That is by definition not a free market, you blithering buffoon. Free markets don't allow use of force in economic transactions, no matter what the source.
Way to build a strawman the size of the local galactic cluster. Now the gravitational disturbance will kill us all.
They can do what they want within existing law. If they interfere with their traffic, they lose their common carrier status, and are liable for everything that crosses their wires. Great way to run a giant company into the ground.
The best solution is rarely "new rules", but rather simply enforcing the existing ones. But of course, neither will happen, because our government is bought and paid for. New rules aren't going to change that, they are just going to make it worse.
Republicans don't want to get rid of the Fed. Are you nuts? If they did, it would have been gone fifty years ago!
The SNL bailout was from the FED. It was caused by the banks, and the affected banks should have failed, and had their assets taken over by those who weren't stupid. But the Fed bailed them out, and created the perverse incentive that has continued to grow until today, where those same now fully zombified banks won't be allowed to fail no matter how stupidly they act, so they take the absolute maximum amount of risk that now threatens to destroy entire continents. Yeah, getting rid of the Fed is PROBABLY A GOOD IDEA.
You are proposing to "solve" the current internet by turning it over to the government. First, what is so wrong with the internet now, and B. what the fuck makes you think that our bought and paid for government will solve it to your satisfaction (assuming you aren't a lobbyist or corporate guy).
Is the internet not free now? That is the system they are trying to defend, and the one you are attempting to overturn, based on a theory that doesn't really make any sense.
If carriers shape traffic in any way, they lose their common carrier status, and become liable for what goes over their lines. Use this to prevent them from doing the things you are afraid of. Don't turn the internet over to the government, for fucks sake. How fucking stupid do you have to be?
By maintaining the status quo? Did you forget that the system you are arguing against is the one that has been in place for decades with no ill effects already?
The FCC has NO RIGHT to SELL spectrum. At most, they should LEASE it. Regular income from that should be refunded to the citizens of the US, or used to fund government operations.
In reality, I don't think they even need to do that. With a little research, there should be as much spectrum as we could ever want, with the use of clever encoding algorithms.
You do realize that if those evil corporations act in such a way that their users no longer like it, they will switch to another without those terrible policies, right?
You also realize that by shedding their common carrier status, they become liable for any illegal content going over their wires, and will likely be sued into oblivion, right?
I love it when people decide to expand government power to an arbitrary degree because of some imagined threat that is actually covered quite well by existing law. Sort of like how we need all these new financial regulations to stop financial fraud when simply prosecuting people for fraud and putting them in prison would do just fine.
And that is why we have the Constitution. Clearly the South was in the wrong for attempting to violate state's rights in addition to allowing people to exert unlimited force on others (slavery). But remember, some of the Northern states did the same thing.
The North also failed morally by failing to simply buy the freedom of all the slaves, something that would have been cheaper than the Civil War, in terms of money, lives, and societal upheaval.
Just because your enemy is not perfect does not mean you are more correct than him. Nor should you have the power to force your will onto him, as he should not have the power to exert his will over you or others. People tend to think of life like a football game, where there are just two sides. When a modicum of thought is applied to this paradigm, it breaks down, yet we keep returning to it. It's just so convenient, I guess. To bad such convenience tends to lead to the worst possible outcomes.
So because an individual person doesn't believe in freedom of speech (say a Neo-nazi), then we shouldn't have freedom of speech!? States rights exist to protect the MINORITY, not the MAJORITY. I am dumbfounded that people don't understand that.
The popular phrase is, I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. States rights are the same way. Forcing people to do things they don't want to do leads to violence. How many fewer abortion clinics would have been bombed if we had allowed some states to ban abortions? The people who did those would have written off the Northern States as "godless", and left it at that. But stick it in their face, and they get violent. Similarly, some states would like to have access to recreational or medicinal drugs. Sorry, the Feds gotta come bustin' in even though they have no jurisdiction under any sane reading of the Constitution. Thus we have druggies everywhere, and violence follows them.
State's rights are what is best for the largest portion of people. A monolithic federal government produces what is right for a few politicians and corporations. Remember that. What people think or WOULD (or what YOU think they MIGHT) do doesn't matter.
Believing that the Constitution can be overwritten by other Federal Law is like believing that the other commandments overwrite the first ten.
The most important part of the constitution assigns all powers not explicitly granted to the Federal level to the states. It is only through a purposeful misinterpretation of the wording that we have a gigantic overreaching federal monstrosity today.
Bu~t both Obama and Romney have the same positions, only they will lie about them. But hey, I am all for the evil using the perfect as a weapon against the good. Very Machiavellian.
Right, you would rather have the bought and paid for government making those decisions. You know, the same government that has the ability to shut down any potential competition for those corporations that might want to destroy their service and alienate their users with such idiocy, leaving the users with no choice.
NEWSFLASH: That happens ANY TIME you donate money. It doesn't matter if it is to Ron Paul, Barack Obama, your local food pantry (I made that mistake once), or the Red Cross.
You clearly prefer fascist and socialist medical systems, where the cost to society if not the individual for the simplest procedures runs into the tens or hundreds of thousands. Things that could be done by a guy with a year of training as a medic (setting broken bones, treating minor infections, etc).
Hell, last time I went into the doctor, he put my symptoms into his smartphone and it kicked out a diagnosis. You think a basic technician couldn't have done the same thing for $20, rather than the $200 that got billed to my insurance?
Slashdot Mirror
That is by definition not a free market, you blithering buffoon. Free markets don't allow use of force in economic transactions, no matter what the source.
Way to build a strawman the size of the local galactic cluster. Now the gravitational disturbance will kill us all.
They can do what they want within existing law. If they interfere with their traffic, they lose their common carrier status, and are liable for everything that crosses their wires. Great way to run a giant company into the ground.
The best solution is rarely "new rules", but rather simply enforcing the existing ones. But of course, neither will happen, because our government is bought and paid for. New rules aren't going to change that, they are just going to make it worse.
Right, because no-one could have ever figured out that you can run a digital signal across a phone line without DARPA.
Yeah, we don't want allies! We want to be crushed into oblivion!
Republicans don't want to get rid of the Fed. Are you nuts? If they did, it would have been gone fifty years ago!
The SNL bailout was from the FED. It was caused by the banks, and the affected banks should have failed, and had their assets taken over by those who weren't stupid. But the Fed bailed them out, and created the perverse incentive that has continued to grow until today, where those same now fully zombified banks won't be allowed to fail no matter how stupidly they act, so they take the absolute maximum amount of risk that now threatens to destroy entire continents. Yeah, getting rid of the Fed is PROBABLY A GOOD IDEA.
You are proposing to "solve" the current internet by turning it over to the government. First, what is so wrong with the internet now, and B. what the fuck makes you think that our bought and paid for government will solve it to your satisfaction (assuming you aren't a lobbyist or corporate guy).
Is the internet not free now? That is the system they are trying to defend, and the one you are attempting to overturn, based on a theory that doesn't really make any sense.
If carriers shape traffic in any way, they lose their common carrier status, and become liable for what goes over their lines. Use this to prevent them from doing the things you are afraid of. Don't turn the internet over to the government, for fucks sake. How fucking stupid do you have to be?
Hitler was a libertarian. So were Stalin and Mao. Anyone who disagrees is using the "no true scotsman" fallacy.
If a weaker government is in the interests of large corporations, why don't the large corporations support the Libertarian party?
Because regulatory capture is UNIVERSAL, and CAN NOT BE STOPPED BY ANY MEANS SHORT OF DICTATORSHIP.
We don't want a dictatorship. Please don't provide any more momentum than we already have in that direction.
By maintaining the status quo? Did you forget that the system you are arguing against is the one that has been in place for decades with no ill effects already?
*implying it isn't the Federal Reserve that blows bubbles with their artificially cheap money.
And Ron Paul proposes competitive currencies, which would rapidly lead to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_banking
The FCC has NO RIGHT to SELL spectrum. At most, they should LEASE it. Regular income from that should be refunded to the citizens of the US, or used to fund government operations.
In reality, I don't think they even need to do that. With a little research, there should be as much spectrum as we could ever want, with the use of clever encoding algorithms.
You clearly prefer Obamny. Surely those level heads will do a better job!
You do realize that if those evil corporations act in such a way that their users no longer like it, they will switch to another without those terrible policies, right?
You also realize that by shedding their common carrier status, they become liable for any illegal content going over their wires, and will likely be sued into oblivion, right?
I love it when people decide to expand government power to an arbitrary degree because of some imagined threat that is actually covered quite well by existing law. Sort of like how we need all these new financial regulations to stop financial fraud when simply prosecuting people for fraud and putting them in prison would do just fine.
If it ain't government controlled, it's Mad Max. Got it.
How have we ever survived until now, with all these roving gangs of internet warriors trying to destroy us all?
Would that this could be given a +6.
*implying regulations don't limit the ability of people to buy or sell as they please.
It can't be BOTH?
And that is why we have the Constitution. Clearly the South was in the wrong for attempting to violate state's rights in addition to allowing people to exert unlimited force on others (slavery). But remember, some of the Northern states did the same thing.
The North also failed morally by failing to simply buy the freedom of all the slaves, something that would have been cheaper than the Civil War, in terms of money, lives, and societal upheaval.
Just because your enemy is not perfect does not mean you are more correct than him. Nor should you have the power to force your will onto him, as he should not have the power to exert his will over you or others. People tend to think of life like a football game, where there are just two sides. When a modicum of thought is applied to this paradigm, it breaks down, yet we keep returning to it. It's just so convenient, I guess. To bad such convenience tends to lead to the worst possible outcomes.
So because an individual person doesn't believe in freedom of speech (say a Neo-nazi), then we shouldn't have freedom of speech!? States rights exist to protect the MINORITY, not the MAJORITY. I am dumbfounded that people don't understand that.
The popular phrase is, I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. States rights are the same way. Forcing people to do things they don't want to do leads to violence. How many fewer abortion clinics would have been bombed if we had allowed some states to ban abortions? The people who did those would have written off the Northern States as "godless", and left it at that. But stick it in their face, and they get violent. Similarly, some states would like to have access to recreational or medicinal drugs. Sorry, the Feds gotta come bustin' in even though they have no jurisdiction under any sane reading of the Constitution. Thus we have druggies everywhere, and violence follows them.
State's rights are what is best for the largest portion of people. A monolithic federal government produces what is right for a few politicians and corporations. Remember that. What people think or WOULD (or what YOU think they MIGHT) do doesn't matter.
Believing that the Constitution can be overwritten by other Federal Law is like believing that the other commandments overwrite the first ten.
The most important part of the constitution assigns all powers not explicitly granted to the Federal level to the states. It is only through a purposeful misinterpretation of the wording that we have a gigantic overreaching federal monstrosity today.
Yes, it did. Racists got less money. Why do you want racists to have more money?
Bu~t both Obama and Romney have the same positions, only they will lie about them. But hey, I am all for the evil using the perfect as a weapon against the good. Very Machiavellian.
Right, you would rather have the bought and paid for government making those decisions. You know, the same government that has the ability to shut down any potential competition for those corporations that might want to destroy their service and alienate their users with such idiocy, leaving the users with no choice.
NEWSFLASH: That happens ANY TIME you donate money. It doesn't matter if it is to Ron Paul, Barack Obama, your local food pantry (I made that mistake once), or the Red Cross.
You clearly prefer fascist and socialist medical systems, where the cost to society if not the individual for the simplest procedures runs into the tens or hundreds of thousands. Things that could be done by a guy with a year of training as a medic (setting broken bones, treating minor infections, etc).
Hell, last time I went into the doctor, he put my symptoms into his smartphone and it kicked out a diagnosis. You think a basic technician couldn't have done the same thing for $20, rather than the $200 that got billed to my insurance?