Slashdot Mirror
Google et al. Want 700 MHz Auction Opened Up
The 700 MHz spectrum could give birth to the much-anticipated third pipe, but phone and cable lobbyists are currently pressuring the FCC to sell companies like AT&T and Verizon our airwaves — in a flawed auction process — so they can hoard this valuable spectrum and stifle competitive alternatives to their networks. Google and other would-be providers are not taking it lying down. They want the FCC to mandate that whoever wins the auction be required to sell access to those airwaves, at wholesale prices, to anyone wanting to provide broadband Internet service. They also want anonymous auctions to prevent the giant incumbents from manipulating the results against small players (as they have done in the past).
And who do you want instead? Hillary? If you thought Bush was eroding civil liberties, it would be different but the same under Hillary. "Think of the children" instead of "Think of the terrorists." The end result would be different, to be sure -- a smaller erosion of freedoms, with a direct impact on many more people. The Democratic candidates are not in favor of personal liberties in the slightest (neither are most of the republicans).
Ron Paul is a libertarian, and more than slightly loony; that said, he's not the bat-shit loco of the Libertarian party. At least with him in the White House, it wouldn't be business as usual.
Yes, Ron Paul is the kind of "libertarian" who has no problems funding programs he likes, such as those that aim to barricade America against immigration. He's the sort of "libertarian" who hates free trade and who would restrict a woman's right to choose. The sort of "libertarian" who voted to ban gay adoptions in DC.
Honestly, do you Ron Paul me-tooers bother reading up on anyone you support before jumping on the bandwagon?
Make Slashdot readable! See journal.
I don't agree with all of his policies, actually. I do, however, think that he's honest and consistent, and therefore predictable. He claims his right-to-life stance is based on a states rights stance, and that the federal government should stay out of it. In this instance I disagree with him (rather strongly), but I like the general small-federal-government stance. However, I'm not terribly worried about this -- he would have very little power to actually do anything about it. He's also against the income tax, but I'm not worried he'd repeal it -- not for lack of trying, but for lack of effective power to do so. But that comes from a desire to cut the size of the federal government, which I firmly agree with and think he would have the power to do.
He's also the sort of libertarian who actually votes to keep government small, voted against the Patriot Act, is against subsidizing large corporations... plenty of things I support. I'm not in favor of him because I think he'd be perfect, but rather because I think he'd shake things up more than a little bit, and mostly in ways I'd appreciate.
[Ron Paul is] the sort of "libertarian" who hates free trade and who would restrict a woman's right to choose.
I'll leave the "hates free trade" comment to someone else, but I will take a crack at the "woman's right to choose".
It is a libertarian principle that people should not enforce their will on others through coercion (this is a lot of why Libertarians hate government as much as they do - it is, in fact a system of organized coercion, taking what people have - essentially at gunpoint - to provide services for the "common good").
An extension of this principle is why murder is bad, and as such why society has an interest in preventing it - it is, fundamentally, the ultimate extension of coercion. By murdering someone, you have permanently ended all freedom, all will, all "right to choose" of the individual you murder. Personally, I feel that if I saw someone being unjustly attacked (little old lady getting mugged, for example), I would have an ethical right (and obligation) to intercede if possible, to the maximum amount I could safely do so. I recognize this as a fundamental truth, and consider police intervention in such crime an extension of this principle.
When trying to apply this principle to abortion, people draw different results. It is, in fact, a point of much contention in the Libertarian party.
Ethically speaking, however, we do a disservice by pretending it has anything at all to do with mothers rights. Bear with me, as that statement needs explaining:
Nobody (as far as I have encountered) says that they are in favor of killing children. I have never heard anyone argue such, and would question the mental state of anyone who did. As such, the real question has as little to do with "mothers rights" as "attacker's rights" has to do with murders. Either the unborn fetus is a person worthy of legal protection, or it's an unborn mass of cells that isn't. If it's a person, it's (probably) murder. If it's not a person, then how is it any different from disposing of any other foreign human cells inside your body?
As for me, I was born significantly premature. It would have been perfectly legal, and possible, to have me aborted the day I was born. I've seen pictures which explained some ways abortions were performed, and it sickened me greatly. There are no people more helpless than unborn children, and it's undeniable that an abortion ends the life of someone who potentially would have lived a long, full, productive life. I also worked for an adoption web site, and I know of a good number of families who paid a lot of money to advertise to try to reach birth mothers, hoping to adopt. Mothers have a lot of options for family placement, and the option of severing all ties if desired. I have a hard time seeing most abortion as anything more than a senseless waste of life. Women who sleep around run the risk of pregnancy. It's a natural, biological consequence of sleeping around. The pain ends in 9 months, and you don't have to keep the child. It could be worse - AIDS lasts a lifetime.
I feel that abortion should be treated as the premeditated killing of another human being, or perhaps the "potential" premeditated killing of another human being. Figure out what percentage of non-aborted fetuses die before birth, and base it off that. "There's a 95% chance you killed another person, so here's 95% of a murder conviction."
As for rape, I can certainly see a case for abortion. It's a form of self defense. It's justifiable homicide, but homicide nonetheless.
"and who would restrict a woman's right to choose"
Actually, he simply says the federal government has absolutely no authority to cover that, and that it should be up to the states to choose.
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?