many are going along with Bush's expansion of government, and the neocons. I can only name two that do stand up against the expansion of government, rep Ron Paul of Texas and former congressman Bob Barr.
Well Ron Paul ran as the Libertarian candidate for president and while he ran as a republican in Texas he's never renounced the LP. Actually the LP was started as an offsghoot of the Republican Party. During Nixon's admin some Republicans disagreed with Nixon's and other Republican's stances so they started the LP. Bob Barr though a conservative has worked with the ACLU against elements of the Patriot Act.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I read enough of this topic to see the Free Market mantra coming up over and over and over. I am fed up with hearing about "free market" this and that. Listen close now! THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE MARKET! The markets are anything but free! Global corporations have bought the legislation to ensure such. This has always been the case to some extent, there has never been a truly free market anywhere on as a grand scale as a nation. I doubt that there has ever been one larger that a individual Quaker community. Today the manipulation of markets for the gain of the privileged few are happening very effectively all over the world, it is just a bit father along in the USA than in say Europe. Anywhere national or state level legislation doesn't work out they just bribe or coerce local officials. Wonder why so many in the third world hate us? They see us in the light of these "business leaders" and our rah-rah support of these "free market heroes" and their propaganda.
As for free markets I am not even sure we want really free markets, as they are probably just too volatile to support a stable society the size we have today. What annoys me is all these business and political types running around shouting the free market mantra and holding up a free market as some sort of holy rule that we cannot muck with, when such does not even exist. I wish I had all the answers, I would be most pleased to share them. I can share this much, DO NOT believe the propaganda that we have a free market economy in the USA! The professed aspirations of such aside it is not and never has been such and getting less and less free with every congress. The big difference between today and recent history in the USA is that the balance of power, political influence and wealth distribution between those that produce via their physical labor, creative ability's or information juggling/processing skills and the parasites that exist upon such has gotten out of hand, again. Not that is has ever been fair. sheezz!
Wabi-sabi
Matthew