Case #1: You're a corporation, and in order to be profitable, you had better be productive. People surfing for porn aren't productive, and as such, are either prevented from doing so, or fired.
Case #2: You're government. You don't care about being productive, as you don't receive money by serving the public. You simply steal it from the public. With no profit motive, the overriding reason for being productive (at least for 99.9999% of the population) is missing, and no one much cares if you're "working" or surfing for porn. At least until it becomes an online scandal; then the taxpayers momentarily wonder why they're being willing victims.
If this blatantly unconstitutional proposal is enacted into law, your ISP bill is going up. You can't obliterate all principles of traffic management without requiring massive expenditures in expanding the existing infrastructure, which will no longer be able to prioritize traffic. This will force build-outs that are designed to carry close to expected worse-case scenarios. The initial effect of this, of course, would be progressively worse traffic slowdowns, the mid-term to long-term effect would be unnecessary traffic slowdowns, and the omnipresent effect would be paying more for your ISP than you would otherwise be willing to.
I am really curious if it thinks I'm gay (does it consider bisexuality?). Also, this could be useful as a dating tool; if you don't know if the object of your affections is gay or not, run them through MIT Gaydar, and then possibly feel more secure about asking them out.
...it's only a matter of time until, combining precedent with hideous abuse of the Commerce Clause, they finally manage to control the content of the internet traffic. Make no mistake, once the government has the power to control the traffic, whatever the rationale given to dupe the inattentive, it won't unilaterally decide not to then further its scope of control.
The underlying premise of praxeology is that it cannot be mathematically modeled. Once again, they are failing to discount the possibility that they may in fact be idiots.
The element of consent is the deciding factor. If one recognizes that the State is a despotic power that has incurred the debt in order to strengthen its regime and repress the population, then the debt is odious, and it belongs solely to the regime, and cannot legitimately be levied upon the people. On the other hand, if one supports or condones the State, they are themselves responsible for the actions of the State, even if only under dubious and discredited fictions, and they must shoulder the debt of their profligate rulers, their ultimate share of the debt being apportioned by their rulers' fancies.
Libertarianism is not a utilitarian philosophy; indeed, it rejects utilitarianism as immoral and violative of the fundamental rights of the individual. Libertarianism is predicated upon the non-aggression principle, which states that no individual may inflict violence against another, absent the exercise of the natural right of self-defense. Taxation is theft. It is the extortion of the fruits of ones labors, which per Locke, legitimately belongs only to the laboring individual. Taxation is parasitic, for it deprives the productive of their just earnings, and it operates through violence, or the threat thereof, for refusal to pay the State results in kidnapping, or worse. The libertarian does not object or withhold condemnation based upon the size of the crime. All true (non-victimless) crimes are evil, and all evil must be opposed, no matter how small or large.
What is anti-competitive about trying to prevent your customers from deciding to move to a competitor? That sounds pretty competitive, trying to keep your customers, while depriving your competition of the same. Now, customer lock-in is quite a nuisance, but the only thing you can't compete against, the State, does control the business environment in which the cell phone companies operate in. Having the State analyze the terms of a cell phone contract is a superficial distraction, a hide the ball parlor game to bamboozle the masses, narcotized by lullaby promises of government salvation. Acquiring the licenses, permits, etc. necessary to start a new cell phone company is quite expensive, and rather difficult. This is due to the State's regulatory apparatus. If true free-market competition is desired, so that a cell phone company that was annoying its customers by locking them in would immediately find itself going out of business as its customers flee to a multitude of other carriers with more liberal contracts, the answer is to kick the State out of the cell phone company arena.
In many cases, the regulatory organizations are self-funding. So this would be funded with a contract between the phone companies and the state. The phone companies voluntarily entered into a contract with a state that required them to fund the orgaization that provides oversight.
A regulatory organization cannot be self-funding, at least in the sense that a private corporation is self-funding. While the phone companies may have entered into a contract with the State to operate, this was not entered into freely and voluntarily. The State requires that the phone companies turn over the fruits of the labor to the State, or else face violent reprisals. That is no more voluntarily than if the local mafia allows you to run your cell phone store in the neighborhood, but only as long as you pay protection money for their "services."
They are using a finite public resource to bombard me with radiation. I have no way to opt out of receiving their signals without great expense on my part.
Tin foil hat? Or peculiar humor?
they are using resources that have been declared to be owned by me (The People). Pretty much nothing will let me legally use the spectrum allocated to them [the phone companies].
Doesn't sound like you own anything, despite the proclamations of the State. Another transparent shell game. Anything that is supposedly owned by "the people" somehow always ends up meaning control, and effective ownership, by Le'Etat.
There is something surreal about a post putatively defending "consumers" from cell phone companies, when those consumers are being forced at the threat of gunpoint to fund a "cell phone cost calculator," while on the other hand their interactions with cell phone companies are entirely voluntarily.
Libertarianism is defined by the non-aggression principle. Fascism, on the other hand, is a heresy of socialism, and not all forms of collectivism are fascism. Libertarianism has an acid test, whereas fascism is often too blended with other Statist and collectivist ideologies to accurately isolate.
I don't think Cato lies within the realm of pragmatic libertarianism, as they advocate non-libertarian ends. For instance, in the past, they have taken positions in favor of warrantless wiretapping, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9119, supported Bernanke before they were against him, and now are against software patents, but backing copyright. A pragmatic libertarian may not advocate means that would lead directly to libertarian ends, but they do not advocate means to achieve terminal non-libertarian ends.
I would consider Mises.org to be representative of true supporters of the free-market.
The Cato Institute is not free-market, nor is it libertarian. While it generally favors solutions closer to the free-market than absolute socialism, it is still solidly within the mainstream. It has never, to my knowledge, actually supported a free-market solution to anything, but rather socialism-lite, being governmental control over the economy with a velvet glove, as opposed to the iron fist of moderate or pure socialism.
It is nice to see Cato catching up to the real supporters of the free-market, who have been advocating for the abolishment of intellectual property for quite some time now.
Regime uncertainty is not conducive to investment. When the civil sector is in fear of vastly increased levels of governmental predation, resistance and survival are primary concerns, not expansion. One million high paying jobs and more could easily be created, if the monetary supply was frozen, corporate income taxes reduced to zero, personal income taxes cut to 10% or less, and the onerous regulatory regimes that have led to such disasters as the savings and loans crisis of the 1980's and the housing bubble of the 2000's was thrown into the ash heap of history, were it belongs. The managed market has been a spectacular failure, with each cascade being worse than the last. Only a return to free-market principles will create an environment for positive economic growth and stability, instead of the current chaotic nightmare of boom and bust, courtesy of the power seeking irrationality of the Federal Reserve and the Federal Government.
If there was someone "in charge" of the internet, we wouldn't be worried about being unable to change technical standards by proclaimed fiat, but instead about why we were using both ancient and nearing unworkable technical standards, and why we were unable to even apply band-aids to the problem, lest the ship be rocked, incompatibilities result, special interests slighted, and the status quo in danger of coming out of stasis.
1) I didn't read the story past the parent, so my mistake.
2) I meant "US," did not stop to think that the comment would be taken outside of the citation context. US, by itself, does refer to the US Supreme Court, in the sense that the preferred Bluebook citation format to the US Supreme Court is in the form of "x US y."
A US court is a court of the Federal government; it also happens to always mean the US Supreme Court when used in citations. What the uber-parent header should state is "Texas Court."
At least State governments are restricted in how much damage they can do in being unable to run long-term deficits. Mischievous government should be forced into foreclosure just as the imprudent individual. It will be a great day when the Capitol and White House are on the auction block in a desperate attempt to prevent the Federal Government from entering default.
Um, pretty amazing, it's appears incapable of running in Vista Business SP1, and attempting to run it results in a "elevated_%resolution%.exe has stopped working" error message. Don't know anyone who is going to bother to troubleshoot a demo, and kind of annoying that a 4KB program is so buggy and/or badly written that it can't run.
Slashdot Mirror
They should cut spending and live within their means, not reach out with a vampiric claw at the taxpayer's wallets.
Case #2: You're government. You don't care about being productive, as you don't receive money by serving the public. You simply steal it from the public. With no profit motive, the overriding reason for being productive (at least for 99.9999% of the population) is missing, and no one much cares if you're "working" or surfing for porn. At least until it becomes an online scandal; then the taxpayers momentarily wonder why they're being willing victims.
Thank god for welfare and patronage! How else could I pay for a boutique sports car that I will probably never be able to afford?
If this blatantly unconstitutional proposal is enacted into law, your ISP bill is going up. You can't obliterate all principles of traffic management without requiring massive expenditures in expanding the existing infrastructure, which will no longer be able to prioritize traffic. This will force build-outs that are designed to carry close to expected worse-case scenarios. The initial effect of this, of course, would be progressively worse traffic slowdowns, the mid-term to long-term effect would be unnecessary traffic slowdowns, and the omnipresent effect would be paying more for your ISP than you would otherwise be willing to.
What about being attracted to feminine men?
Didn't say it mattered, said I was curious if it had non-binary considerations.
I am really curious if it thinks I'm gay (does it consider bisexuality?). Also, this could be useful as a dating tool; if you don't know if the object of your affections is gay or not, run them through MIT Gaydar, and then possibly feel more secure about asking them out.
...it's only a matter of time until, combining precedent with hideous abuse of the Commerce Clause, they finally manage to control the content of the internet traffic. Make no mistake, once the government has the power to control the traffic, whatever the rationale given to dupe the inattentive, it won't unilaterally decide not to then further its scope of control.
So is that the processing power of one billion IBM PC 5150s?
The underlying premise of praxeology is that it cannot be mathematically modeled. Once again, they are failing to discount the possibility that they may in fact be idiots.
The element of consent is the deciding factor. If one recognizes that the State is a despotic power that has incurred the debt in order to strengthen its regime and repress the population, then the debt is odious, and it belongs solely to the regime, and cannot legitimately be levied upon the people. On the other hand, if one supports or condones the State, they are themselves responsible for the actions of the State, even if only under dubious and discredited fictions, and they must shoulder the debt of their profligate rulers, their ultimate share of the debt being apportioned by their rulers' fancies.
What is anti-competitive about trying to prevent your customers from deciding to move to a competitor? That sounds pretty competitive, trying to keep your customers, while depriving your competition of the same. Now, customer lock-in is quite a nuisance, but the only thing you can't compete against, the State, does control the business environment in which the cell phone companies operate in. Having the State analyze the terms of a cell phone contract is a superficial distraction, a hide the ball parlor game to bamboozle the masses, narcotized by lullaby promises of government salvation. Acquiring the licenses, permits, etc. necessary to start a new cell phone company is quite expensive, and rather difficult. This is due to the State's regulatory apparatus. If true free-market competition is desired, so that a cell phone company that was annoying its customers by locking them in would immediately find itself going out of business as its customers flee to a multitude of other carriers with more liberal contracts, the answer is to kick the State out of the cell phone company arena.
A regulatory organization cannot be self-funding, at least in the sense that a private corporation is self-funding. While the phone companies may have entered into a contract with the State to operate, this was not entered into freely and voluntarily. The State requires that the phone companies turn over the fruits of the labor to the State, or else face violent reprisals. That is no more voluntarily than if the local mafia allows you to run your cell phone store in the neighborhood, but only as long as you pay protection money for their "services."
Tin foil hat? Or peculiar humor?
Doesn't sound like you own anything, despite the proclamations of the State. Another transparent shell game. Anything that is supposedly owned by "the people" somehow always ends up meaning control, and effective ownership, by Le'Etat.
There is something surreal about a post putatively defending "consumers" from cell phone companies, when those consumers are being forced at the threat of gunpoint to fund a "cell phone cost calculator," while on the other hand their interactions with cell phone companies are entirely voluntarily.
Libertarianism is defined by the non-aggression principle. Fascism, on the other hand, is a heresy of socialism, and not all forms of collectivism are fascism. Libertarianism has an acid test, whereas fascism is often too blended with other Statist and collectivist ideologies to accurately isolate.
I would consider Mises.org to be representative of true supporters of the free-market.
It is nice to see Cato catching up to the real supporters of the free-market, who have been advocating for the abolishment of intellectual property for quite some time now.
Regime uncertainty is not conducive to investment. When the civil sector is in fear of vastly increased levels of governmental predation, resistance and survival are primary concerns, not expansion. One million high paying jobs and more could easily be created, if the monetary supply was frozen, corporate income taxes reduced to zero, personal income taxes cut to 10% or less, and the onerous regulatory regimes that have led to such disasters as the savings and loans crisis of the 1980's and the housing bubble of the 2000's was thrown into the ash heap of history, were it belongs. The managed market has been a spectacular failure, with each cascade being worse than the last. Only a return to free-market principles will create an environment for positive economic growth and stability, instead of the current chaotic nightmare of boom and bust, courtesy of the power seeking irrationality of the Federal Reserve and the Federal Government.
If there was someone "in charge" of the internet, we wouldn't be worried about being unable to change technical standards by proclaimed fiat, but instead about why we were using both ancient and nearing unworkable technical standards, and why we were unable to even apply band-aids to the problem, lest the ship be rocked, incompatibilities result, special interests slighted, and the status quo in danger of coming out of stasis.
2) I meant "US," did not stop to think that the comment would be taken outside of the citation context. US, by itself, does refer to the US Supreme Court, in the sense that the preferred Bluebook citation format to the US Supreme Court is in the form of "x US y."
A US court is a court of the Federal government; it also happens to always mean the US Supreme Court when used in citations. What the uber-parent header should state is "Texas Court."
Patriots love their country. Those corrupted by power and lucre love government.
At least State governments are restricted in how much damage they can do in being unable to run long-term deficits. Mischievous government should be forced into foreclosure just as the imprudent individual. It will be a great day when the Capitol and White House are on the auction block in a desperate attempt to prevent the Federal Government from entering default.
Um, pretty amazing, it's appears incapable of running in Vista Business SP1, and attempting to run it results in a "elevated_%resolution%.exe has stopped working" error message. Don't know anyone who is going to bother to troubleshoot a demo, and kind of annoying that a 4KB program is so buggy and/or badly written that it can't run.
Free, eh? So no taxes or anything are involved, huh?