Most people don't seem to realize that readers are not the target market. They are the product, delivered to the target market, advertisers. The iPod, being a "walled garden" rather than an open access point to the wild and woolly web, delivers a product that is more palatable to advertisers: people who like being told what to do.
Yes, we demand you pay your fair share of taxes, for the services you consume. As for potential middle class felons, well, I don't agree with all the laws of the land either, but we do have ways of changing things, and for now, I value staying more than leaving.
Yes, we, the people of America, have done quite a bit to improve this land. The roads, sewers, electrical systems, not to mention all the services you get here, such as social security.
It is unanimous consent, because you consent by staying. If you didn't like the deal offered, you would seek another, better one.
The state does not have a monopoly on force. You can defend yourself. As a group, we have the right to defend ourselves and enforce our rules on our land. That we pay a ceertain class of people to do most of it for us is immaterial.
The state is based on unanimous consent, if you don't like it you can give up your citizenship right now and not pay any taxes. There are places to go, you may not like them better, but that is not our problem.
I'm advocating defensive use of force in that line, not initiation of force. You initiate force if you break our rules.
Uh, what are social conservatives FOR, then? What does it mean to be a social conservative? I thought it meant that they want to prohibit gays from marrying, they want school prayer, they want to fund teaching of creationism, forbid sodomy and oral sex, outlaw recreational drugs, carry out as many executions of criminals as possible, and basically go back to the good old days when white men were men, and everyone else did what they were told.
Being a social conservative, as opposed to just a conservative sans modifiers, or a fiscal conservative, means that one is conservative in the social realm. Being conservative in the social realm means wanting to legislate social behavior, either returning it to the way things used to be, or keeping it as it is now.
In any case, being socially conservative is NOT libertarian.
Fox is pretty consistent in calling for a smaller, less intrusive government when it comes to corporations, but they want a huge government when it comes to telling people who they can sleep with and what they can smoke.
Fox did in fact support the Tea Party movement, by organizing, funding, and promoting Tea Party events.
Given that most Americans correctly see the Tea Party as racist, I'd say that CNN's accurate coverage helped.
How is being socially conservative at all libertarian? Social conservatives want to legislate away our freedoms. That is authoritarian, not libertarian. I can understand that true fiscal conservatism is libertarian, but legislating against gays, abortion, science education, and drugs is about as far from libertarian as you can get. Not that I expect you to know what libertarianism is really about, most people who call themselves libertarians have no idea what the word really means, what the history of the movement is, or what real freedom is. Most people who claim to be libertarian are really authoritarians who want the 'freedom' to run their own little dictatorships however they please.
Fox News and Rupert Murdoch aren't libertarians, they are authoritarians. And like authoritarians everywhere, they simply use libertarians as tools. It's as if the wolves have convinced a few sheep to go out and argue to the rest of a sheep that a wolf's stomach makes the best home.
What a lovely fantasy world you live in, where everyone makes rational decisions based on their best interests rather than what they have been brainwashed into believing by marketing and public relations.
A state is a voluntary organization. If you don't like it, leave. It is based on unanimous consent in the same way a corporation is: you agree to the rules, or you are not a part of it. I never mentioned force, or a monopoly on it. That's just your ideology parroting back things it heard. Groups can own land, the idea that they can not negates property rights and contracts. Your ideology is based on demonstrable falsehoods.
You know how Wikipedia has that "Did you know?" section on the front page listing some of their newest articles? A few days ago they had one that went, "Did you know, you can take the Wankbahn to the Wankhaus at the top of Wank Mountain," and I thought to myself, no. No I did not know you can take the Wankbahn to the Wankhaus at the top of Wank Mountain, but now that I do know, I hope that someday I can ride the Wankbahn, visit the Wankhaus, and climb the the very peak of Wank Mountain. I'm not sure what I'll do there, but I'm sure it will be fun.
I've mentioned it before, but again, "Anarchism" does not mean NO government. It means no rulers. No government would be anocracy. I am against rule by force, but force is a tricky thing to define.
I'm just a little scared to say I want "small government" because I want a very different type of small government than most people who use that phrase. Or maybe I'm being self centered here, maybe I don't really want something that different.
Anyway, I'm glad we had this discussion. It's far better to focus on common cause and shared beliefs than to focus on differences.
Individuals still have rights when they form a group, so the group has the same rights as the sum of the individuals' rights.
I am not even going to argue against your fantasy of what I am or am not for. I will just say, I am not advocating for a small group of people who are specially privileged to use force, or subjugating anyone.
I am saying, I and a group of other individuals can own land held jointly, and we can say, "We don't like you, go away, this is our land." and if you don't leave, THEN we have the right to shoot you in the head. I mean, you do believe in property rights, don't you?
This is our land, we set the rules, and you do not get to stay here unless you follow them. Any other business will tell you the same thing, and unless you are advocating against property rights, you have no counter to my argument. And I am DEAD SURE you will not argue against property rights. So there we have it.
Oh, I can SO have it both ways if I want. I'm an American. Having it both ways is a right enshrined in our Constitution, isn't it?
Jokes aside, you have a point. If moving is the answer to local monopoly, then I can't say it isn't the answer in some cases unless I can come up with a rationalization er, I mean, a logical reason. How about, oh, I don't know, controls over a monopoly are ALWAYS warranted, and for our government, WE HAVE THEM. That sounds like a good solid rationaliz... logical argument. (damn the lack of strikethrough tags on Slashdot, makin' muh jokes less funny)
Hey, lets get back to that shared moment thing and forget about my dumb burger shack analogy. Maybe we could go over to that metagovernment guy's site. My instincts tell me that all his spamming for his site is because he is a true activist and not because he is an utter loon. And my instincts are infallible, like when they told me you were a libertarian. Wait...
Okay, I'm in a wacky mood today, I think I've had too much coffee or something.
Anyway, you probably don't know this but I'm an (shhhh!) Anarchist. Of the far lefty variety, which is why I dislike libertarians, the splitters! I've lived and worked in real life anarchist situations. My dream society is a loose federation of very small governments, cooperating AND competing to provide services. The metagovernment spammmer is on to something, we could have a very different form of government with our current technology. Hell, with our technology we could even make a command economy work. They almost did that in Chile, with project Cybersyn back in 1970. Too bad we had Allende killed, eh? Oops, our bad, but to be fair, the dude was a socialist in our back yard, and it says right here on the lease from Bretton Woods that we get to shoot socialists in our back yard.
Small, local government. Good god. I sound like a Republican. Except they don't really want that at all anymore. And we can't just make government smaller given the current state of things, shit would just fall apart. That's always the problem, I mean, it isn't too hard for anyone with common sense and an above average IQ to come up with a halfway viable Utopian society. The trick is getting there from here without going through Hell in the process.
But I also believe in social safety nets. It's either social safety nets, or lots of cops. People in dire straits don't just lay down and die, they take what they have to and hurt who they must. So, providing those social safety nets is in all of our best interests, it is cheaper than tons of cops and jails. And social safety nets provide real freedom, I am free to risk more, try more, and ultimately do more for my society if they are there to catch me when I fall. I don't worry about the little parasites, because most people don't want to be a parasite, unless it looks like everyone is doing it. Most people want others to look up to them, or at least not look down on them, and everyone looks down on leaches.
So anyway, that's what I am, a lefty anarchist. I want small local government, where people can participate in the running of their society, and really feel like they "own" their society and government. But I also want real social safety nets, because the alternative is worse. And, because everyone benefits from the existence of a social safety net, everyone should help pay. And if they don't help pay, they should not be allowed to do business with the people who DO contribute. I'm all for withdrawal of reward as a punishment for non compliance, rather than the use of force.
No, I'm talking about no discrimination based on IP address, but based on port number. So you couldn't discriminate against a competitor, but you could prioritize certain types of traffic to everyone.
Does your protocol use IP? That is the level of the stack I was talking about. If you don't use IP, you are not an Internet provider. I'm saying, discrimination based on port number is okay. Not on end point. So you could set up proprietary protocols 'till the cows come home, and others will simply use the port you don't discriminate on for their traffic. And people want "the web" when the buy Internet service. If the ISP provides access to the web, then all access to the web happens at the same speed. They can not shake down popular websites for extra cash.
Slashdot Mirror
Most people don't seem to realize that readers are not the target market. They are the product, delivered to the target market, advertisers. The iPod, being a "walled garden" rather than an open access point to the wild and woolly web, delivers a product that is more palatable to advertisers: people who like being told what to do.
Yes, we demand you pay your fair share of taxes, for the services you consume. As for potential middle class felons, well, I don't agree with all the laws of the land either, but we do have ways of changing things, and for now, I value staying more than leaving.
Yes, we, the people of America, have done quite a bit to improve this land. The roads, sewers, electrical systems, not to mention all the services you get here, such as social security.
It is unanimous consent, because you consent by staying. If you didn't like the deal offered, you would seek another, better one.
There is no exit tax in America.
The state does not have a monopoly on force. You can defend yourself. As a group, we have the right to defend ourselves and enforce our rules on our land. That we pay a ceertain class of people to do most of it for us is immaterial.
The state is based on unanimous consent, if you don't like it you can give up your citizenship right now and not pay any taxes. There are places to go, you may not like them better, but that is not our problem.
I'm advocating defensive use of force in that line, not initiation of force. You initiate force if you break our rules.
Uh, what are social conservatives FOR, then? What does it mean to be a social conservative? I thought it meant that they want to prohibit gays from marrying, they want school prayer, they want to fund teaching of creationism, forbid sodomy and oral sex, outlaw recreational drugs, carry out as many executions of criminals as possible, and basically go back to the good old days when white men were men, and everyone else did what they were told.
Being a social conservative, as opposed to just a conservative sans modifiers, or a fiscal conservative, means that one is conservative in the social realm. Being conservative in the social realm means wanting to legislate social behavior, either returning it to the way things used to be, or keeping it as it is now.
In any case, being socially conservative is NOT libertarian.
I know at least one place where the guy comes in a motorcycle to deliver you cocaine, and accepts credit card. Appears on the bill as pizza.
Well, sure, cocaine. But not crack. As Whitney Houston said, "Crack is a poor person's drug."
Fox is pretty consistent in calling for a smaller, less intrusive government when it comes to corporations, but they want a huge government when it comes to telling people who they can sleep with and what they can smoke.
Fox did in fact support the Tea Party movement, by organizing, funding, and promoting Tea Party events.
Given that most Americans correctly see the Tea Party as racist, I'd say that CNN's accurate coverage helped.
How is being socially conservative at all libertarian? Social conservatives want to legislate away our freedoms. That is authoritarian, not libertarian. I can understand that true fiscal conservatism is libertarian, but legislating against gays, abortion, science education, and drugs is about as far from libertarian as you can get. Not that I expect you to know what libertarianism is really about, most people who call themselves libertarians have no idea what the word really means, what the history of the movement is, or what real freedom is. Most people who claim to be libertarian are really authoritarians who want the 'freedom' to run their own little dictatorships however they please.
You really need to read up on natural monopolies before I can even have a rational discussion with you.
Fox News and Rupert Murdoch aren't libertarians, they are authoritarians. And like authoritarians everywhere, they simply use libertarians as tools. It's as if the wolves have convinced a few sheep to go out and argue to the rest of a sheep that a wolf's stomach makes the best home.
What a lovely fantasy world you live in, where everyone makes rational decisions based on their best interests rather than what they have been brainwashed into believing by marketing and public relations.
A state is a voluntary organization. If you don't like it, leave. It is based on unanimous consent in the same way a corporation is: you agree to the rules, or you are not a part of it. I never mentioned force, or a monopoly on it. That's just your ideology parroting back things it heard. Groups can own land, the idea that they can not negates property rights and contracts. Your ideology is based on demonstrable falsehoods.
You know how Wikipedia has that "Did you know?" section on the front page listing some of their newest articles? A few days ago they had one that went, "Did you know, you can take the Wankbahn to the Wankhaus at the top of Wank Mountain," and I thought to myself, no. No I did not know you can take the Wankbahn to the Wankhaus at the top of Wank Mountain, but now that I do know, I hope that someday I can ride the Wankbahn, visit the Wankhaus, and climb the the very peak of Wank Mountain. I'm not sure what I'll do there, but I'm sure it will be fun.
Pretty close to daily, sometimes more than one a day, but occasionally less.
You have a very twisted idea of justice. Thankfully, our legal system disagrees with you in all particulars.
It makes Rupert Murdoch more money. Oh, you meant, "how is it better for the customer?" Does that actually matter?
The United States of America is our land, and the rules are called the constitution.
The regulations are because of a systemic lack of competition brought about by the natural monopoly nature of running wires.
In 1980s America, Ukrainian-born comedian Yakov Smirnoff made jokes contrasting life in communist USSR with life in the United States.
The More You Know!
I've mentioned it before, but again, "Anarchism" does not mean NO government. It means no rulers. No government would be anocracy. I am against rule by force, but force is a tricky thing to define.
I'm just a little scared to say I want "small government" because I want a very different type of small government than most people who use that phrase. Or maybe I'm being self centered here, maybe I don't really want something that different.
Anyway, I'm glad we had this discussion. It's far better to focus on common cause and shared beliefs than to focus on differences.
Individuals still have rights when they form a group, so the group has the same rights as the sum of the individuals' rights.
I am not even going to argue against your fantasy of what I am or am not for. I will just say, I am not advocating for a small group of people who are specially privileged to use force, or subjugating anyone.
I am saying, I and a group of other individuals can own land held jointly, and we can say, "We don't like you, go away, this is our land." and if you don't leave, THEN we have the right to shoot you in the head. I mean, you do believe in property rights, don't you?
This is our land, we set the rules, and you do not get to stay here unless you follow them. Any other business will tell you the same thing, and unless you are advocating against property rights, you have no counter to my argument. And I am DEAD SURE you will not argue against property rights. So there we have it.
But they can slow down anything going to port 80 that contains Flash objects, because you didn't pay to watch youtube videos.
No, they couldn't (we are talking hypotheticals here, and it is MY hypothetical, and I wouldn't write in anything about deep packet inspection.
They could block any encrypted data, because you didn't buy their AV software, and you just can't be trusted otherwise.
They could do a lot of shit.
No, they couldn't because that would again require deep packet inspection.
Oh, I can SO have it both ways if I want. I'm an American. Having it both ways is a right enshrined in our Constitution, isn't it?
Jokes aside, you have a point. If moving is the answer to local monopoly, then I can't say it isn't the answer in some cases unless I can come up with a rationalization er, I mean, a logical reason. How about, oh, I don't know, controls over a monopoly are ALWAYS warranted, and for our government, WE HAVE THEM. That sounds like a good solid rationaliz... logical argument. (damn the lack of strikethrough tags on Slashdot, makin' muh jokes less funny)
Hey, lets get back to that shared moment thing and forget about my dumb burger shack analogy. Maybe we could go over to that metagovernment guy's site. My instincts tell me that all his spamming for his site is because he is a true activist and not because he is an utter loon. And my instincts are infallible, like when they told me you were a libertarian. Wait...
Okay, I'm in a wacky mood today, I think I've had too much coffee or something.
Anyway, you probably don't know this but I'm an (shhhh!) Anarchist. Of the far lefty variety, which is why I dislike libertarians, the splitters! I've lived and worked in real life anarchist situations. My dream society is a loose federation of very small governments, cooperating AND competing to provide services. The metagovernment spammmer is on to something, we could have a very different form of government with our current technology. Hell, with our technology we could even make a command economy work. They almost did that in Chile, with project Cybersyn back in 1970. Too bad we had Allende killed, eh? Oops, our bad, but to be fair, the dude was a socialist in our back yard, and it says right here on the lease from Bretton Woods that we get to shoot socialists in our back yard.
Small, local government. Good god. I sound like a Republican. Except they don't really want that at all anymore. And we can't just make government smaller given the current state of things, shit would just fall apart. That's always the problem, I mean, it isn't too hard for anyone with common sense and an above average IQ to come up with a halfway viable Utopian society. The trick is getting there from here without going through Hell in the process.
But I also believe in social safety nets. It's either social safety nets, or lots of cops. People in dire straits don't just lay down and die, they take what they have to and hurt who they must. So, providing those social safety nets is in all of our best interests, it is cheaper than tons of cops and jails. And social safety nets provide real freedom, I am free to risk more, try more, and ultimately do more for my society if they are there to catch me when I fall. I don't worry about the little parasites, because most people don't want to be a parasite, unless it looks like everyone is doing it. Most people want others to look up to them, or at least not look down on them, and everyone looks down on leaches.
So anyway, that's what I am, a lefty anarchist. I want small local government, where people can participate in the running of their society, and really feel like they "own" their society and government. But I also want real social safety nets, because the alternative is worse. And, because everyone benefits from the existence of a social safety net, everyone should help pay. And if they don't help pay, they should not be allowed to do business with the people who DO contribute. I'm all for withdrawal of reward as a punishment for non compliance, rather than the use of force.
No, I'm talking about no discrimination based on IP address, but based on port number. So you couldn't discriminate against a competitor, but you could prioritize certain types of traffic to everyone.
Or you could use a line tied to mine at the center and pulled in both directions with the same force. Damn it, I just undid my own example.
Does your protocol use IP? That is the level of the stack I was talking about. If you don't use IP, you are not an Internet provider. I'm saying, discrimination based on port number is okay. Not on end point. So you could set up proprietary protocols 'till the cows come home, and others will simply use the port you don't discriminate on for their traffic. And people want "the web" when the buy Internet service. If the ISP provides access to the web, then all access to the web happens at the same speed. They can not shake down popular websites for extra cash.