Adding additional information does not negate other statements.
As to who is going to be responsible for managing the access to right of way... I don't really care so long as they do a competent job at it. It can either be the government or it can be leased to a managing corporation that will handle it.
Whatever the town or city wants to do. I don't care. So long as the process is open to due process... in the even that there is a problem, I want the managing entity to be accountable to a court of law.
I can't speak to the canadian experience because I don't know the details. The US situation is not readily apparent. You have to have specific knowledge of what is going on at various locations and collect those enmass to form patterns to grasp the climate of the competition environment.
To say "just look at canada" without providing the information to actually gauge their competition environment is not useful to me. You would either have to provide me with detailed information especially from competitors to the big three on a case by case basis or I would have to find that information myself.
I don't have the time for that personally and I doubt you're going to provide it.
You assume that the public institutions are less corruptible. They're not. I've had enough contact with them to realize they're frequently much cheaper to bribe than corporations because the corporations don't draw on tax dollars. For general operating expenses the government runs on taxes and then the officials can be bribed with chump change.
Corporations have to be bribed with enough money to make a difference to their bottom line. That's a lot more money than whatever it takes to bribe three or four city councilors. You can frequently do it with less then 20 thousand dollars total. You're not going to bribe a big corporation with chump change like that.
There are actually. They don't permit ISPs from operating unless they agree to provide access to the whole city. You can't just provide access to one part of a city and not the rest. This prices smaller operations out of the market by default.
And then the big ISPs will say "we'll offer discounted/subsidized internet service to poor people... make sure that our rivals do the same thing"... only the big ISPs won't advertise or tell anyone besides the politicians about these programs. So no poor people will actually get this service while of course the less jaded and corrupt rivals will feel obligated to offer the service honestly.
I've lived in Los Angeles all my life, sport. There are infinite ways to exclude someone from business in my city if the city council wants to do it. And they've been bribed to do it.
There's so much hypocrisy and double talk in this that I refuse to deal with it all. Its like a Gordian knot of stupid.
Here are our options... you can either start over and keep the argument simple so you're not tempted to horrible cloud the issue with more bullshit.
Or we can finish right here.
Your choice. I read through about half of your post before I just started laughing at nonsense.
Seriously... I'm happy to discuss this with you but I'm not interested in playing a lot of silly rhetorical games with you. Either discuss this straight up or don't waste my time.
As to escalating quickly, I have a low tolerance for sophistry.
As to it being unreasonable to legislate against any possible problem that is hyperbole. No where did I say you should legislate or try to compensate for literally everything. Rather you counter what you see to be likely problems and you invest resources that you feel are reasonable to deal with that problem.
As to the US federal government, I proved to you in the last post that the founders built the structure of the country to deal with corruption and power grabs despite those not at that time happening to any great extent. They responded to something that they assumed would happen in the future. Suggesting that people don't do this or that it is unreasonable to do this is irrational.
I'm actually just bored of this tangent. So if you try to use this "I don't like theoretical arguments" point, I'm going to ignore it and everything attached to it. Which means if you don't stop trying to sell sophistry at me... I'm going to start seeing your posts like this "Null"... and that leaves us nothing to discuss.
So for the sake of argument whatever your misguided beliefs on the issue... stop using that line. It is literally offensive to anyone with a speck of wisdom.
As to people not being genuine in their intentions, that is your opinion. There is no evidence of that and the law itself doesn't support your position. All you're saying is that you don't like someone and because they wrote something you don't trust it. By this genius logic, should I reflexively oppose everything you do because I don't like you?
Or should I be bigger than that and try to find common ground? Should I try to see what you're trying to do and give you the benefit of the doubt?
Because... here are our options.
1. We can grant each other common courtesy and not reflexively assume the other is trying to fuck us over while lying about everything.
2. Or we can get out the straight razors and slit each other's throats in the dark?
I'd personally prefer option one because I'm a reasonable and civilized person. But too many of you half educated children seem to think you're going to win everything by just playing power politics.
By steamrolling and refusing to discuss things honestly... you're creating an environment where power politics IS the discussion. That means facts don't matter... that means reason doesn't matter. That means the greater good doesn't matter.
All that will matter is power. Power will determine everything and power will justify everything. Those with power will always be right and those without it will always be wrong.
You are creating a world where anything is permissible in the pursuit of power. And once you have it all is forgiven.
This the price of being factional and supporting a side and opposing a side indifferent to reason or logic or facts or arguments or reason. If you just vote for something because someone with a D after their name signed it or oppose something because someone with an R after their name signed it... then you're damned.
Be better than that. The republic needs us to be better than that.
Don't tell me the government is free from corruption. Obviously people in the government are corrupt on occasion and no branch or part of the government is immune. In this case I think ti was the parks service. But it can be any part. The secret service were off getting blow jobs in Panama. The NSA does things all the time that are crazy. We've had air marshals manipulating schedules to get free flights to places. We've had FBI agents put ex wives on no fly lists. I mean, get real.
It is not unreasonable to ask the EPA to have solid science behind their position that can be examined by congress or a judge. If the EPA is above board... then fine. Close down that factory or whatever they're trying to do. That's great. That's what we pay them for after all.
However, they're not immune from due process. If they do things those things have to be open to audit and they have to have justification for doing it.
The EPA is doing stupid shit all the time. There was a guy in Wyoming that wanted to put a duck pond in his backyard and he was forbidden from doing it for basically no reason.
As to reproducing data, I don't think that is what is being asked. They're asking for the analysis to be done by two independent groups and for the data to be open to audit.
That's it.
I'm not trying to be a dick about it. I respect the EPA's right and responsibility to look out for the environment. But they have to do so with integrity.
As to wastes of resources, it isn't a waste if you want to use the study as policy.
If you just want to do science PERIOD... then you don't need to do this. However, if you want to force people by law to do what you say or you're going to shoot them... with guns... then maybe it is reasonable to double check the study.
You're not seeing the big picture. You're thinking "what happens if this happens in one place"... you're not seeing what happens if it happens EVERYWHERE.
Imagine a thousand small local ISPs starting up around the country all just trying to serve one or two neighborhoods. These are small ISPs that have ambitions of growing but they need to start somewhere.
You're saying that the incumbant ISPs will cut prices... EVERYWHERE? They can't unless they're over billing you. If they do everywhere below operating costs they'll go out of business. They can only afford to dump prices in one place if they can pay for it with higher prices in other markets. But if they are challenged in every major city in the US... in every major suburb... then exactly how are they going to pay for your scheme?
Its like saying Subway can drive other sandwich shops out of business by dropping their prices. They can't drop prices below operating expenses. Which means if they can drop the prices that low it means they are profitable while making less money and that is to the consumer's benefit because you and me will pay less money.
But if they drop their prices below operating costs then they'll just go out of business.
Small businesses compete with larger businesses all the time by doing something better then the big companies if only in one place. Any consumer in that one place will use the smaller business that is offering the better deal.
To the extent of creating a right of way for any ISP to run cable in any territory so long as it pays reasonable tolls... Sure. You can use the feds to do that.
Beyond that... no net neutrality legislation or regulation is required. Competition will force net neutrality without government intervention by giving consumers the power to vote with their feet.
If Comcast starts filtering your communications you could just switch to any of the other providers that are comparable. You instantly bypass their filtering and you send a message to comcast that their board of directors and CEO will understand. Do this and lose a customer.
Right because it makes sense to only have one shoe company. After all, all those competing shoe companies just reduce the profits of the shoe company and cause prices to go up.
Right? Because in your universe, competition causes prices to go UP?
You've failed econ 101. Take a basic economics class before you comment again.
First, the network cables would all run in a common conduit or possibly on the poll if not many people were running cable. So its not going to be a huge deal. It will just be a pipe with several different companies all running able. I expect you won't have more then 5 or 6 at most unless it is a dense urban environment. In NYC you could very easily have 20 competing ISPs in the same area and be quite profitable. The higher the density the more reasonable it is to have more ISPs overlapping. In very rural areas you'll probably only have one or two ISPs still.
Second, not all 20 ISPs are going to run the cable from the conduit to your house. Just the ones you have contracted with. Water pipes for example from the water main to your house are typically YOUR responsibility. If they break or have an issue that is your issue. By this token, the reasonable solution would be to have a cable run from your house to the conduit... and that cable would be YOUR cable. The company you've contracted with would connect YOUR cable to a switch at the site. You don't have to run 20 cables from the conduit to your home unless you're using 20 different services at once which seems unlikely. There could be 20 cables in the conduit... but I only need ONE from the conduit to my home.
You had the monopoly of the Bell telephone companies prior to the deregulation you're bitching about so really I don't know what the fuck you're smoking.
You're just repeating crap the monopolies tell you to repeat.
This notion that they're not profitable unless they have a monopoly is bullshit. Consider cellphones. Why must AT&T have a line monopoly in your area to remain profitable but all the cell phone companies can all operate with overlapping cell tower coverage in the same area without a problem?
The wire is not expensive. If you run fiber... its quite reasonable. Price it. The wire is cheap. And the routers and switches are also cheap.
Show you're not just another fucktard on the internet and someone worthy of being on a more technically literate forum by actually knowing what this shit costs. Its not that expensive if you just look at the cost of the equipment and the wire.
What kills you is the government regulations and the leasing fees for polls and conduits. Those are generally over priced because cities are greedy fucks on the subject. And that is largely what keeps the duopoly going.
The big ISPs pay off the cities and the cities grant them exclusive contracts.
If it were impossible to compete logistically then you wouldn't be literally forbidding companies from doing it. You'd just let them try and fail. But you're not doing that. You're forbidding them by law from competing.
Which is ACTUALLY why there is no competition. Not because it is impossible. But because corrupt politicians got bought off.
You can't compare people running cable with people running water pipes.
One the cable is not that expensive. Price it. Look at what this shit costs. Its not that expensive especially if you go fiber which is the only rational thing to do at this point.
Two it doesn't take up that much space. If you ran a 1000 megabit line to every house it would still be cheap.
Three as this myth that you can't remain profitable unless you have a monopoly. All monopolists say that. They've said that about everything. People have even made that argument about automobiles and computers.
Hmmm... not required really. A company that had the primary business of building, maintaining, and then leasing space in the conduits would have an interest to have as many people running cable in the conduit as possible.
So long as that happens, I'm not especially concerned with the rest. I want competition. I get competition and I'm happy.
First, they're running those conduits on government land by default. So the land is leased and not strictly the company's.
Second, letting other companies rent or lease space in the conduit for their own cable is much less prone to issues then forcing everyone to lease bandwidth from someone else's cable. After all, they're under no obligation to actually have enough bandwidth or under any obligation to offer that bandwidth at a reasonable rate. Here you might say "but are they required to have enough space in the conduit? I see no reason why that couldn't be a stipulation. By all means, make people running the cable pay for upgrade costs if they have to happen. But really, the leasing fees for people running cable should be more then enough to maintain and expand the conduit.
The conduit is a pipe buried in the ground with regular access points. If lots of people want to run cable in it then that is lots of people willing to pay the conduit fees and those fees should be more then enough to pay for whatever needs to happen. Its not that expensive. Its a fucking pipe in the ground. Nothing fancy.
No they're not because the internet basically didn't exist back then. What is more, practically everything of note has happened since then. So in fact the system has grown up in the previous environment.
Saying "but this is how they regulated phones in the 1930s" is fucking asinine.
Now, I'm not saying the regs are going to be good or bad. I really don't know and NEITHER DO YOU. No one knows because they haven't disclosed them yet.
But frankly, I'm not optimistic because they've done so many dumb things lately that it gives me no confidence that they're doing something right here.
I want this to work. I want it to be great. I really do. I just don't have any faith that the people making these decisions are either wise enough to make sound policy or have our interests in mind.
You can't confiscate guns from criminals. With this machine criminals will always have access to guns.
Period.
The only question is whether you want law abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves.
The division largely falls on whether you see citizens as peasants or not.
You can take weapons away from peasants. They shouldn't have them anyway, filthy animals. But citizens are halfway between peasants and nobility. And you don't take guns away from the nobility. They won't let you. They'll literally shoot you in the face if you try it.
The argument over guns is that many people feel citizens are more peasants than nobles and some feel citizens are more nobles than peasants.
That's what it boils down to.
Peasants don't really have rights as such. There's no Magna Carta for peasants. You give them what you need to give them to keep them working.
Nobles however can walk right up to the king, look him in the face, and tell him that he can't do something if the king is overstepping some agreement. The nobility won't permit it.
And that's what the gun debate at least is all about.
But it doesn't really matter anymore... because micro manufacturing makes it impractical to deny the ownership of goods through the regulation of stores and manufacturers. The manufacturing system becomes too distributed and defuse to regulate. No government agent is going to rubber stamp literally every thing that comes off your mill. So they can't stop it.
Once they've adapted to that reality and that might take another generation. Human beings are often inflexible and lacking in imagination. Look at the drug war for example... that they didn't see that one coming is further evidence of the point. But eventually they're going to lose this one.
It might take 50 years for them to finally admit it. But they can't win it.
Slashdot Mirror
Adding additional information does not negate other statements.
As to who is going to be responsible for managing the access to right of way... I don't really care so long as they do a competent job at it. It can either be the government or it can be leased to a managing corporation that will handle it.
Whatever the town or city wants to do. I don't care. So long as the process is open to due process... in the even that there is a problem, I want the managing entity to be accountable to a court of law.
I can't speak to the canadian experience because I don't know the details. The US situation is not readily apparent. You have to have specific knowledge of what is going on at various locations and collect those enmass to form patterns to grasp the climate of the competition environment.
To say "just look at canada" without providing the information to actually gauge their competition environment is not useful to me. You would either have to provide me with detailed information especially from competitors to the big three on a case by case basis or I would have to find that information myself.
I don't have the time for that personally and I doubt you're going to provide it.
You assume that the public institutions are less corruptible. They're not. I've had enough contact with them to realize they're frequently much cheaper to bribe than corporations because the corporations don't draw on tax dollars. For general operating expenses the government runs on taxes and then the officials can be bribed with chump change.
Corporations have to be bribed with enough money to make a difference to their bottom line. That's a lot more money than whatever it takes to bribe three or four city councilors. You can frequently do it with less then 20 thousand dollars total. You're not going to bribe a big corporation with chump change like that.
There are actually. They don't permit ISPs from operating unless they agree to provide access to the whole city. You can't just provide access to one part of a city and not the rest. This prices smaller operations out of the market by default.
And then the big ISPs will say "we'll offer discounted/subsidized internet service to poor people... make sure that our rivals do the same thing"... only the big ISPs won't advertise or tell anyone besides the politicians about these programs. So no poor people will actually get this service while of course the less jaded and corrupt rivals will feel obligated to offer the service honestly.
I've lived in Los Angeles all my life, sport. There are infinite ways to exclude someone from business in my city if the city council wants to do it. And they've been bribed to do it.
Ehm... if you like... but the primary obstacle is the prohibition on access.
that could be coordinated rather easily.
Why do people assume that you can't be reasonable? Just work out something sensible. Its not that hard.
I provided an example about an oyster farm in california. So... suck it.
here it is again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
There's so much hypocrisy and double talk in this that I refuse to deal with it all. Its like a Gordian knot of stupid.
Here are our options... you can either start over and keep the argument simple so you're not tempted to horrible cloud the issue with more bullshit.
Or we can finish right here.
Your choice. I read through about half of your post before I just started laughing at nonsense.
Seriously... I'm happy to discuss this with you but I'm not interested in playing a lot of silly rhetorical games with you. Either discuss this straight up or don't waste my time.
As to escalating quickly, I have a low tolerance for sophistry.
As to it being unreasonable to legislate against any possible problem that is hyperbole. No where did I say you should legislate or try to compensate for literally everything. Rather you counter what you see to be likely problems and you invest resources that you feel are reasonable to deal with that problem.
As to the US federal government, I proved to you in the last post that the founders built the structure of the country to deal with corruption and power grabs despite those not at that time happening to any great extent. They responded to something that they assumed would happen in the future. Suggesting that people don't do this or that it is unreasonable to do this is irrational.
I'm actually just bored of this tangent. So if you try to use this "I don't like theoretical arguments" point, I'm going to ignore it and everything attached to it. Which means if you don't stop trying to sell sophistry at me... I'm going to start seeing your posts like this "Null"... and that leaves us nothing to discuss.
So for the sake of argument whatever your misguided beliefs on the issue... stop using that line. It is literally offensive to anyone with a speck of wisdom.
As to people not being genuine in their intentions, that is your opinion. There is no evidence of that and the law itself doesn't support your position. All you're saying is that you don't like someone and because they wrote something you don't trust it. By this genius logic, should I reflexively oppose everything you do because I don't like you?
Or should I be bigger than that and try to find common ground? Should I try to see what you're trying to do and give you the benefit of the doubt?
Because... here are our options.
1. We can grant each other common courtesy and not reflexively assume the other is trying to fuck us over while lying about everything.
2. Or we can get out the straight razors and slit each other's throats in the dark?
I'd personally prefer option one because I'm a reasonable and civilized person. But too many of you half educated children seem to think you're going to win everything by just playing power politics.
By steamrolling and refusing to discuss things honestly... you're creating an environment where power politics IS the discussion. That means facts don't matter... that means reason doesn't matter. That means the greater good doesn't matter.
All that will matter is power. Power will determine everything and power will justify everything. Those with power will always be right and those without it will always be wrong.
You are creating a world where anything is permissible in the pursuit of power. And once you have it all is forgiven.
This the price of being factional and supporting a side and opposing a side indifferent to reason or logic or facts or arguments or reason. If you just vote for something because someone with a D after their name signed it or oppose something because someone with an R after their name signed it... then you're damned.
Be better than that. The republic needs us to be better than that.
Here is a video on the oyster thing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Don't tell me the government is free from corruption. Obviously people in the government are corrupt on occasion and no branch or part of the government is immune. In this case I think ti was the parks service. But it can be any part. The secret service were off getting blow jobs in Panama. The NSA does things all the time that are crazy. We've had air marshals manipulating schedules to get free flights to places. We've had FBI agents put ex wives on no fly lists. I mean, get real.
It is not unreasonable to ask the EPA to have solid science behind their position that can be examined by congress or a judge. If the EPA is above board... then fine. Close down that factory or whatever they're trying to do. That's great. That's what we pay them for after all.
However, they're not immune from due process. If they do things those things have to be open to audit and they have to have justification for doing it.
The EPA is doing stupid shit all the time. There was a guy in Wyoming that wanted to put a duck pond in his backyard and he was forbidden from doing it for basically no reason.
http://www.coloradonewsday.com...
As to reproducing data, I don't think that is what is being asked. They're asking for the analysis to be done by two independent groups and for the data to be open to audit.
That's it.
I'm not trying to be a dick about it. I respect the EPA's right and responsibility to look out for the environment. But they have to do so with integrity.
As to wastes of resources, it isn't a waste if you want to use the study as policy.
If you just want to do science PERIOD... then you don't need to do this. However, if you want to force people by law to do what you say or you're going to shoot them... with guns... then maybe it is reasonable to double check the study.
Eh?
No, that's like calling the roads monopolies.
Stay away from analogies... you're bad at them.
Mr AC, please tell me how I fucked up in enough detail that anyone can know what the fuck you are talking about. Thanks.
You're not seeing the big picture. You're thinking "what happens if this happens in one place"... you're not seeing what happens if it happens EVERYWHERE.
Imagine a thousand small local ISPs starting up around the country all just trying to serve one or two neighborhoods. These are small ISPs that have ambitions of growing but they need to start somewhere.
You're saying that the incumbant ISPs will cut prices... EVERYWHERE? They can't unless they're over billing you. If they do everywhere below operating costs they'll go out of business. They can only afford to dump prices in one place if they can pay for it with higher prices in other markets. But if they are challenged in every major city in the US... in every major suburb... then exactly how are they going to pay for your scheme?
Its like saying Subway can drive other sandwich shops out of business by dropping their prices. They can't drop prices below operating expenses. Which means if they can drop the prices that low it means they are profitable while making less money and that is to the consumer's benefit because you and me will pay less money.
But if they drop their prices below operating costs then they'll just go out of business.
Small businesses compete with larger businesses all the time by doing something better then the big companies if only in one place. Any consumer in that one place will use the smaller business that is offering the better deal.
This is not rocket science.
To the extent of creating a right of way for any ISP to run cable in any territory so long as it pays reasonable tolls... Sure. You can use the feds to do that.
Beyond that... no net neutrality legislation or regulation is required. Competition will force net neutrality without government intervention by giving consumers the power to vote with their feet.
If Comcast starts filtering your communications you could just switch to any of the other providers that are comparable. You instantly bypass their filtering and you send a message to comcast that their board of directors and CEO will understand. Do this and lose a customer.
Short of that, this is just a circle jerk.
Right because it makes sense to only have one shoe company. After all, all those competing shoe companies just reduce the profits of the shoe company and cause prices to go up.
Right? Because in your universe, competition causes prices to go UP?
You've failed econ 101. Take a basic economics class before you comment again.
First, the network cables would all run in a common conduit or possibly on the poll if not many people were running cable. So its not going to be a huge deal. It will just be a pipe with several different companies all running able. I expect you won't have more then 5 or 6 at most unless it is a dense urban environment. In NYC you could very easily have 20 competing ISPs in the same area and be quite profitable. The higher the density the more reasonable it is to have more ISPs overlapping. In very rural areas you'll probably only have one or two ISPs still.
Second, not all 20 ISPs are going to run the cable from the conduit to your house. Just the ones you have contracted with. Water pipes for example from the water main to your house are typically YOUR responsibility. If they break or have an issue that is your issue. By this token, the reasonable solution would be to have a cable run from your house to the conduit... and that cable would be YOUR cable. The company you've contracted with would connect YOUR cable to a switch at the site. You don't have to run 20 cables from the conduit to your home unless you're using 20 different services at once which seems unlikely. There could be 20 cables in the conduit... but I only need ONE from the conduit to my home.
No, its just the inherent implication of my statement. You wanted clarification and I provided it.
Allowing companies right of way to run cable is largely a matter of removing existing exclusive contracts that forbid them from doing so.
You had the monopoly of the Bell telephone companies prior to the deregulation you're bitching about so really I don't know what the fuck you're smoking.
You're just repeating crap the monopolies tell you to repeat.
This notion that they're not profitable unless they have a monopoly is bullshit. Consider cellphones. Why must AT&T have a line monopoly in your area to remain profitable but all the cell phone companies can all operate with overlapping cell tower coverage in the same area without a problem?
The wire is not expensive. If you run fiber... its quite reasonable. Price it. The wire is cheap. And the routers and switches are also cheap.
Show you're not just another fucktard on the internet and someone worthy of being on a more technically literate forum by actually knowing what this shit costs. Its not that expensive if you just look at the cost of the equipment and the wire.
What kills you is the government regulations and the leasing fees for polls and conduits. Those are generally over priced because cities are greedy fucks on the subject. And that is largely what keeps the duopoly going.
The big ISPs pay off the cities and the cities grant them exclusive contracts.
If it were impossible to compete logistically then you wouldn't be literally forbidding companies from doing it. You'd just let them try and fail. But you're not doing that. You're forbidding them by law from competing.
Which is ACTUALLY why there is no competition. Not because it is impossible. But because corrupt politicians got bought off.
You can't compare people running cable with people running water pipes.
One the cable is not that expensive. Price it. Look at what this shit costs. Its not that expensive especially if you go fiber which is the only rational thing to do at this point.
Two it doesn't take up that much space. If you ran a 1000 megabit line to every house it would still be cheap.
Three as this myth that you can't remain profitable unless you have a monopoly. All monopolists say that. They've said that about everything. People have even made that argument about automobiles and computers.
Its a myth. Sorry.
Hmmm... not required really. A company that had the primary business of building, maintaining, and then leasing space in the conduits would have an interest to have as many people running cable in the conduit as possible.
So long as that happens, I'm not especially concerned with the rest. I want competition. I get competition and I'm happy.
First, they're running those conduits on government land by default. So the land is leased and not strictly the company's.
Second, letting other companies rent or lease space in the conduit for their own cable is much less prone to issues then forcing everyone to lease bandwidth from someone else's cable. After all, they're under no obligation to actually have enough bandwidth or under any obligation to offer that bandwidth at a reasonable rate. Here you might say "but are they required to have enough space in the conduit? I see no reason why that couldn't be a stipulation. By all means, make people running the cable pay for upgrade costs if they have to happen. But really, the leasing fees for people running cable should be more then enough to maintain and expand the conduit.
The conduit is a pipe buried in the ground with regular access points. If lots of people want to run cable in it then that is lots of people willing to pay the conduit fees and those fees should be more then enough to pay for whatever needs to happen. Its not that expensive. Its a fucking pipe in the ground. Nothing fancy.
No they're not because the internet basically didn't exist back then. What is more, practically everything of note has happened since then. So in fact the system has grown up in the previous environment.
Saying "but this is how they regulated phones in the 1930s" is fucking asinine.
Now, I'm not saying the regs are going to be good or bad. I really don't know and NEITHER DO YOU. No one knows because they haven't disclosed them yet.
But frankly, I'm not optimistic because they've done so many dumb things lately that it gives me no confidence that they're doing something right here.
I want this to work. I want it to be great. I really do. I just don't have any faith that the people making these decisions are either wise enough to make sound policy or have our interests in mind.
The thing is that it doesn't matter whether they admit or not.
On this issue they're about as likely to get traction as a plucked chicken is to fly. Its beyond futile.
Its over. They might as well try CPR on a mummy. Completely fucking pointless.
You can't confiscate guns from criminals. With this machine criminals will always have access to guns.
Period.
The only question is whether you want law abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves.
The division largely falls on whether you see citizens as peasants or not.
You can take weapons away from peasants. They shouldn't have them anyway, filthy animals. But citizens are halfway between peasants and nobility. And you don't take guns away from the nobility. They won't let you. They'll literally shoot you in the face if you try it.
The argument over guns is that many people feel citizens are more peasants than nobles and some feel citizens are more nobles than peasants.
That's what it boils down to.
Peasants don't really have rights as such. There's no Magna Carta for peasants. You give them what you need to give them to keep them working.
Nobles however can walk right up to the king, look him in the face, and tell him that he can't do something if the king is overstepping some agreement. The nobility won't permit it.
And that's what the gun debate at least is all about.
But it doesn't really matter anymore... because micro manufacturing makes it impractical to deny the ownership of goods through the regulation of stores and manufacturers. The manufacturing system becomes too distributed and defuse to regulate. No government agent is going to rubber stamp literally every thing that comes off your mill. So they can't stop it.
Once they've adapted to that reality and that might take another generation. Human beings are often inflexible and lacking in imagination. Look at the drug war for example... that they didn't see that one coming is further evidence of the point. But eventually they're going to lose this one.
It might take 50 years for them to finally admit it. But they can't win it.
this micro manufacturing stuff is checkmate.