Again, "you can always decide to do without altogether"...you just have to decide what is more important to you. You do not have a "right" to Internet service--especially at the expense of the rights of service providers to decide the terms under which their service is offered. ISPs, businesses, and the world as a whole owe you precisely NOTHING.
I'm not familiar with the situation in India--are ISPs there government-run or simply regulated? Both are equally evil; I'm just curious.
Your ISP is a private entity; therefore, it has every right to decide the terms under which its products and services are offered. If you don't like those terms, you're free to go elsewhere or do without altogether.
As I said in an earlier post on this thread, if they commit an act of theft or trespass, prosecute them for theft or trespass. There's no legitimate reason to outlaw spam in and of itself--what about people who don't mind receiving it, or network and server operators who don't mind channeling it?
Interestingly, this poses an interesting thought. Let's say that an ISP doesn't have a problem channeling spam through their servers and network. As their users are free to choose to use or not use the ISPs services, if they choose to connect to their network then they agree to accept whatever spam whatever may come their way.
If I'm not mistaken, a bill of attainder is a law that punishes a group of people without a trial. That's what anti-spam legislation is: It punishes individuals for engaging in their legitimate business activities without a trial.
If the ISP has a problem with spam and wishes to specifically disallow it, then they have a case against spammers. However, that still doesn't justify government blanketly outlawing spam--that amounts to nothing more than a bill of attainder.
Government has no right interfering in the business activities of spammers. If people don't like spam, they can choose to use services that block spam as much as possible.
Well, if the one performing the service is willing to negotiate, then yes. But he doesn't have to. He can refuse to perform the service if you don't agree to his terms outright, or he can choose to negotiate (and even then, he can choose to refuse to perform the service if a set of terms cannot be agreed upon).
If there's a clause in whatever agreement you have with a company that prohibits your information from being disseminated, then no, they can't give it out. But in the absence of such a clause as well as a claim by the company that they will not give out your information, there are no restrictions. Again, you're free not to deal with a company if they don't guarantee not to give out your information.
Also, you need power, and some form of Internet (else, why be on Slashdot).
Decide what you value more. The one performing the service gets to decide under what terms the service is offered. Same goes for everything else you listed.
The way to keep politicians from being bought by businesses is to prevent government from regulating businesses. When businesses have nothing to gain by buying off politicians, they'll have no reason to do so.
Also, what's the big problem here? If you provide a company with information, then AS LONG AS THEY DON'T INDICATE OTHERWISE they have every right to do as they please with that information. If you don't like what they do, guess what--you're free not to deal with that company!
Hell, I should be able to gross at *least* 1k per day
Lessee...there are 1440 minutes in a day. TV commercials last 30 seconds each, so that's a total of $28.80 each day. You'd need more than 30 of those devices, simultaneously running nonstop, to get $1000/day.
Living conditions, wage, etc. are not what constitute slavery. Slavery is when one is forced to work against his will. 19th century coal miners weren't working against their will, under the threat of violent force if they refused. Sure, maybe the consequences of not choosing to work in the coal towns weren't terribly desirable either, but the fact remains that a choice was made available, and no one was threatening force in order to coerce anyone into choosing one way or the other, and that's all that matters.
Slashdot Mirror
Woo-hoo!
As far as I can tell, no one's forced to sign anything. Potential users just make a decision as to what they value more.
A company decides to purchase another company. Why is this any of the government's business in the first place?
Again, "you can always decide to do without altogether"...you just have to decide what is more important to you. You do not have a "right" to Internet service--especially at the expense of the rights of service providers to decide the terms under which their service is offered. ISPs, businesses, and the world as a whole owe you precisely NOTHING.
I'm not familiar with the situation in India--are ISPs there government-run or simply regulated? Both are equally evil; I'm just curious.
Your ISP is a private entity; therefore, it has every right to decide the terms under which its products and services are offered. If you don't like those terms, you're free to go elsewhere or do without altogether.
Your ISP provides the service; therefore, it has the moral right to decide the terms under which the service is offered.
Besides, your ISP isn't the government. If you don't like it, you can always go elsewhere or do without altogether.
This has already been around for awhile
http://www.fufme.com
As I said in an earlier post on this thread, if they commit an act of theft or trespass, prosecute them for theft or trespass. There's no legitimate reason to outlaw spam in and of itself--what about people who don't mind receiving it, or network and server operators who don't mind channeling it?
Interestingly, this poses an interesting thought. Let's say that an ISP doesn't have a problem channeling spam through their servers and network. As their users are free to choose to use or not use the ISPs services, if they choose to connect to their network then they agree to accept whatever spam whatever may come their way.
Then prosecute theft. What about people who don't mind spam, and server and network operators who don't mind channeling it?
Yes, I agree with that. Read some of my responses to some of the other replies here.
If I'm not mistaken, a bill of attainder is a law that punishes a group of people without a trial. That's what anti-spam legislation is: It punishes individuals for engaging in their legitimate business activities without a trial.
No, they're equally important. You forget that businesses are owned by people, who have rights themselves.
If the ISP has a problem with spam and wishes to specifically disallow it, then they have a case against spammers. However, that still doesn't justify government blanketly outlawing spam--that amounts to nothing more than a bill of attainder.
Government has no right interfering in the business activities of spammers. If people don't like spam, they can choose to use services that block spam as much as possible.
But there is an alternative--you're free to do without whatever it is the company provides. You just have to decide what you value more.
You're free to choose to do without--just decide what's more important to you.
Well, if the one performing the service is willing to negotiate, then yes. But he doesn't have to. He can refuse to perform the service if you don't agree to his terms outright, or he can choose to negotiate (and even then, he can choose to refuse to perform the service if a set of terms cannot be agreed upon).
If there's a clause in whatever agreement you have with a company that prohibits your information from being disseminated, then no, they can't give it out. But in the absence of such a clause as well as a claim by the company that they will not give out your information, there are no restrictions. Again, you're free not to deal with a company if they don't guarantee not to give out your information.
Also, you need power, and some form of Internet (else, why be on Slashdot).
Decide what you value more. The one performing the service gets to decide under what terms the service is offered. Same goes for everything else you listed.
guess what the federal government did with my information?
So obviously, that's a problem with government, not businesses.
The way to keep politicians from being bought by businesses is to prevent government from regulating businesses. When businesses have nothing to gain by buying off politicians, they'll have no reason to do so.
Also, what's the big problem here? If you provide a company with information, then AS LONG AS THEY DON'T INDICATE OTHERWISE they have every right to do as they please with that information. If you don't like what they do, guess what--you're free not to deal with that company!
Hell, I should be able to gross at *least* 1k per day
Lessee...there are 1440 minutes in a day. TV commercials last 30 seconds each, so that's a total of $28.80 each day. You'd need more than 30 of those devices, simultaneously running nonstop, to get $1000/day.
How are they using force to prevent them from leaving?
Any system in which slavery is permissible is by definition not capitalism.
Living conditions, wage, etc. are not what constitute slavery. Slavery is when one is forced to work against his will. 19th century coal miners weren't working against their will, under the threat of violent force if they refused. Sure, maybe the consequences of not choosing to work in the coal towns weren't terribly desirable either, but the fact remains that a choice was made available, and no one was threatening force in order to coerce anyone into choosing one way or the other, and that's all that matters.