ISPs demanding money for the same access you currently have is no different from the Mafia demanding protection money so that nice store doesn't burn down.
No it's not you can just change ISP. If there is only one ISP then maybe that's more to do with the government or you living in some place in the middle of no where. You are essentally just calling for a government take over of the internet. I say take away all the legal privileges etc that telecom/cable companies have so as to force them to respond to actual consumer demand.
Taxation is theft, it is uncivilised by definition. Why is it wrong for one person to rob another but its called "good government" if a million people say it's okay to steal? You're propagating pure nonsense.
Just because taxes pay for roads that doesn't mean that taxes are needed for civilisation, I mean the government doesn't need to provide shoe shops. Although if it did have a shoe monopoly I know you would be on here saying how no one would have shoes if it weren't for taxes.
And anyway, if these people got their money legitimately (e.g. not through government contracts, subsidies, theft (I repeat my self.)) they've already done more for society buy making products and services that people want to buy. And they've done it voluntarily.
If the government was so fucking great and everyone wanted it taxation wouldn't be needed.
And another thing, how is paying hundreds of billions of dollars to go and kill brown people in foreign countries anything near civilised? It's preposterous that people believe this stuff, though in a dark way it is pretty hilarious.
Murder is banned and that didn't help prevent it. So why would doing the same thing to guns have a different outcome? If something is outlawed criminals will continue to do it (public and private.)
Surely this needs some way of communicating at the DHS. For example, I might spot my neighbour with a pair of binoculars, a book and a pen. We should report such suspicious activity to the authorities!!
It's their duty to give as little away as possible to government. If they don't shelter it that'd be just more tanks, planes etc for the US to bomb innocent people in far away countries.
And anyway, from my perspective they just give me free stuff, I don't even notice the adverts on their website. There would be less of that free useful stuff if they had to give away more for whatever social engineering projects those crackpot politicians have.
It's quicker saying "printing money" than saying something like "The New York fed purchasing treasury bonds from a primary dealer like Goldman Sachs by adding digits into Goldman's account with the fed." (Or however it's done.)
Anyone serious about getting rid of lobbyists and corruption needs to look at the source: if people weren't so willing to hand their hard earned money to politicians there would be less money to chase in Washington.
I love all the armchair central planners on here. Hasn't it ever occurred to you lot that it might be somewhat pretentious to claim to know what travel other people should be encouraged to use and forced to pay for. On that thought, I doubt a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats spending other people's money are going to find a good solution.
A few thoughts on the matter:
Weren't telephones around the world linked up privately? If they were subsidized, how much?
Also a global internet is going to be more profitable than closed networks, wasn't AOL a closed network at one point? And I think I've heard of other ones that completely failed.
To be quite frank, I really don't care about mind games about how stuff might have happened, or how stuff might happen in an alternate universe:D Especially if something like the internet is a logical conclusion of having computers that connect to each other.
(Btw, when people say big-L Libertarians, they 99% of the time mean people from the Libertarian party. Though, I have seen even people like Jesse Ventura think that means anarcho-libertarian, or anarcho-captalist.)
So yea yea you won't take me seriously (which accounts for the tone of my comment) but no one can prove either way if the internet would exist if there just so happened to be some libertarian society so I would advocate voluntarism rather than coercion (anyone can test out for themselves if something is coercive or not, e.g. trying to not pay taxes).
Slashdot Mirror
nt
ISPs demanding money for the same access you currently have is no different from the Mafia demanding protection money so that nice store doesn't burn down.
No it's not you can just change ISP. If there is only one ISP then maybe that's more to do with the government or you living in some place in the middle of no where. You are essentally just calling for a government take over of the internet. I say take away all the legal privileges etc that telecom/cable companies have so as to force them to respond to actual consumer demand.
Taxation is theft, it is uncivilised by definition. Why is it wrong for one person to rob another but its called "good government" if a million people say it's okay to steal? You're propagating pure nonsense.
Just because taxes pay for roads that doesn't mean that taxes are needed for civilisation, I mean the government doesn't need to provide shoe shops. Although if it did have a shoe monopoly I know you would be on here saying how no one would have shoes if it weren't for taxes.
And anyway, if these people got their money legitimately (e.g. not through government contracts, subsidies, theft (I repeat my self.)) they've already done more for society buy making products and services that people want to buy. And they've done it voluntarily.
If the government was so fucking great and everyone wanted it taxation wouldn't be needed.
And another thing, how is paying hundreds of billions of dollars to go and kill brown people in foreign countries anything near civilised? It's preposterous that people believe this stuff, though in a dark way it is pretty hilarious.
Don't the APA classify most people as mentally ill anyway?
After the last 10 years I have some difficulty imagining how it could be any worse.
Murder is banned and that didn't help prevent it. So why would doing the same thing to guns have a different outcome? If something is outlawed criminals will continue to do it (public and private.)
Surely this needs some way of communicating at the DHS. For example, I might spot my neighbour with a pair of binoculars, a book and a pen. We should report such suspicious activity to the authorities!!
I'm not sure why the BBC even has a children's news program (Newsround I think) the main 6:00 news seems to dumbed down enough.
It's their duty to give as little away as possible to government. If they don't shelter it that'd be just more tanks, planes etc for the US to bomb innocent people in far away countries.
And anyway, from my perspective they just give me free stuff, I don't even notice the adverts on their website. There would be less of that free useful stuff if they had to give away more for whatever social engineering projects those crackpot politicians have.
It's quicker saying "printing money" than saying something like "The New York fed purchasing treasury bonds from a primary dealer like Goldman Sachs by adding digits into Goldman's account with the fed." (Or however it's done.)
Maybe I'm a cynic but relying entirely on other peoples' goodwill doesn't seem to me like the best idea.
You can just move all the plugins out of the plugin folder and it loads instantly (might as well keep the search things in there though!)
Anyone serious about getting rid of lobbyists and corruption needs to look at the source: if people weren't so willing to hand their hard earned money to politicians there would be less money to chase in Washington.
The same people who are bankrupting the previous generation? If it's so important maybe they could take the money out of their 401ks or something.
Someone who can't find free porn on the internet sounds sounds a bit overqualified for a government position.
I love all the armchair central planners on here. Hasn't it ever occurred to you lot that it might be somewhat pretentious to claim to know what travel other people should be encouraged to use and forced to pay for. On that thought, I doubt a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats spending other people's money are going to find a good solution.
Wow I've never heard of a more thoughtful solution. A new tax!!! Ohhh.
Surely if people chose the school their children went to this would be hardly an issue. Would be even less of an issue if they paid directly as well.
Wow, its a fast language to code in alright. I can find 51,500,000 programs already!!1
Why?
One of those people who sees free markets everywhere, then blames any problem on them.
Isn't that a problem with any system?
So what's the answer? :)
:D Especially if something like the internet is a logical conclusion of having computers that connect to each other.
A few thoughts on the matter: Weren't telephones around the world linked up privately? If they were subsidized, how much?
Also a global internet is going to be more profitable than closed networks, wasn't AOL a closed network at one point? And I think I've heard of other ones that completely failed.
To be quite frank, I really don't care about mind games about how stuff might have happened, or how stuff might happen in an alternate universe
(Btw, when people say big-L Libertarians, they 99% of the time mean people from the Libertarian party. Though, I have seen even people like Jesse Ventura think that means anarcho-libertarian, or anarcho-captalist.)
So yea yea you won't take me seriously (which accounts for the tone of my comment) but no one can prove either way if the internet would exist if there just so happened to be some libertarian society so I would advocate voluntarism rather than coercion (anyone can test out for themselves if something is coercive or not, e.g. trying to not pay taxes).
I think I've heard of that organization before, they send their employees off around the world to rape...and stuff?
25.3% aren't