It is convenient to be able to lump everyone into one category. If you support the elimination of Social Security, then you must be opposed to scientific progress. Convenient, but entirely false, and by doing so, you are rejecting those who actually hold some of these ideas on grounded principles. You miss out on those principles, and are basically left to accept what two corrupt political parties decide should be the definition of "liberal" and "conservative".
For example, it is possible to reject both religion and the New Deal reforms if you hold rationality and independence as cardinal virtues.
Unless the bacteria can get beneath the surface, I don't see them surviving direct unfiltered contact with the sun's light. If they do get beneath ground though, they could easily keep going until the Moon runs out of food.
"As it turns out, money will do the job just as well."
Money is simply a piece of paper representing productivity. What actually stops a company from freely starting up and choosing to remain in competition with another larger company?
Hmmm... are you referring to the original robber barons - the medieval feudal lords who illegally restricted travel on the Rhine? Or are you referring to industrialists who used unfair business practices - fraud, misinformation, and in the case of railroad magnates, receiving financial support from the government (again, government manipulation of the economy)?
"Are you seriously suggesting that there be more than one company in a given area running physical cables to every house?"
And to that I ask: Are you seriously opposing one monopoly while supporting another? (Please answer this question)
First, to answer your question, yes, because there should be no restriction to what cables go where (provided that those laying the cable have permission of the property owners). Second, why would the cables have to go to every house? Why couldn't they only go to those who want the service?
"why is that absurd?"
Because at the root of the problem is the fact that the government is freely violating the rights of its citizens. Rights violations are immoral and never justified. Increased rights violations are still unjustified. Saying, "hey, we haven't given up enough of our rights, lets give up some more in order to get a solution that we like" is what is being said by supporters of increased regulation, and such a statement is obviously absurd, not only because rights violations are unjustified, but also because as you give up more of your rights now, in the future you're less likely - not more likely - to get results that you prefer.
"Oh, you're definitely idealistic, bright eyed, and bushy tailed. You're either a huge celebrity, or you're young. Good luck to you."
That was a sound, reasoned rebuttal... It sounds like you'd rather have the government forcibly take from others and provide you with good service, rather than standing up and demanding better service. You want the government to take the shortcut (at the expense of everyone's rights) because you don't want to think about it.
"Comcast came into existence because of a government granted monopoly. Take away that status and they don't lose their market-monopoly power overnight."
No, they don't, but current government restrictions on who is allowed to lay competing cable lines and who can provide cable services slow down this healing process.
British Telecom is one of the largest government-granted monopolies in existence. The government owned the telecom, then they privatized it. This is where they made their mistake. Rather than sell off the company in portions determined by the highest bidders, and use the money raise from the auction to compensate individuals and organizations that were affected by the monopoly, they took the slowest possible route to healing the economy, and in process justified the rights violations that its preceding organization had committed.
The larger these government granted monopolies are, and the more restrictions there are to competition springing into existence, the longer it takes for the economy to heal. But trying to speed up the healing process at the expense of rights violations is not justified.
Regarding the 2nd half of your reply (no, I didn't forget:)):
"Ideally, private industry is motivated by profit, while government is motivated to help civilians."
No, ideally the government exists solely to support and uphold the rights and freedoms of its citizens. It is not the responsibility of the government to determine what "helps civilians" or the general public, or anything like that. The government should only help by making sure our rights are not violated (that's why we have police) and if violations do occur, that proper compensation/punishment is decided (that's why we have courts).
And even if the government was supposed to do what you say it is, exactly what "helps civilians" is never concretely defined, and changes every 2-4 years as someone new is reelected with their own ideas, discarding their predecessor's progress.
"While emphasis should be placed on ideally in the previous sentence, the basic idea is that the government is more likely to behave altruistically than private industry, if for no reason than because it is more accountable to civilians."
Again, altruism is not the responsibility of the government. Individuals can be altruistic and freely donate some portion of their productivity (income) to others. A government that forcibly takes others productivity (income) and distributes it to certain special individuals is immoral and corrupt.
"This is why government is entrusted with control of right-of-ways and private industry is not."
It is ludicrous to think that some line of pure thought, grounded in sound principles, arrived at this conclusion. More likely, corrupt legislators entrusted themselves (as if they have that right) to this control, in exchange for fundraising from corrupt organizations. Remember, private industry by itself is not capable of corruption. Only government enforcement (either through selective taxation/tax breaks or through restrictions) permits corruption to exist. Cronyism is an example of the same corruption on an individual scale.
"Do you really believe that, having independently arrived at a solution of throttling Bittorrent traffic, Comcast is likely to regulate itself any better in the future if left alone?"
As long as it can maintain its monopoly, and consumers have no other choice for service provider, no, I would not trust Comcast to listen to its customers. It is only when other service providers are free to exist that Comcast will have to listen or risk losing customers.
"Doing a better job" does not justify rights violations, which are exactly what occurs with "public property" (ie, property forcibly held by the government, with the result that it can contrive monopolies on that property). Competition will eventually provide better, longer-lasting results than a regularly repopulated (ie, reelected) government can provide, as long as consumers actually want better services. Taking a shortcut to a temporarily better state, at the expense of rights violations, is not justified. The is entirely analogous to someone robbing a bank to make them temporarily wealthy, and then saying "theft does a better job than hard work". Ridiculous.
Please don't be obtuse. The laws preventing companies from laying their own cable lines are how the cable monopoly thrives. A company can't just come along and lay the lines on the sides of "public roads" (ie, property held as a monopoly by the government, and only useable as the government wishes).
"By buying out the competition. Ever read the history of the company?"
Any company can buy out competition if the competition is willing to pay. So what? If group A wants to freely trade X amount of property that it rightly owns, to group B in exchange for Y compensation, what right does anyone have to stop them? On the same token, nobody has the right to stop group C from coming into existence and providing a competing service.
"The ones who own the copper/fiber and connections. They are trying to stop third party use of their lines as required by some laws. Laws that were put there by the Govt BTW."
So the monopoly is with the cable lines? And what stops another company from supplying their own lines - you guessed it, government regulation. As I originally said and will state again, the only thing that can stop a monopoly from persisting and prevent competition from existing is force, so either these companies are literally holding their prospective competition at gunpoint, or the government is the one holding the guns, deterring anyone from starting up a competing company. Which is the case here?
"It's not that simple. You need infrastructure - rights of way, etc, which is provided by the government."
You've just listed off more government restrictions, thus supporting my original post. These "services" are not "provided by the government", they are held as a contrived monopoly by the government. Why does the government need to provide services that can be provided by private individuals and organizations?
They are too numerous to list in one post. In general, any restriction preventing someone (in this case, a company) from freely providing cable internet access to someone else at a freely agreed-upon price, is going to have an effect on the economy, and reduce the chances of competition being able to come into existence. The ideal situation is no government restriction. How can a true monopoly thrive without the use of force?
"The problem isn't that the government doesn't allow these companies to exist, it's that comcast buys them all out."
I'm not sure where you live. Around here there is only one choice, and as far as I know that is the case for countless areas of the US.
Let's assume that you actually had two choices for cable internet at some point in the past, and you found out that the one you liked was going to sell out to the one you disliked. Did you contact them and let them know of your opposition to the move? Did you persuade your friends/family/neighbors to do the same? If it was going bankrupt, were any donations made? Did you persuade everyone you know to switch from the crap service to the good one? If you believed their service to be superior in some way (eg, no torrent restrictions), where were you when it was faced with extinction?
Coming back to reality, a monopoly, for it to thrive, must be backed by force. A monopoly may exist for some brief period, but (assuming there are no govt restrictions) competing companies will pop up to provide better solutions for the customers. The only thing that can stop those companies from popping up is force - ie, government restriction. This is undeniable. So if Comcast has a sustained monopoly, it is only through government manipulation of the economy.
"or, how about instead they just provide the service people are, um, you know paying for?"
They have no need or desire to listen to their customers as long as the government continues to meddle in the economy. If Congress was incapable of stopping other companies from competing, corrupt companies like Comcast could not thrive. The solution is to overturn the laws preventing competition from existing. Then Comcast will have to listen to its customers or risk losing them! (*GASP*)
"joining the ranks of every great monopoly when threatened by government regulation for alleged misbehavior"
I loved ridiculously ignorant statements like this. How did it become a monopoly in the first place? What stops another company from springing up to provide cable internet services for cheaper? Answer - government intervention. Saying that government regulation is somehow going to fix what government regulation broke is absurd. If you want to get rid of a monopoly, get rid of the government regulation that prevents competing companies from existing. Creating the illusion of choice through increased regulation is not going to be good for consumers. They're going to continue getting inflated prices and idiotic restrictions like what was attempted for torrents.
Yes, they are human beings, and as human beings they are entitled to the same rights as everyone else. Because everyone else is also entitled to these rights, everyone is morally obligated to serve only themselves, and not infringe upon the rights of others. Such infringements include forced property redistribution through taxation and selective restrictions. If you want to help others, feel free to donate and ask your friends/family/neighbors to donate as well - spread the word! - but don't influence the government to commit rights violations.
"if your view of the third world is that hopeless, then you are a misanthrope."
The only misanthropes - ie, those who hate/distrust mankind - are those who believe man to be inherently evil and corrupted, incapable of thinking for themselves, requiring a government to do the thinking for them. It is only those who hate mankind would freely suggest violating inalienable rights. The same people who distrust the uncoerced, free trade of productivity among rational individuals, you will find shouting for the government to force people to hand over their productivity to regions made unproductive through corruption.
What an ignorant statement. This is as ridiculous as saying "money is the root of all evil". If you bother to ask yourself what the root of money is, you'll see why your statement of above is ridiculous. Money is a free trade in production. In exchange for your productivity, I give you some of mine. As a result, people will naturally find the most productive sources with which to exchange, so it is not surprising that the most developed countries are also getting the most economic attention.
"the poor, the ones who can benefit the most from medical and food crop research, are served last, and can only hope for trickle down progress after many generations"
Or they can try overthrowing their corrupt government and replacing it with one that is not working 24/7 to violate its citizens' rights and freedoms. Once the government allows them to become productive again, money will naturally return to the region, as money is the equivalent of productivity.
"what will you do with your time, who will you serve?"
I will try to be as productive as possible, and serve only myself.
Beta-blockers like inderal are for blood pressure and anxiety. They now consider this "performance enhancing"? So if you're born genetically predisposed for high blood pressure, and you try to bring this down so that your heartbeat doesn't keep you awake at night (as mine did), you are unfairly enhancing your performance?
The parent is correct. BT was the state-run telecom monopoly in the UK, and was converted into a private monopoly in 1984. Not much of an improvement, but at least it finally allowed for the possibility of competition arising, however slim.
If by "multiple takes" you mean the two sides shouting, "Let's violate our citizens' rights through tax breaks funded by deficit spending!", and "Let's violate our citizens' rights through increased taxation!"... then sign me up!
I think I know what happened. Jesus was making his promised return to the corporeal realm, but forgot to take into account the rotation of the galaxy, and popped up in the middle of nowhere. Seeing no Earth-like planets, he just poofed one into existence and is probably still walking its beaches at this very moment, leaving a trail of footprints in the sand.
Slashdot Mirror
It is convenient to be able to lump everyone into one category. If you support the elimination of Social Security, then you must be opposed to scientific progress. Convenient, but entirely false, and by doing so, you are rejecting those who actually hold some of these ideas on grounded principles. You miss out on those principles, and are basically left to accept what two corrupt political parties decide should be the definition of "liberal" and "conservative".
For example, it is possible to reject both religion and the New Deal reforms if you hold rationality and independence as cardinal virtues.
"We have always been at war with Oceania."
Unless the bacteria can get beneath the surface, I don't see them surviving direct unfiltered contact with the sun's light. If they do get beneath ground though, they could easily keep going until the Moon runs out of food.
"A small company will inevitably have to depend on its competitors' cooperation to get into the broadband game."
Why is that? What prevents a company from laying its own cables? Anything besides government restriction?
"As it turns out, money will do the job just as well."
Money is simply a piece of paper representing productivity. What actually stops a company from freely starting up and choosing to remain in competition with another larger company?
Hmmm... are you referring to the original robber barons - the medieval feudal lords who illegally restricted travel on the Rhine? Or are you referring to industrialists who used unfair business practices - fraud, misinformation, and in the case of railroad magnates, receiving financial support from the government (again, government manipulation of the economy)?
"Are you seriously suggesting that there be more than one company in a given area running physical cables to every house?"
And to that I ask: Are you seriously opposing one monopoly while supporting another? (Please answer this question)
First, to answer your question, yes, because there should be no restriction to what cables go where (provided that those laying the cable have permission of the property owners). Second, why would the cables have to go to every house? Why couldn't they only go to those who want the service?
"why is that absurd?"
Because at the root of the problem is the fact that the government is freely violating the rights of its citizens. Rights violations are immoral and never justified. Increased rights violations are still unjustified. Saying, "hey, we haven't given up enough of our rights, lets give up some more in order to get a solution that we like" is what is being said by supporters of increased regulation, and such a statement is obviously absurd, not only because rights violations are unjustified, but also because as you give up more of your rights now, in the future you're less likely - not more likely - to get results that you prefer.
"Oh, you're definitely idealistic, bright eyed, and bushy tailed. You're either a huge celebrity, or you're young. Good luck to you."
That was a sound, reasoned rebuttal... It sounds like you'd rather have the government forcibly take from others and provide you with good service, rather than standing up and demanding better service. You want the government to take the shortcut (at the expense of everyone's rights) because you don't want to think about it.
"Comcast came into existence because of a government granted monopoly. Take away that status and they don't lose their market-monopoly power overnight."
No, they don't, but current government restrictions on who is allowed to lay competing cable lines and who can provide cable services slow down this healing process.
British Telecom is one of the largest government-granted monopolies in existence. The government owned the telecom, then they privatized it. This is where they made their mistake. Rather than sell off the company in portions determined by the highest bidders, and use the money raise from the auction to compensate individuals and organizations that were affected by the monopoly, they took the slowest possible route to healing the economy, and in process justified the rights violations that its preceding organization had committed.
The larger these government granted monopolies are, and the more restrictions there are to competition springing into existence, the longer it takes for the economy to heal. But trying to speed up the healing process at the expense of rights violations is not justified.
Regarding the 2nd half of your reply (no, I didn't forget :)):
"Ideally, private industry is motivated by profit, while government is motivated to help civilians."
No, ideally the government exists solely to support and uphold the rights and freedoms of its citizens. It is not the responsibility of the government to determine what "helps civilians" or the general public, or anything like that. The government should only help by making sure our rights are not violated (that's why we have police) and if violations do occur, that proper compensation/punishment is decided (that's why we have courts).
And even if the government was supposed to do what you say it is, exactly what "helps civilians" is never concretely defined, and changes every 2-4 years as someone new is reelected with their own ideas, discarding their predecessor's progress.
"While emphasis should be placed on ideally in the previous sentence, the basic idea is that the government is more likely to behave altruistically than private industry, if for no reason than because it is more accountable to civilians."
Again, altruism is not the responsibility of the government. Individuals can be altruistic and freely donate some portion of their productivity (income) to others. A government that forcibly takes others productivity (income) and distributes it to certain special individuals is immoral and corrupt.
"This is why government is entrusted with control of right-of-ways and private industry is not."
It is ludicrous to think that some line of pure thought, grounded in sound principles, arrived at this conclusion. More likely, corrupt legislators entrusted themselves (as if they have that right) to this control, in exchange for fundraising from corrupt organizations. Remember, private industry by itself is not capable of corruption. Only government enforcement (either through selective taxation/tax breaks or through restrictions) permits corruption to exist. Cronyism is an example of the same corruption on an individual scale.
"Do you really believe that, having independently arrived at a solution of throttling Bittorrent traffic, Comcast is likely to regulate itself any better in the future if left alone?"
As long as it can maintain its monopoly, and consumers have no other choice for service provider, no, I would not trust Comcast to listen to its customers. It is only when other service providers are free to exist that Comcast will have to listen or risk losing customers.
"Doing a better job" does not justify rights violations, which are exactly what occurs with "public property" (ie, property forcibly held by the government, with the result that it can contrive monopolies on that property). Competition will eventually provide better, longer-lasting results than a regularly repopulated (ie, reelected) government can provide, as long as consumers actually want better services. Taking a shortcut to a temporarily better state, at the expense of rights violations, is not justified. The is entirely analogous to someone robbing a bank to make them temporarily wealthy, and then saying "theft does a better job than hard work". Ridiculous.
Please don't be obtuse. The laws preventing companies from laying their own cable lines are how the cable monopoly thrives. A company can't just come along and lay the lines on the sides of "public roads" (ie, property held as a monopoly by the government, and only useable as the government wishes).
"By buying out the competition. Ever read the history of the company?"
Any company can buy out competition if the competition is willing to pay. So what? If group A wants to freely trade X amount of property that it rightly owns, to group B in exchange for Y compensation, what right does anyone have to stop them? On the same token, nobody has the right to stop group C from coming into existence and providing a competing service.
"The ones who own the copper/fiber and connections. They are trying to stop third party use of their lines as required by some laws. Laws that were put there by the Govt BTW."
So the monopoly is with the cable lines? And what stops another company from supplying their own lines - you guessed it, government regulation. As I originally said and will state again, the only thing that can stop a monopoly from persisting and prevent competition from existing is force, so either these companies are literally holding their prospective competition at gunpoint, or the government is the one holding the guns, deterring anyone from starting up a competing company. Which is the case here?
"It's not that simple. You need infrastructure - rights of way, etc, which is provided by the government."
You've just listed off more government restrictions, thus supporting my original post. These "services" are not "provided by the government", they are held as a contrived monopoly by the government. Why does the government need to provide services that can be provided by private individuals and organizations?
They are too numerous to list in one post. In general, any restriction preventing someone (in this case, a company) from freely providing cable internet access to someone else at a freely agreed-upon price, is going to have an effect on the economy, and reduce the chances of competition being able to come into existence. The ideal situation is no government restriction. How can a true monopoly thrive without the use of force?
"The problem isn't that the government doesn't allow these companies to exist, it's that comcast buys them all out."
I'm not sure where you live. Around here there is only one choice, and as far as I know that is the case for countless areas of the US.
Let's assume that you actually had two choices for cable internet at some point in the past, and you found out that the one you liked was going to sell out to the one you disliked. Did you contact them and let them know of your opposition to the move? Did you persuade your friends/family/neighbors to do the same? If it was going bankrupt, were any donations made? Did you persuade everyone you know to switch from the crap service to the good one? If you believed their service to be superior in some way (eg, no torrent restrictions), where were you when it was faced with extinction?
Coming back to reality, a monopoly, for it to thrive, must be backed by force. A monopoly may exist for some brief period, but (assuming there are no govt restrictions) competing companies will pop up to provide better solutions for the customers. The only thing that can stop those companies from popping up is force - ie, government restriction. This is undeniable. So if Comcast has a sustained monopoly, it is only through government manipulation of the economy.
"or, how about instead they just provide the service people are, um, you know paying for?"
They have no need or desire to listen to their customers as long as the government continues to meddle in the economy. If Congress was incapable of stopping other companies from competing, corrupt companies like Comcast could not thrive. The solution is to overturn the laws preventing competition from existing. Then Comcast will have to listen to its customers or risk losing them! (*GASP*)
"joining the ranks of every great monopoly when threatened by government regulation for alleged misbehavior"
I loved ridiculously ignorant statements like this. How did it become a monopoly in the first place? What stops another company from springing up to provide cable internet services for cheaper? Answer - government intervention. Saying that government regulation is somehow going to fix what government regulation broke is absurd. If you want to get rid of a monopoly, get rid of the government regulation that prevents competing companies from existing. Creating the illusion of choice through increased regulation is not going to be good for consumers. They're going to continue getting inflated prices and idiotic restrictions like what was attempted for torrents.
"they are human beings, just like you and me.
Yes, they are human beings, and as human beings they are entitled to the same rights as everyone else. Because everyone else is also entitled to these rights, everyone is morally obligated to serve only themselves, and not infringe upon the rights of others. Such infringements include forced property redistribution through taxation and selective restrictions. If you want to help others, feel free to donate and ask your friends/family/neighbors to donate as well - spread the word! - but don't influence the government to commit rights violations.
"if your view of the third world is that hopeless, then you are a misanthrope."
The only misanthropes - ie, those who hate/distrust mankind - are those who believe man to be inherently evil and corrupted, incapable of thinking for themselves, requiring a government to do the thinking for them. It is only those who hate mankind would freely suggest violating inalienable rights. The same people who distrust the uncoerced, free trade of productivity among rational individuals, you will find shouting for the government to force people to hand over their productivity to regions made unproductive through corruption.
"morals and money don't mix."
What an ignorant statement. This is as ridiculous as saying "money is the root of all evil". If you bother to ask yourself what the root of money is, you'll see why your statement of above is ridiculous. Money is a free trade in production. In exchange for your productivity, I give you some of mine. As a result, people will naturally find the most productive sources with which to exchange, so it is not surprising that the most developed countries are also getting the most economic attention.
"the poor, the ones who can benefit the most from medical and food crop research, are served last, and can only hope for trickle down progress after many generations"
Or they can try overthrowing their corrupt government and replacing it with one that is not working 24/7 to violate its citizens' rights and freedoms. Once the government allows them to become productive again, money will naturally return to the region, as money is the equivalent of productivity.
"what will you do with your time, who will you serve?"
I will try to be as productive as possible, and serve only myself.
Beta-blockers like inderal are for blood pressure and anxiety. They now consider this "performance enhancing"? So if you're born genetically predisposed for high blood pressure, and you try to bring this down so that your heartbeat doesn't keep you awake at night (as mine did), you are unfairly enhancing your performance?
The parent is correct. BT was the state-run telecom monopoly in the UK, and was converted into a private monopoly in 1984. Not much of an improvement, but at least it finally allowed for the possibility of competition arising, however slim.
If by "multiple takes" you mean the two sides shouting, "Let's violate our citizens' rights through tax breaks funded by deficit spending!", and "Let's violate our citizens' rights through increased taxation!"... then sign me up!
"Imagine - being able to even detect a plant"
I'm always trying to do this, but I just end up stepping on them first.
I think I know what happened. Jesus was making his promised return to the corporeal realm, but forgot to take into account the rotation of the galaxy, and popped up in the middle of nowhere. Seeing no Earth-like planets, he just poofed one into existence and is probably still walking its beaches at this very moment, leaving a trail of footprints in the sand.