Objectivism? I don't know that I can call myself an objectivist, but I support individual rights on principle. Call that what you will. What about objectivism is "garbage"?
So I've been reading down this thread, and I'm having a hard time imagining how you've managed to post to slashdot, since you have to have some kind of webclient capable hardware, and internet connection, an education, and enough food and shelter to live long enough to get to the point where you can post on slashdot... all of which are dependant on living in a civilization.
Yes, much of that assistance was provided by my family, as is usually the case. And as I am not a freeloader, I will support them when they need support (e.g. in old age).
I guess you don't drive on roads, because those are an imposition on individual rights.
If I wanted to protest roads, I would not drive on them. But I am not protesting them. I would like to see a day when all roads are privatized, but it's not rational to stage a protest that could never win in the current social/political climate. Until such time as candidates are nominated/elected who truly support individual rights, I am left to persuade people to understand the problem, through debate and discussion. That's the whole purpose of my posting here.
I'm also assuming that you refuse the benefit of the various social services that you feel shouldn't exist, right?
I try to as much as possible, but some things I cannot refuse without being sent to prison or kicked out of the country. Social security, for example.
The fact is simple: individual rights, as you define them, are anarchy.
Who's supporting anarchy? Individual rights must be protected and upheld - that is the purpose of a government. The government is granted a monopoly on force, to protect against the violation of rights, and to assign punishment (to offenders) and grant rewards (to victims) as rights violations occur. This government, however, has extended its reach beyond supporting rights, and in the process, has violated rights en masse.
Anarchy is the opposite of civilization, you can't have both and have a modern lifestyle.
Agreed. What you have given us here is called a false dichotomy.
Typical pathetic selfish Randfill.
You've characterized my comments as pathetic "Randfill" (whatever that means) and hypocritical, but have not shown that your characterization is accurate. Either back it up with evidence or withdraw your labels.
Not toward people for whom I care, and whose lives add value to mine. Toward people who wish to take away my rights and my family's, friends rights, of course I am angry. What does this have to do with my arguments? I'll respond to the rest of your comment later, but that comment was odd and needed immediate response.
I see no comment on the $200 Billion the telcos walked away with.
I commented on it already. The government had no right to take the money in the first place, let alone to hand it over to someone else. It's not surprising that companies that were handed a govt check don't use it wisely. They didn't earn it, just as the politicians who handed it out didn't earn it. I don't think $200 billion would have been enough if the so-called "economies of scale" were not sufficiently well-developed to reduce costs.
I've personally believed for at least 5 years that we were heading for a crash that would be kicked off by the McDonald's workers living in starter castles with no furniture and a Lexus SUV.
And? Just because you might get some conclusions right does not indicate that the reasoning that led you to those conclusions is sound. Nostradamus, after all, is occasionally right, if read vaguely enough.
I am glad to hear that you don't support McSame... and it's also cool that you don't support Obama. I certainly don't love him but will vote for him simply to avoid McSame.
You're being duped. They're the same. You believe you've got a choice, but your only choice is McBama. Neither are principled. Neither care about justifying their actions, or protecting rights. That is the last thing on their mind. They're the sons of Pragmatism, like most in politics. They see the existing situation, don't care what caused it, and strive to fix it, only to find out tomorrow there's another problem that needs to be fixed. Like all politicians, they live day-to-day.
We're limping along and now at this week's G7 meeting, they're actually going to consider shutting down all the world's stock markets while they "rewrite the rules". This is ridiculously irresponsible and will only do more damage. Take the stock market of 1929. What was simply a market correction caused by people avoiding taxes by investing in holding companies, turn into a Great Depression through continued attempts to "fix" this "problem". The Panic of 1873 is a near mirror-image of today's crisis. We - or at least, politicians - have learned nothing.
My overall point, and I know you disagree, is that the government will absolutely have to intervene before rural areas will get decent broadband
Again I suggest you look at the spread of the light bulb and the electric grid. Striving for efficiency and the economies of scale allowed everyone to get electricity, everywhere, and cheaply. Now compare that to a govt-run system, where politicians are not interested in efficiency or economies of scale, only in getting elected through empty promises.
...simply due to the monopolistic nature of telco presence in small town america
Nothing is inherently wrong with a single entity providing a service. Only when other entities are prevented from competing, or severely hindered, is that single entity able to get away with idiotic tricks, like packet shaping, dropping heavy connections, etc.
I'll not waste any more time on this because obviously we'll disagree here.
Then you are only doing harm to yourself, your friends, family, neighbors, community, etc, if you decide that you don't want to think about this anymore.
Oh, and I have identified your Invisible Pink Unicorn... it is a politician that doesn't support some sort of rights violations. "Neigh... neigh..."/
Indeed. If only more politicians would say no to every idiotic proposal thrown at them. The most active, most popular Presidents in history have in fact been the most damaging to individual rights. They want CHANGE, because it grabs headlines and pads their pocketbooks. I've been reading The Forgotten Man by Amity Sh
There are not enough houses on my road to EVER make it financially justifiable without requiring a 10+ year contract from every resident on the road.
So persuade them to sign such a contract, or persuade neighboring communities to lift the bans that make it impossible for the economies of scale to thrive and bring down prices, thus increasing the likelihood of your demand to be fulfilled. Simple as that.
You seem to think that a service should only be available if it's cost effective to the provider.
Where did I say that? That's quite an absurd claim, although I've seen Democrats and Republicans both use such arguments. I'm for individual rights. And that's it.
I disagree. I pay the same taxes everyone else does and I pay the same rate for my crappy service as anyone in a city with 10MB/s service.
You're complaining about the status quo, while defending the status quo. People should not be forced to give their property, income, productivity to the government to fund services they don't want. The government must violate their rights in order to serve your desires. Your mistake is in believing that by getting something now, you'll still have it later. That may be true, but only if your tax rate continues to soar to maintain the service. Just check out Edward Collins and his govt-funded attempt at providing the US with the first transatlantic trade. There was no incentive toward efficiency, cost reduction, or reliability, and he ended up accounting for one third of the total US debt. Year after year, despite huge losses, he asked the government for even more money, and they gave it to him. Then Vanderbilt started offering the public the same service, without any help from the government, and he was successful.
I should be offered the same services and option everyone else gets for the price.
According to... what? Do you claim to have an inalienable right to internet access - a right to the product of other people's work?
In this part, the gov't acted as it should, on behalf of everyone involved.
Again, how is making things cheaper a function of the government?
Your gov't wants to buy mortgages from idiots that are now amazed that blue collar workers cannot afford $500,000 homes
Please get a clue, this is becoming tedious. This whole mortgage crisis was caused by government intervention. Banks were not surprised that poor people couldn't afford houses - they were forced to provide these loans by the government. Read the following excellent article, written 8 years ago, which predicted this whole crisis, down to the huge dollar amount:
This is what happens when people only get their information from the TV or popular magazines: it's completely wrong.
As for McShame, I wouldn't vote for that idiot or Obama, or the Libertarian Party, or any of the other dolts running for President. They're all for various flavors of rights violations. They talk about supporting rights only when it is politically profitable to do so (to win votes), and they likewise discard rights when it is profitable. Pragmatism has no future.
You're assuming ISPs have unlimited bandwidth to hand out to their customers, that they don't need to add more hardware as more people increase their bandwidth...
The researchers propose that, if the industry can't make privacy policies easier to read or skim, then federal intervention may be needed.
If you don't want to read their privacy policy, tell them that you're not going to use their service because their privacy policy is so long. If you convince enough people to do the same, they'll have to shorten their privacy policy. Federal regulation of the economy is never the answer. It is never justifiable.
Dude, America has one hell of a lot of rural areas where demand does not meet financial justification.
Alright, then the only justifiable thing to do, if you want such services, is to persuade your friends, family, neighbors, etc, to want it as well. Show them why it's better, why they should want it, why if they all unite, their desires will be fulfilled.
Or, you can dump millions of tax dollars into a project that few actually want, and watch it limp along supported only by increased tax dollars. Then, in order to make it profitable, the government will be forced to prohibit competition. No longer will people have the choice of a slower connection at a cheaper rate. Everyone, to get any connection, will have to have the fastest connection, the most expensive connection.
The telecos took the cash and ran.
Can you provide some sources for this?
Why is it OK for the telecos to take cash dedicated to a specific cause and screw the taxpayers
The taxpayers were screwed as soon as they handed their money over to another government, to do with as it pleases.
where the government is completely justified in offering services to force competition where none exists today and none is likely in the foreseeable future.
All you've succeeded at doing is removing all meaning from the word "justify", and in the process you've ditched individual rights in favor of what's convenient to yourself.
Why shouldn't the government provide communication services if the local residents want them to do just that?
Because it makes a mockery of individual rights. The government should only be in the business of upholding and protecting individual rights.
Notice the difference in how we talk. I say should and ought, relying on principles. You say what's convenient. You'd rather have shitty service immediately than long-term, reliable service. "People should get what they want immediately regardless of whose rights are violated in the process."
The ends do not justify the means, ever.
What companies are not permitted to lay down more lines due to government restriction?
Call your city and ask if you're allowed to dig around the road on your street and lay fiber optic lines all down your street, down the neighboring street, etc. They will laugh at you and hang up.
So to use easements, you should have some cash in the bank.
Exactly. You would need more money than you would under an entirely free system, so here we have government manipulation of the economy dissuading the existence of competition.
Huh? Why would the government prevent a company from laying their own fiber - on their own property?
I'm talking about new companies, or companies from other regions, that want to expand their business, not companies that have already laid cable in the ground and can just stick fiber in the same space. Call your city and ask if you're allowed to stick fiber optic in the ground along your street. They will laugh and hang up.
What is this based on besides wishful thinking? Look at the history of the light bulb and the early development of the electric grid, and you'll see people making profit while providing a service to everyone.
Rail all you want against government competition but realize that probably most geographic area of the US has little to no competition in telecom.
And what's preventing that competition from existing? Surely there must be a huge demand for it, right? You want it. Everyone wants it. So don't companies see this demand, and want to fulfill it? What can prevent them from doing so except for physical force, and what entity can apply physical force except for the government?
It was probably voted on in a city council meeting with input from the cities constituents. How do you justify taking that municipal right away?
What does "right away" mean? Do you mean "right of way"? First, rights apply only to individuals, not to government entities, which are charged with protecting and upholding individual rights. Second, you can't vote away rights. Sure, you can pass laws that violate rights, but those rights still exist and are still being violated. Rights violations are never justified.
This from someone who probably has decent internet service. I live at the end of a DSL run, cannot get cable, cannot get WiMax... 512K DSL is the fastest I can get.
Who's preventing other companies from providing the service that you want? If the demand is high enough, nothing should be stopping people from getting the service they demand. The only thing that could prohibit such a service is physical force - in this case, government restriction against the laying of lines, among other restrictions.
They stopped the government from providing a service to its citizens.
First, the government should not be providing such a service. If the people actually want it, then companies should be springing forth to provide the service. However, companies are not permitted to lay more lines due to government restriction. Thus the situation we're in now.
The government by definition secures an unfair advantage every time politicians accept any bribe, enforce any monopoly through the restriction of competition, or otherwise manipulate the economy by supporting arbitrary causes (related to the bribes I already mentioned).
How's it working out for you having your government take a "hands off" approach to your banks? (assuming you are an American).
Clue yourself in. The subprime crisis was caused by government intervention, not by any "hands off" approach. Just because people can co-opt the word "deregulation" for their own purposes doesn't mean any less regulation is occurring. Check out this excellent article written 8 years ago that predicted the whole thing, down to the huge dollar amount:
Make sense, stick to principles, and you're labeled a troll. Resort to what's convenient, throw principles out the window, espouse pragmatism, and you're +5 Insightful.
Because I know if I were a big wig in this city and this company was stopping this project, I would make a point of having their permit applications for fiber installation conveniently "lost" behind various pieces of office furniture.
That's exactly why these services should not be provided by the government - any government. As soon as you can physically force your competition out of business, your role becomes unjustifiable.
Let's not be one-sided now. Those companies may have offered the bribe, but the legislature accepted it, and is now enforcing the monopoly. Who's the bigger offender here?
Slashdot Mirror
Objectivism? I don't know that I can call myself an objectivist, but I support individual rights on principle. Call that what you will. What about objectivism is "garbage"?
So I've been reading down this thread, and I'm having a hard time imagining how you've managed to post to slashdot, since you have to have some kind of webclient capable hardware, and internet connection, an education, and enough food and shelter to live long enough to get to the point where you can post on slashdot... all of which are dependant on living in a civilization.
Yes, much of that assistance was provided by my family, as is usually the case. And as I am not a freeloader, I will support them when they need support (e.g. in old age).
I guess you don't drive on roads, because those are an imposition on individual rights.
If I wanted to protest roads, I would not drive on them. But I am not protesting them. I would like to see a day when all roads are privatized, but it's not rational to stage a protest that could never win in the current social/political climate. Until such time as candidates are nominated/elected who truly support individual rights, I am left to persuade people to understand the problem, through debate and discussion. That's the whole purpose of my posting here.
I'm also assuming that you refuse the benefit of the various social services that you feel shouldn't exist, right?
I try to as much as possible, but some things I cannot refuse without being sent to prison or kicked out of the country. Social security, for example.
The fact is simple: individual rights, as you define them, are anarchy.
Who's supporting anarchy? Individual rights must be protected and upheld - that is the purpose of a government. The government is granted a monopoly on force, to protect against the violation of rights, and to assign punishment (to offenders) and grant rewards (to victims) as rights violations occur. This government, however, has extended its reach beyond supporting rights, and in the process, has violated rights en masse.
Anarchy is the opposite of civilization, you can't have both and have a modern lifestyle.
Agreed. What you have given us here is called a false dichotomy.
Typical pathetic selfish Randfill.
You've characterized my comments as pathetic "Randfill" (whatever that means) and hypocritical, but have not shown that your characterization is accurate. Either back it up with evidence or withdraw your labels.
you're an angry bitter person huh?
Not toward people for whom I care, and whose lives add value to mine. Toward people who wish to take away my rights and my family's, friends rights, of course I am angry. What does this have to do with my arguments? I'll respond to the rest of your comment later, but that comment was odd and needed immediate response.
I see no comment on the $200 Billion the telcos walked away with.
I commented on it already. The government had no right to take the money in the first place, let alone to hand it over to someone else. It's not surprising that companies that were handed a govt check don't use it wisely. They didn't earn it, just as the politicians who handed it out didn't earn it. I don't think $200 billion would have been enough if the so-called "economies of scale" were not sufficiently well-developed to reduce costs.
I've personally believed for at least 5 years that we were heading for a crash that would be kicked off by the McDonald's workers living in starter castles with no furniture and a Lexus SUV.
And? Just because you might get some conclusions right does not indicate that the reasoning that led you to those conclusions is sound. Nostradamus, after all, is occasionally right, if read vaguely enough.
I am glad to hear that you don't support McSame ... and it's also cool that you don't support Obama. I certainly don't love him but will vote for him simply to avoid McSame.
You're being duped. They're the same. You believe you've got a choice, but your only choice is McBama. Neither are principled. Neither care about justifying their actions, or protecting rights. That is the last thing on their mind. They're the sons of Pragmatism, like most in politics. They see the existing situation, don't care what caused it, and strive to fix it, only to find out tomorrow there's another problem that needs to be fixed. Like all politicians, they live day-to-day.
We're limping along and now at this week's G7 meeting, they're actually going to consider shutting down all the world's stock markets while they "rewrite the rules". This is ridiculously irresponsible and will only do more damage. Take the stock market of 1929. What was simply a market correction caused by people avoiding taxes by investing in holding companies, turn into a Great Depression through continued attempts to "fix" this "problem". The Panic of 1873 is a near mirror-image of today's crisis. We - or at least, politicians - have learned nothing.
My overall point, and I know you disagree, is that the government will absolutely have to intervene before rural areas will get decent broadband
Again I suggest you look at the spread of the light bulb and the electric grid. Striving for efficiency and the economies of scale allowed everyone to get electricity, everywhere, and cheaply. Now compare that to a govt-run system, where politicians are not interested in efficiency or economies of scale, only in getting elected through empty promises.
...simply due to the monopolistic nature of telco presence in small town america
Nothing is inherently wrong with a single entity providing a service. Only when other entities are prevented from competing, or severely hindered, is that single entity able to get away with idiotic tricks, like packet shaping, dropping heavy connections, etc.
I'll not waste any more time on this because obviously we'll disagree here.
Then you are only doing harm to yourself, your friends, family, neighbors, community, etc, if you decide that you don't want to think about this anymore.
Oh, and I have identified your Invisible Pink Unicorn ... it is a politician that doesn't support some sort of rights violations. "Neigh... neigh..." /
Indeed. If only more politicians would say no to every idiotic proposal thrown at them. The most active, most popular Presidents in history have in fact been the most damaging to individual rights. They want CHANGE, because it grabs headlines and pads their pocketbooks. I've been reading The Forgotten Man by Amity Sh
There are not enough houses on my road to EVER make it financially justifiable without requiring a 10+ year contract from every resident on the road.
So persuade them to sign such a contract, or persuade neighboring communities to lift the bans that make it impossible for the economies of scale to thrive and bring down prices, thus increasing the likelihood of your demand to be fulfilled. Simple as that.
You seem to think that a service should only be available if it's cost effective to the provider.
Where did I say that? That's quite an absurd claim, although I've seen Democrats and Republicans both use such arguments. I'm for individual rights. And that's it.
I disagree. I pay the same taxes everyone else does and I pay the same rate for my crappy service as anyone in a city with 10MB/s service.
You're complaining about the status quo, while defending the status quo. People should not be forced to give their property, income, productivity to the government to fund services they don't want. The government must violate their rights in order to serve your desires. Your mistake is in believing that by getting something now, you'll still have it later. That may be true, but only if your tax rate continues to soar to maintain the service. Just check out Edward Collins and his govt-funded attempt at providing the US with the first transatlantic trade. There was no incentive toward efficiency, cost reduction, or reliability, and he ended up accounting for one third of the total US debt. Year after year, despite huge losses, he asked the government for even more money, and they gave it to him. Then Vanderbilt started offering the public the same service, without any help from the government, and he was successful.
I should be offered the same services and option everyone else gets for the price.
According to... what? Do you claim to have an inalienable right to internet access - a right to the product of other people's work?
In this part, the gov't acted as it should, on behalf of everyone involved.
Again, how is making things cheaper a function of the government?
Your gov't wants to buy mortgages from idiots that are now amazed that blue collar workers cannot afford $500,000 homes
Please get a clue, this is becoming tedious. This whole mortgage crisis was caused by government intervention. Banks were not surprised that poor people couldn't afford houses - they were forced to provide these loans by the government. Read the following excellent article, written 8 years ago, which predicted this whole crisis, down to the huge dollar amount:
The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities
This is what happens when people only get their information from the TV or popular magazines: it's completely wrong.
As for McShame, I wouldn't vote for that idiot or Obama, or the Libertarian Party, or any of the other dolts running for President. They're all for various flavors of rights violations. They talk about supporting rights only when it is politically profitable to do so (to win votes), and they likewise discard rights when it is profitable. Pragmatism has no future.
You're assuming ISPs have unlimited bandwidth to hand out to their customers, that they don't need to add more hardware as more people increase their bandwidth...
Do they realize yet why painting a giant target on the ground is a bad idea?
The researchers propose that, if the industry can't make privacy policies easier to read or skim, then federal intervention may be needed.
If you don't want to read their privacy policy, tell them that you're not going to use their service because their privacy policy is so long. If you convince enough people to do the same, they'll have to shorten their privacy policy. Federal regulation of the economy is never the answer. It is never justifiable.
Sticking to principles, supporting individual rights - that's flamebait now??
Dude, America has one hell of a lot of rural areas where demand does not meet financial justification.
Alright, then the only justifiable thing to do, if you want such services, is to persuade your friends, family, neighbors, etc, to want it as well. Show them why it's better, why they should want it, why if they all unite, their desires will be fulfilled.
Or, you can dump millions of tax dollars into a project that few actually want, and watch it limp along supported only by increased tax dollars. Then, in order to make it profitable, the government will be forced to prohibit competition. No longer will people have the choice of a slower connection at a cheaper rate. Everyone, to get any connection, will have to have the fastest connection, the most expensive connection.
The telecos took the cash and ran.
Can you provide some sources for this?
Why is it OK for the telecos to take cash dedicated to a specific cause and screw the taxpayers
The taxpayers were screwed as soon as they handed their money over to another government, to do with as it pleases.
where the government is completely justified in offering services to force competition where none exists today and none is likely in the foreseeable future.
All you've succeeded at doing is removing all meaning from the word "justify", and in the process you've ditched individual rights in favor of what's convenient to yourself.
Why shouldn't the government provide communication services if the local residents want them to do just that?
Because it makes a mockery of individual rights. The government should only be in the business of upholding and protecting individual rights.
Notice the difference in how we talk. I say should and ought, relying on principles. You say what's convenient. You'd rather have shitty service immediately than long-term, reliable service. "People should get what they want immediately regardless of whose rights are violated in the process."
The ends do not justify the means, ever.
What companies are not permitted to lay down more lines due to government restriction?
Call your city and ask if you're allowed to dig around the road on your street and lay fiber optic lines all down your street, down the neighboring street, etc. They will laugh at you and hang up.
So to use easements, you should have some cash in the bank.
Exactly. You would need more money than you would under an entirely free system, so here we have government manipulation of the economy dissuading the existence of competition.
Corrupting a government official should also be considered treason.
How do you "corrupt government officials"? Please explain. Are they puppies without minds of their own or the sense to reject bribes?
If the government was banned from economic intervention, there would be absolutely no incentive for companies offer any bribes.
Huh? Why would the government prevent a company from laying their own fiber - on their own property?
I'm talking about new companies, or companies from other regions, that want to expand their business, not companies that have already laid cable in the ground and can just stick fiber in the same space. Call your city and ask if you're allowed to stick fiber optic in the ground along your street. They will laugh and hang up.
What is this based on besides wishful thinking? Look at the history of the light bulb and the early development of the electric grid, and you'll see people making profit while providing a service to everyone.
Rail all you want against government competition but realize that probably most geographic area of the US has little to no competition in telecom.
And what's preventing that competition from existing? Surely there must be a huge demand for it, right? You want it. Everyone wants it. So don't companies see this demand, and want to fulfill it? What can prevent them from doing so except for physical force, and what entity can apply physical force except for the government?
It was probably voted on in a city council meeting with input from the cities constituents. How do you justify taking that municipal right away?
What does "right away" mean? Do you mean "right of way"? First, rights apply only to individuals, not to government entities, which are charged with protecting and upholding individual rights. Second, you can't vote away rights. Sure, you can pass laws that violate rights, but those rights still exist and are still being violated. Rights violations are never justified.
This from someone who probably has decent internet service. I live at the end of a DSL run, cannot get cable, cannot get WiMax ... 512K DSL is the fastest I can get.
Who's preventing other companies from providing the service that you want? If the demand is high enough, nothing should be stopping people from getting the service they demand. The only thing that could prohibit such a service is physical force - in this case, government restriction against the laying of lines, among other restrictions.
They stopped the government from providing a service to its citizens.
First, the government should not be providing such a service. If the people actually want it, then companies should be springing forth to provide the service. However, companies are not permitted to lay more lines due to government restriction. Thus the situation we're in now.
To do so would have been a corrupt, let alone shitty, thing to do.
But when it's convenient, surely you can throw all principles and rights out the window! ;)
The government by definition secures an unfair advantage every time politicians accept any bribe, enforce any monopoly through the restriction of competition, or otherwise manipulate the economy by supporting arbitrary causes (related to the bribes I already mentioned).
How's it working out for you having your government take a "hands off" approach to your banks? (assuming you are an American).
Clue yourself in. The subprime crisis was caused by government intervention, not by any "hands off" approach. Just because people can co-opt the word "deregulation" for their own purposes doesn't mean any less regulation is occurring. Check out this excellent article written 8 years ago that predicted the whole thing, down to the huge dollar amount:
The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities
Make sense, stick to principles, and you're labeled a troll. Resort to what's convenient, throw principles out the window, espouse pragmatism, and you're +5 Insightful.
Because I know if I were a big wig in this city and this company was stopping this project, I would make a point of having their permit applications for fiber installation conveniently "lost" behind various pieces of office furniture.
That's exactly why these services should not be provided by the government - any government. As soon as you can physically force your competition out of business, your role becomes unjustifiable.
Let's not be one-sided now. Those companies may have offered the bribe, but the legislature accepted it, and is now enforcing the monopoly. Who's the bigger offender here?