Of course telecom infrastructure is necessary, or at least desirable. My point was that state ownership of the means of production is neither necessary nor economically advantageous. Would you agree that competitive private enterprise invariably produces goods and services of lower cost and higher quality than do government monopolies?
they are operated by the people and in the people's interest.
It would be nice if that were always true. Unfortunately public services often end up being operated by politicians, for politicians. There is less accountability than in the private sector, lots of mismanagement, and sometimes even outright corruption. Outsourcing to private firms helps somewhat, but still leaves room for contract padding and old-boy networks.
Again, I'd like to see cable television deregulated and opened up to competition. The state should at most sell right-of-way trench and pole access at-cost, to all companies who want to pay for it. It should not be in the business of running a head end, routers, uplinks, proxy servers, billing systems, etc. Private ISPs already do a great job - why would we want the government to take over control of a healthy, competitive industry? That makes no sense whatsoever.
Doesn't anyone else think that the people should empower themselves this way?
I'd prefer to see the elimination of laws that prevent competition in the cable industry. I don't believe that operating a telecom company (or sports stadium, golf course, etc.) is a proper function of government, nor is it necessary or practical.
But that's not the point. Why prevent adults from spending their money the way THEY see fit? Why is gambling illegal?
In general, adults should not be permitted to make their own personal decisions. All choices should be made by the smarter and more capable ruling political class - NEVER by individuals. The ruling class should dictate which schools your children will go to, what they will learn, what features may be integrated in computer operating systems, what types of entertainment and information you may access, and so on - all the way down to the exact capacity of your toilet bowl.
Think of what kind of fucked up world it would be if everyone was free to make their own personal decisions in social and economic matters. It would be utter chaos! People everywhere would be running naked in the streets with carrots hanging out of their ears.
For God's sake, man - can't you think of the children?!
Common sense would suggest that encouraging the rich to gamble while discouraging the poor from throwing away what little money they have might achieve a more equitable assessment of revenue-raising among the people.
Common sense would suggest that rich people have gotten that way in part from saving their money and investing wisely, even though they may have started out poor. Likewise, poor people have gotten that way in part from poor money management, even though they may have started out rich. Why we would want to discourage frugality by encouraging gambling among people of any income level is beyond me.
Anyway, the government squanders and wastes almost all of the outrageous amounts it takes from us already. It doesn't need or deserve any more revenue.
If Ralph Nader receives >= 5% of the popular vote, the Green Party will qualify for federal campaign money for the 2004 election.
The Libertarian Party has never accepted federal matching funds, despite qualifying for them. They have always relied entirely on voluntary donations, because of the belief that it's immoral to take your money by force and spend it on things you don't believe in.
That's just one of many differences between the two. I would echo what Hard_Code said... put some time into researching the candidates (webwhiteblue.org is a good start) and vote for who you believe in without regard to who's ahead in the polls, etc.
There was something early farmers used to organize against the oligarchy of rails, called a grange, basically giving a group bargaining power, like unions.
That would explain the origin of all the Grange Halls that my friends used to host 3-bands-for-3-bucks punk shows at. I knew they were there for something, but nobody could ever tell me what a 'grange' was. You have solved one of the greatest mysteries of all time.
In any case, what I want to know is WHY don't they allow cometitive cable companies?
Economic theory about natural monopolies was in vogue at the time. The idea was that no two companies could coexist in the same region because there was only room for one set of wires. Or that we'd have too many wires running all over the place, or something like that. This was before fiber became common. The same natural monopoly reasoning was applied to both telephone and cable TV companies. It seems rather laughable to me today, the idea that competing telecom companies can't exist in the same market region. Here in my mid-size city I have dozens of dialup ISPs, several DSL ISPs, two CLEC's, a cable ISP, plus all of the national options for wireless, satellite, etc.
liberalism: The creed of those who believe in individual liberty. More specifically, since "no government allows absolute liberty" (Locke), it is the belief that it is desirable to maximize the amount of liberty in the state. [Encyclopaedia Britannica]
Methinks that the word 'liberal' has come to have an entirely different meaning here in the States than it does in the UK. The definition you offer is what I would call 'classical liberalism'. Modern U.S. liberalism calls for greater government control over just about everything. Come to think of it, so does modern U.S. conservatism. If it weren't for the little donkey and elephant pictures, I don't think I'd be able to tell the difference between the major party candidates.
Relax, Chachi. The poster does have a point that I think you're misunderstanding. Cable companies are protected monopolies within their territory. They are given exclusive franchises by state and local regulatory agencies, and it is illegal for anyone to compete with them. Go ahead, try to start a competing cable TV service in your area... the government will put you out of business so fast it will make your head spin.
You could keep the infrequently-watched stuff in a robot-operated tape library... but keep just enough of the show on hard drive to allow it to start playing while the robot retrieved and loaded the full program.
How is MS "bundling" of internet explorer any different than say linux "bundling" telnet, or apple "bundling" email or quicktime?
It's not, from a practical or technical perspective. It's also not any different from KDE bundling Konqueror, or GNOME bundling a browser compon, or Red Hat shipping with Mozilla.
I understand your angle, but there's something to be said for using reason and persuasion instead of drowning out your opponent and denying them freedom of movement and assembly. IMHO, using coercion to silence unpopular speech is wrong whether it's perpetrated by governments, corporations, or angry mobs of Seattle Non-Anarchists.
Isn't the possibility of industrial sabotage between competing space firms[...]
Um, when was the last time you heard of a Pizza Hut manager breaking into Domino's and disabling their oven?
Though far-fetched in light of humanity's current position, but do we really want the interests of a profit-driven corporation be placed before the scientific and diplomatic interests of a government agency if humanity encounters alien life in future?
Would these be the same government agencies that kill, imprison and wage wars? Or different ones?
I can see world leaders freaking out and bombing any aliens we meet the same way they do other races today. Profit-driven corporations might actually have an incentive to be more diplomatic, since the aliens could turn out to be trading partners in the future.
Competition works well in a free market because the metric by which competitors are measured is both well-defined and easily agreed upon by all. Whoever makes the most money is the best competitor.
I understand what you're saying, but private-sector does not necessarily mean for-profit. Competition is quite present among not-for-profit private organizations.
Example A: Private, voluntary charities like United Way, Red Cross, Habitat for Humanity, free clinics, etc.
Example B: Private preschool and K-12 schools, and the growing national networks of charter schools, private schools and school management companies like Edison Schools, Success For All, Hirsch Core Knowledge schools, Thomas Sizer's Coalition of Essential Schools, and Replications, Inc. Many if not most of these are not-for-profit.
These organizations and not-for-profit corporations have to compete with each other for funding, a.k.a. voluntary contributions. They have to earn the trust and financial support of donors by showing integrity, effectiveness and fiscal responsibility.
In contrast, government agencies are generally... how do you say in America? Wasteful and ineffective? NASA seems to be *slightly* better run than the average federal agency, but it would seem there is room for a lot of improvement.
My point with this long-ass, sleep-deprived, love-the-free-market rant is:
Why couldn't we have a space exploration effort run by a private, not-for-profit organization? Or even several competing ones? Set up a secure credit card form, get linked on Slashdot - boom! There's startup capital. I'm sure some heads here would also be into poring over some (non-critical:) code, and donating CPU cycles. We could do it up all international-like, get everyone involved open-source stylee, and do away with the silly 'national space program' penis-size contests.
Is someone already working on this? Or am I just ahead of my time again?:)
Slashdot Mirror
It certainly is necessary and practical.
Of course telecom infrastructure is necessary, or at least desirable. My point was that state ownership of the means of production is neither necessary nor economically advantageous. Would you agree that competitive private enterprise invariably produces goods and services of lower cost and higher quality than do government monopolies?
they are operated by the people and in the people's interest.
It would be nice if that were always true. Unfortunately public services often end up being operated by politicians, for politicians. There is less accountability than in the private sector, lots of mismanagement, and sometimes even outright corruption. Outsourcing to private firms helps somewhat, but still leaves room for contract padding and old-boy networks.
Again, I'd like to see cable television deregulated and opened up to competition. The state should at most sell right-of-way trench and pole access at-cost, to all companies who want to pay for it. It should not be in the business of running a head end, routers, uplinks, proxy servers, billing systems, etc. Private ISPs already do a great job - why would we want the government to take over control of a healthy, competitive industry? That makes no sense whatsoever.
Socialism is a failure. Acknowledge and move on.
--
Doesn't anyone else think that the people should empower themselves this way?
I'd prefer to see the elimination of laws that prevent competition in the cable industry. I don't believe that operating a telecom company (or sports stadium, golf course, etc.) is a proper function of government, nor is it necessary or practical.
--
Many Maryland state government web sites use the .com TLD.
I'm too lazy to offer examples though.
--
Insurance is risk management.
--
But that's not the point. Why prevent adults from spending their money the way THEY see fit? Why is gambling illegal?
In general, adults should not be permitted to make their own personal decisions. All choices should be made by the smarter and more capable ruling political class - NEVER by individuals. The ruling class should dictate which schools your children will go to, what they will learn, what features may be integrated in computer operating systems, what types of entertainment and information you may access, and so on - all the way down to the exact capacity of your toilet bowl.
Think of what kind of fucked up world it would be if everyone was free to make their own personal decisions in social and economic matters. It would be utter chaos! People everywhere would be running naked in the streets with carrots hanging out of their ears.
For God's sake, man - can't you think of the children?!
--
Common sense would suggest that encouraging the rich to gamble while discouraging the poor from throwing away what little money they have might achieve a more equitable assessment of revenue-raising among the people.
Common sense would suggest that rich people have gotten that way in part from saving their money and investing wisely, even though they may have started out poor. Likewise, poor people have gotten that way in part from poor money management, even though they may have started out rich. Why we would want to discourage frugality by encouraging gambling among people of any income level is beyond me.
Anyway, the government squanders and wastes almost all of the outrageous amounts it takes from us already. It doesn't need or deserve any more revenue.
--
That shit'll make you go blind, boy...
--
'Authoritarian' would probably be a better word to describe the type of society the U.S. is becoming:
http://www.dictiona ry. com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=authoritarian
--
If Ralph Nader receives >= 5% of the popular vote, the Green Party will qualify for federal campaign money for the 2004 election.
The Libertarian Party has never accepted federal matching funds, despite qualifying for them. They have always relied entirely on voluntary donations, because of the belief that it's immoral to take your money by force and spend it on things you don't believe in.
That's just one of many differences between the two. I would echo what Hard_Code said... put some time into researching the candidates (webwhiteblue.org is a good start) and vote for who you believe in without regard to who's ahead in the polls, etc.
--
Does anyone know when Mandrake 7.2 will ship? Is it just waiting on a final release of KDE 2.0, or are there other factors?
--
There was something early farmers used to organize against the oligarchy of rails, called a grange, basically giving a group bargaining power, like unions.
That would explain the origin of all the Grange Halls that my friends used to host 3-bands-for-3-bucks punk shows at. I knew they were there for something, but nobody could ever tell me what a 'grange' was. You have solved one of the greatest mysteries of all time.
--
In any case, what I want to know is WHY don't they allow cometitive cable companies?
Economic theory about natural monopolies was in vogue at the time. The idea was that no two companies could coexist in the same region because there was only room for one set of wires. Or that we'd have too many wires running all over the place, or something like that. This was before fiber became common. The same natural monopoly reasoning was applied to both telephone and cable TV companies. It seems rather laughable to me today, the idea that competing telecom companies can't exist in the same market region. Here in my mid-size city I have dozens of dialup ISPs, several DSL ISPs, two CLEC's, a cable ISP, plus all of the national options for wireless, satellite, etc.
--
liberalism: The creed of those who believe in individual liberty. More specifically, since "no government allows absolute liberty" (Locke), it is the belief that it is desirable to maximize the amount of liberty in the state. [Encyclopaedia Britannica]
Methinks that the word 'liberal' has come to have an entirely different meaning here in the States than it does in the UK. The definition you offer is what I would call 'classical liberalism'. Modern U.S. liberalism calls for greater government control over just about everything. Come to think of it, so does modern U.S. conservatism. If it weren't for the little donkey and elephant pictures, I don't think I'd be able to tell the difference between the major party candidates.
--
Relax, Chachi. The poster does have a point that I think you're misunderstanding. Cable companies are protected monopolies within their territory. They are given exclusive franchises by state and local regulatory agencies, and it is illegal for anyone to compete with them. Go ahead, try to start a competing cable TV service in your area... the government will put you out of business so fast it will make your head spin.
--
You could keep the infrequently-watched stuff in a robot-operated tape library... but keep just enough of the show on hard drive to allow it to start playing while the robot retrieved and loaded the full program.
--
How is MS "bundling" of internet explorer any different than say linux "bundling" telnet, or apple "bundling" email or quicktime?
It's not, from a practical or technical perspective. It's also not any different from KDE bundling Konqueror, or GNOME bundling a browser compon, or Red Hat shipping with Mozilla.
Are we a society of crybabies?
Apparently.
--
Anyone who thinks competition is going to make all the boo-boos better is dumber than a sack of wet diapers.
Oh yeah? People who think we need central-planning bureaucrats to 'manage competition' are dumber than a sack of poopy diapers.
Ha!
--
I understand your angle, but there's something to be said for using reason and persuasion instead of drowning out your opponent and denying them freedom of movement and assembly. IMHO, using coercion to silence unpopular speech is wrong whether it's perpetrated by governments, corporations, or angry mobs of Seattle Non-Anarchists.
--
Betalounge has some good electronic music... and I think emusic has some free, legal MP3's as well.
--
Isn't the possibility of industrial sabotage between competing space firms[...]
Um, when was the last time you heard of a Pizza Hut manager breaking into Domino's and disabling their oven?
Though far-fetched in light of humanity's current position, but do we really want the interests of a profit-driven corporation be placed before the scientific and diplomatic interests of a government agency if humanity encounters alien life in future?
Would these be the same government agencies that kill, imprison and wage wars? Or different ones?
I can see world leaders freaking out and bombing any aliens we meet the same way they do other races today. Profit-driven corporations might actually have an incentive to be more diplomatic, since the aliens could turn out to be trading partners in the future.
--
USPS has a monopoly on first-class mail delivery. It is illegal to set up a competing service.
Competition is allowed in parcel delivery though.
--
You got a link on that? I'd be quite interested in reading up on that...
--
We should get the DOJ's antitrust division to sue NASA for being a monopoly and split it into two pieces.
--
Competition works well in a free market because the metric by which competitors are measured is both well-defined and easily agreed upon by all. Whoever makes the most money is the best competitor.
I understand what you're saying, but private-sector does not necessarily mean for-profit. Competition is quite present among not-for-profit private organizations.
Example A: Private, voluntary charities like United Way, Red Cross, Habitat for Humanity, free clinics, etc.
Example B: Private preschool and K-12 schools, and the growing national networks of charter schools, private schools and school management companies like Edison Schools, Success For All, Hirsch Core Knowledge schools, Thomas Sizer's Coalition of Essential Schools, and Replications, Inc. Many if not most of these are not-for-profit.
These organizations and not-for-profit corporations have to compete with each other for funding, a.k.a. voluntary contributions. They have to earn the trust and financial support of donors by showing integrity, effectiveness and fiscal responsibility.
In contrast, government agencies are generally... how do you say in America? Wasteful and ineffective? NASA seems to be *slightly* better run than the average federal agency, but it would seem there is room for a lot of improvement.
My point with this long-ass, sleep-deprived, love-the-free-market rant is:
Why couldn't we have a space exploration effort run by a private, not-for-profit organization? Or even several competing ones? Set up a secure credit card form, get linked on Slashdot - boom! There's startup capital. I'm sure some heads here would also be into poring over some (non-critical :) code, and donating CPU cycles. We could do it up all international-like, get everyone involved open-source stylee, and do away with the silly 'national space program' penis-size contests.
Is someone already working on this? Or am I just ahead of my time again? :)
--
Also... Orbital. The company, not the seminal and insanely great techno group.
--