I'm asking for a justification for that statement. Why should anyone accept that assertion?
I think where he is coming from is that Libertarians think you own your own body. Therefore rights such as the right not to be beaten or murdered can be subsumed under property rights. This seems a bit silly to me. I think individual rights is the highest category, and the right not to be beaten and the right to private property are separate categories under that.
* In fact, the ridiculous full on property rights based libertarianism espoused by one poster is exactly the thing that will inevitably lead to fascism, despite it's adherents telling us it is the one true path to freedom. The paradox of libertarianism where government does nothing but protect property rights is that as property will naturally become more and more concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the government becomes nothing but a tool of the corporatist interests that end up controlling it. Anyone worried about the slippery slope to fascism ought to be much more worried about the five conservatives on the US Supreme Court than anything else.
Extremely well said. I could not possibly agree more!
Government guarantee of net neutrality rights will not, as some ideologically pure but entirely naive posters have absurdly suggested, result in communism or fascism*. The truth is that net neutrality is necessary for the maintenance of a healthy free society, and those who would oppose it are the enemies of a free society.
A general principle of debate: whenever someone starts with absolutist rantings, they probably don't have a rational position to defend.
"those who oppose it are enemies of a free society"? Really? So the fact that someone might believe in property rights makes them an enemy of free society?
I can understand liking net neutrality. I can even understand some arguments where it is important. But there are also arguments on the other side. If telcos paid billions of dollars creating a network and other ISPs spent billions of dollars creating THEIR networks, why isn't taking away their rights to control their property 'unjust seizure' under the Constitution? They paid for one thing and are being forced to offer something else.
In another thread, you stated:
Quote:
Contracts, freely entered into, are, however, a different sort of thing. A contract is essentially a promise to do something in exchange for someone else doing some other thing in return. The key point is that it is a promise, a giving of one's word, that one will undertake certain actions. A person ought not treat a promise freely given lightly. Keeping one's word goes to the heart of one's character and integrity.
Why is it OK for the government to give licenses to the telcos and then later decide to unilaterally change the terms of those contracts?
Please stop with the "if you don't agree with me, you're a fascist" nonsense. There are arguments on both sides and it's a case of conflicting rights, so some mechanism has to be defined to deal with that.
(1) each year for tax subsidies that add up tens of billions per year. Or do you think when T-Mobile paid ~ $16 Billion for a portion of spectrum they had the cash on hand for that investment?
(2) you were too young to realize Reagan conned everyone, or perhaps you suck off the teet of the Reagan Revolution?
(3) Verizon is dumping much of their local phone services when it costs too much for them to service [Frontier anyone?] and are taking that cash to build out FiOS in high density [high price point] regions, piggy backing LTE on those fiber back ends.
(4) When I can choose, without any early cancellation fee, from AT&T as my Fiber provider, or Verizon, or Qwest or my local Municipality, then I have Competition.
(1) the cash comes from private investors by way of corporate bonds. It doesn't come from taxes. These companies pay INTO the treasury. Many of them have been regulated even after '84 by State and municipal bodies.
(2) I'm 58. Reagan just finished what was started under Jimmy Carter. Carter was the biggest deregulator of the last 50 years (transportation--trucking, airlines (remember CAB fares?), and telecommunications in particular). I'm not interested in going back to the MaBell culture.
(3) I'm not familiar with the circumstances you claim with Verizon, but I would sell under those circumstances as well. They're a business, not a charity or the government.
(4) Leases work both ways. They work for the lessee and lessor. 1 year was my contract with ATT... still have them after 4.
Government is run by the same rules and the same people that run companies. It's role should be to set up a framework that requires competition. Competition is tamed by greasing the palms of politicians sitting on committees. They just did it again with the health care bill. If you had the money, you got a place at their table.
(1) the cash comes from private investors by way of corporate bonds. It doesn't come from taxes. These companies pay INTO the treasury. Many of them have been regulated even after '84 by State and municipal bodies.
(2) I'm 58. Reagan just finished what was started under Jimmy Carter. Carter was the biggest deregulator of the last 50 years (transportation--trucking, airlines (remember CAB fares?), and telecommunications in particular). I'm not interested in going back to the MaBell culture.
(3) I'm not familiar with the circumstances you claim with Verizon, but I would sell under those circumstances as well. They're a business, not a charity or the government.
(4) Leases work both ways. They work for the lessee and lessor. 1 year was my contract with ATT... still have them after 4.
Government is run by the same rules and the same people that run companies. It's role should be to set up a framework that requires competition. Competition is tamed by greasing the palms of politicians sitting on committees. They just did it again with the health care bill. If you had the money, you got a place at their table.
US Lobbying for Corporate favors totaled $168.4 Billion in 2009. Telcos were second only to Big Pharma. They aren't lobbying to get anything but preferred status and tax structures that give them discounts in which every other country in the world rightfully calls subsidies.
Anti-monopoly laws? These are good. Truth in advertising laws? Good. Minimum wage requirements? Good. Child labor laws? Good. The Equal Opportunity Act? Good.
These are just a fraction of a of fraction of all the regulations that protect you as a consumer, you as a worker and you as a business owner.
The goal with net neutrality is not to prevent corporations from leveraging their infrastructure investment for a profit, it's to prevent the most powerful players from simply usurping absolute control of the entire system.
AThe goal with net neutrality is not to prevent corporations from leveraging their infrastructure investment for a profit, it's to prevent the most powerful players from simply usurping absolute control of the entire system.
Or in other words, to keep things the way they are now.
Anti-monopoly laws? These are good. Truth in advertising laws? Good. Minimum wage requirements? Good. Child labor laws? Good. The Equal Opportunity Act? Good.
These are just a fraction of a of fraction of all the regulations that protect you as a consumer, you as a worker and you as a business owner.
The goal with net neutrality is not to prevent corporations from leveraging their infrastructure investment for a profit, it's to prevent the most powerful players from simply usurping absolute control of the entire system.
When you're dealing with libertarians, you're dealing with people who don't care about any of those things. They only care about "defending property rights". That's their only objective. Why? Because capitalism requires it. Why is capitalism good? Because it's based on property rights. And round and round you go.
In fact, the ridiculous full on property rights based libertarianism espoused by one poster is exactly the thing that will inevitably lead to fascism, despite it's adherents telling us it is the one true path to freedom. The paradox of libertarianism where government does nothing but protect property rights is that as property will naturally become more and more concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the government becomes nothing but a tool of the corporatist interests that end up controlling it. Anyone worried about the slippery slope to fascism ought to be much more worried about the five conservatives on the US Supreme Court than anything else.
So, you say government is the answer. Give government overwhelming control, because they are the only ones who could ever look for the benefit of the people. We should even prefer a proactive justice system that thinks and acts like government, i.e. total government control.
It's been tried multiple times before, and it does not work. Benevolent dictators aren't. Power corrupts, and government is the ultimate monopoly with no higher authority.
When politicians get into power, they forget all of their promises, which in many cases were not promises at all --only whatever people wanted to hear.
They don't cater to the people. They only listen to their internal voices and try to impose their own visions. That's why they often make misguided decisions that end up costing everyone.
On the other hand, private corporations live by their ability to satisfy the people's needs. Of course except when they aquire monopoly powers, but there are laws and many oversight mechanisms against that.
It is easier to spot wrongdoings in the private sector than in government.
As long as we maintain the rule of law, an effective justice system and limit the power of any single entity, we will be kept clear of problems.
Giving overwhelming power to those who write the law and let them in bed with those who apply the law is just plain nuts.
Note: I suggest that you look up the term "corporatism". It doesn't mean what you think, and has nothing to do with private corporations. Nazism was based on corporatism, which is more related to national unions than anything in the private sector.
A general principle of debate: whenever someone starts with absolutist rantings, they probably don't have a rational position to defend.
"those who oppose it are enemies of a free society"? Really? So the fact that someone might believe in property rights makes them an enemy of free society?
Another general principle of debate is to actually understand what's been said. Nowhere did I say, imply, or even hint that property rights and net neutrality are in any way mutually exclusive.
Quote:
I can understand liking net neutrality. I can even understand some arguments where it is important. But there are also arguments on the other side. If telcos paid billions of dollars creating a network and other ISPs spent billions of dollars creating THEIR networks, why isn't taking away their rights to control their property 'unjust seizure' under the Constitution? They paid for one thing and are being forced to offer something else.
The telcos were sold privileges to use radio spectrum for the public good. If they abuse those privileges, or if it is decided that the way they are using them isn't for the public good, then they could lose the right to use the radio frequency at all. I think it's a pretty good compromise for them to accept net neutrality and make money from passing Internet traffic over that spectrum. But, should they not comply with the public interest, their privilege to use that spectrum ought to be revoked. And notice, there is nothing involved here that they own, as they do not own the spectrum.
Quote:
In another thread, you stated: ...
Why is it OK for the government to give licenses to the telcos and then later decide to unilaterally change the terms of those contracts?
See above. Also, free flow of communications is too critical to the health of a democracy to ever allow it to be controlled by corporations for their own benefit. It undermines the very system that allowed those corporations to exist. While it may be a difficult point, a free society can never surrender to a threat, even if it allowed that threat to come into existence, and faced with a choice of contract law vs. freedom, there really is no choice at all. The right thing may sometimes be the lesser of two evils.
(Which, btw, does not in any way apply to the context from which the quote was taken>)
Quote:
Please stop with the "if you don't agree with me, you're a fascist" nonsense. There are arguments on both sides and it's a case of conflicting rights, so some mechanism has to be defined to deal with that.
Well, since you've only read this nonsense into what I wrote, that won't be a difficult point for me to oblige you on.
So, you say government is the answer. Give government overwhelming control, because they are the only ones who could ever look for the benefit of the people. We should even prefer a proactive justice system that thinks and acts like government, i.e. total government control.
It's been tried multiple times before, and it does not work. Benevolent dictators aren't. Power corrupts, and government is the ultimate monopoly with no higher authority.
When politicians get into power, they forget all of their promises, which in many cases were not promises at all --only whatever people wanted to hear.
They don't cater to the people. They only listen to their internal voices and try to impose their own visions. That's why they often make misguided decisions that end up costing everyone.
On the other hand, private corporations live by their ability to satisfy the people's needs. Of course except when they aquire monopoly powers, but there are laws and many oversight mechanisms against that.
It is easier to spot wrongdoings in the private sector than in government.
As long as we maintain the rule of law, an effective justice system and limit the power of any single entity, we will be kept clear of problems.
Giving overwhelming power to those who write the law and let them in bed with those who apply the law is just plain nuts.
Note: I suggest that you look up the term "corporatism". It doesn't mean what you think, and has nothing to do with private corporations. Nazism was based on corporatism, which is more related to national unions than anything in the private sector.
Well, I can only say that I believe you are mistaken on all counts.
Your points on government are, I think, largely due to a misunderstanding of how government got into the mess it seems today, which is largely the result of a) corporate influence in government, and b) people running government who think government is bad and not only shouldn't do anything, but can't. Naturally, these kind of people are likely to have created a huge mess.
Your points on corporations are just entirely contrary to history. Private corporations, unfettered by regulation, have never acted in the public interest, and in fact have almost always acted contrary to it. I know it's a popular naive fantasy that "competition" will somehow set everything right, but that's all it really is: a fantasy with no basis in reality, human nature or history to support it.
I don't suppose you're referring to me because I never mentioned fascism. I will chime-in to note, however, that I don't agree with your stated paradox. That is, more freedom does not lead to less freedom.
Yes, I was referring to you in my remarks on how libertarianism is a philosophy that ultimately leads to government of the powerful, and less freedom for most everyone. That you didn't mention fascism is irrelevant to the fact. I'm guessing you made the remarks you did, and hold the views you do because you are unaware of the contradictions and problems inherent in them.
Quote:
Let's look at media conglomeration. Some people say that no one media corporation should own too much (both TV broadcasting stations and newspapers, for example) because it would lead to a reduction in available content for the consumer. ...
It's a beautiful thing.
To you it may be a beautiful thing. To me all this "beauty" you refer to is mostly just mindless junk. And the proliferation of points of view you claim are mostly points of view that are without value: does anyone really find any value in what the Real Housewives of ________ think? Consolidation of media control is certainly not a good thing, by any standard but the most shallow.
Quote:
Now, consider the hornet's nest that's encountered when we have government subsidizing free expression. ...
Libertarians used to be a worthwhile bunch back in the day but no more. Present-day libertarians, objectivists, randroids, et al, are great with theories but show us one 1st world modern nation that is a lab for these thoeries and has made practical application of them. None exist because no sane society dare try them. The closest we come is Somalia. No pesky regulations in that place. And interestingly, not one of the randroids wants to move there.
Conversely, in just northern europe alone (as well as north of the us border), we see real-world examples of countries that have built admirable functioning societies on a semi-socialist framework?incorporating principles of free markets regulated to produce the best possible social net good. No, I am not saying they're perfect. And like any living organism (which a society is), adjustments constantly need to be made?sometimes in favor of commerce, sometimes in favor of the "the masses." And let's not forget the us had some pretty good decades after the new deal. That's a real-world expample no libertarian can match.
This is most inconvenient for objectivists and their ilk. Their theories actually only appeal to numbskulls, half-wits, teenagers, and raving idealogues, like the Paul family. They make a lot of noise but look up Paul's vote tally last time he ran for president. There were no more than few hundred thousand kooks that believe that crap enough to bother going to vote. Isn't that idiot that publishes "reason" against voting? Right. What's the point if all you can manage is protest vote that does not even cause a blip the radar?
I'm sorry, what exactly is AT&T saying that they have "limits" imposed on them to improve the speed of their network? Physical limits, you say? Well that's utter bullcrap, because AT&T could start giving out free WiFi hotspot devices to everyone who's a subscriber and therefore make its coverage exponentially better. I really have to doubt some of these flacks and their motives. They really seem hell bent on not investing as much and squeezing the most of the proverbial turnip.
Well, I can only say that I believe you are mistaken on all counts.
Your points on government are, I think, largely due to a misunderstanding of how government got into the mess it seems today, which is largely the result of a) corporate influence in government, and b) people running government who think government is bad and not only shouldn't do anything, but can't. Naturally, these kind of people are likely to have created a huge mess.
Your points on corporations are just entirely contrary to history. Private corporations, unfettered by regulation, have never acted in the public interest, and in fact have almost always acted contrary to it. I know it's a popular naive fantasy that "competition" will somehow set everything right, but that's all it really is: a fantasy with no basis in reality, human nature or history to support it.
You are referring to the other extreme, anarchy. I agree with you under those circumstances --in the absence of any legislative framework that includes an effective enforcement apparatus, private corporations and leadership figures usually run amuck, abusing the people left and right.
I believe in the rule of law, and the limitation of government to law enforcement and national defense.
And there is plenty of evidence that private enterprise and competition work wonders, unless you've been living under a rock in Somalia.
At the fall of the soviet empire and the tear down of the Berlin wall, we all witnessed, and there are plenty of testimonials, of the chaos and stagnation created by government rule, proving freedom, capitalism, competition and most importantly, justice and the rule of law, work wonders, sustaining a population previously deemed not possible, and under an unprecedented standard of living and individual rights, to boot.
Modern day rich, fat unions crack me up . They'd be the first to renege when faced with the realities of socialism.
Note: The huge mess the government is in today is not because of too much freedom, but the opposite, from 100 years of progressivism creeping in. The housing debacle is a clear example of government progressivism causing a crisis. I sincerely think that the Internet is in for a huge crisis if the government gets involved with ideologue regulations.
You are referring to the other extreme, anarchy. I agree with you under those circumstances --in the absence of any legislative framework that includes an effective enforcement apparatus, private corporations and leadership figures usually run amuck, abusing the people left and right.
I believe in the rule of law, and the limitation of government to law enforcement and national defense.
...
I was referring to exactly what you say you believe in. Although, given that you admit regulation is necessary, but say you don't believe in regulation, maybe that is some form of anarchy.
I believe in the rule of law, and the limitation of government to law enforcement and national defense.
Law enforcement? But let me guess -- only enforcement of laws that involve property rights, correct? Because the ultimate goal of society, nay life itself, is to invent and defend property rights, correct?
Note: The huge mess the government is in today is not because of too much freedom, but the opposite, from 100 years of progressivism creeping in. The housing debacle is a clear example of government progressivism causing a crisis. I sincerely think that the Internet is in for a huge crisis if the government gets involved with ideologue regulations.
100 years of progressivism? Seriously? Right?because you say so, it is true. Life was so much better during the gilded age.
Carriers don't want neutrality, so they're not going to give it to you willingly. The only way to change that is to make them want it. The only way to make they want it is to make them liable for not having it. And that will happen after the first person who sues AT&T for allowing everyone to access libelous material about them off of a random website, rather than suing that website. AT&T will say, we're just an ISP, we can't control content, and then the prosecution will point to all the violations of net neutrality in the past 10 years as a counter point.
Comments
WIJG said that "all rights are property rights".
I'm asking for a justification for that statement. Why should anyone accept that assertion?
I think where he is coming from is that Libertarians think you own your own body. Therefore rights such as the right not to be beaten or murdered can be subsumed under property rights. This seems a bit silly to me. I think individual rights is the highest category, and the right not to be beaten and the right to private property are separate categories under that.
* In fact, the ridiculous full on property rights based libertarianism espoused by one poster is exactly the thing that will inevitably lead to fascism, despite it's adherents telling us it is the one true path to freedom. The paradox of libertarianism where government does nothing but protect property rights is that as property will naturally become more and more concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the government becomes nothing but a tool of the corporatist interests that end up controlling it. Anyone worried about the slippery slope to fascism ought to be much more worried about the five conservatives on the US Supreme Court than anything else.
Extremely well said. I could not possibly agree more!
Government guarantee of net neutrality rights will not, as some ideologically pure but entirely naive posters have absurdly suggested, result in communism or fascism*. The truth is that net neutrality is necessary for the maintenance of a healthy free society, and those who would oppose it are the enemies of a free society.
A general principle of debate: whenever someone starts with absolutist rantings, they probably don't have a rational position to defend.
"those who oppose it are enemies of a free society"? Really? So the fact that someone might believe in property rights makes them an enemy of free society?
I can understand liking net neutrality. I can even understand some arguments where it is important. But there are also arguments on the other side. If telcos paid billions of dollars creating a network and other ISPs spent billions of dollars creating THEIR networks, why isn't taking away their rights to control their property 'unjust seizure' under the Constitution? They paid for one thing and are being forced to offer something else.
In another thread, you stated:
Contracts, freely entered into, are, however, a different sort of thing. A contract is essentially a promise to do something in exchange for someone else doing some other thing in return. The key point is that it is a promise, a giving of one's word, that one will undertake certain actions. A person ought not treat a promise freely given lightly. Keeping one's word goes to the heart of one's character and integrity.
Why is it OK for the government to give licenses to the telcos and then later decide to unilaterally change the terms of those contracts?
Please stop with the "if you don't agree with me, you're a fascist" nonsense. There are arguments on both sides and it's a case of conflicting rights, so some mechanism has to be defined to deal with that.
(1) each year for tax subsidies that add up tens of billions per year. Or do you think when T-Mobile paid ~ $16 Billion for a portion of spectrum they had the cash on hand for that investment?
(2) you were too young to realize Reagan conned everyone, or perhaps you suck off the teet of the Reagan Revolution?
(3) Verizon is dumping much of their local phone services when it costs too much for them to service [Frontier anyone?] and are taking that cash to build out FiOS in high density [high price point] regions, piggy backing LTE on those fiber back ends.
(4) When I can choose, without any early cancellation fee, from AT&T as my Fiber provider, or Verizon, or Qwest or my local Municipality, then I have Competition.
(1) the cash comes from private investors by way of corporate bonds. It doesn't come from taxes. These companies pay INTO the treasury. Many of them have been regulated even after '84 by State and municipal bodies.
(2) I'm 58. Reagan just finished what was started under Jimmy Carter. Carter was the biggest deregulator of the last 50 years (transportation--trucking, airlines (remember CAB fares?), and telecommunications in particular). I'm not interested in going back to the MaBell culture.
(3) I'm not familiar with the circumstances you claim with Verizon, but I would sell under those circumstances as well. They're a business, not a charity or the government.
(4) Leases work both ways. They work for the lessee and lessor. 1 year was my contract with ATT... still have them after 4.
Government is run by the same rules and the same people that run companies. It's role should be to set up a framework that requires competition. Competition is tamed by greasing the palms of politicians sitting on committees. They just did it again with the health care bill. If you had the money, you got a place at their table.
(1) the cash comes from private investors by way of corporate bonds. It doesn't come from taxes. These companies pay INTO the treasury. Many of them have been regulated even after '84 by State and municipal bodies.
(2) I'm 58. Reagan just finished what was started under Jimmy Carter. Carter was the biggest deregulator of the last 50 years (transportation--trucking, airlines (remember CAB fares?), and telecommunications in particular). I'm not interested in going back to the MaBell culture.
(3) I'm not familiar with the circumstances you claim with Verizon, but I would sell under those circumstances as well. They're a business, not a charity or the government.
(4) Leases work both ways. They work for the lessee and lessor. 1 year was my contract with ATT... still have them after 4.
Government is run by the same rules and the same people that run companies. It's role should be to set up a framework that requires competition. Competition is tamed by greasing the palms of politicians sitting on committees. They just did it again with the health care bill. If you had the money, you got a place at their table.
US Lobbying for Corporate favors totaled $168.4 Billion in 2009. Telcos were second only to Big Pharma. They aren't lobbying to get anything but preferred status and tax structures that give them discounts in which every other country in the world rightfully calls subsidies.
Here is an example from lowly 1995:
http://www.ctj.org/html/layoffs.htm
Those figures pale in comparison to today's structuring.
Over-regulation is the path to fascism.
God this is a depressing thread.
Anti-monopoly laws? These are good. Truth in advertising laws? Good. Minimum wage requirements? Good. Child labor laws? Good. The Equal Opportunity Act? Good.
These are just a fraction of a of fraction of all the regulations that protect you as a consumer, you as a worker and you as a business owner.
The goal with net neutrality is not to prevent corporations from leveraging their infrastructure investment for a profit, it's to prevent the most powerful players from simply usurping absolute control of the entire system.
AThe goal with net neutrality is not to prevent corporations from leveraging their infrastructure investment for a profit, it's to prevent the most powerful players from simply usurping absolute control of the entire system.
Or in other words, to keep things the way they are now.
Anti-monopoly laws? These are good. Truth in advertising laws? Good. Minimum wage requirements? Good. Child labor laws? Good. The Equal Opportunity Act? Good.
These are just a fraction of a of fraction of all the regulations that protect you as a consumer, you as a worker and you as a business owner.
The goal with net neutrality is not to prevent corporations from leveraging their infrastructure investment for a profit, it's to prevent the most powerful players from simply usurping absolute control of the entire system.
When you're dealing with libertarians, you're dealing with people who don't care about any of those things. They only care about "defending property rights". That's their only objective. Why? Because capitalism requires it. Why is capitalism good? Because it's based on property rights. And round and round you go.
...
In fact, the ridiculous full on property rights based libertarianism espoused by one poster is exactly the thing that will inevitably lead to fascism, despite it's adherents telling us it is the one true path to freedom. The paradox of libertarianism where government does nothing but protect property rights is that as property will naturally become more and more concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the government becomes nothing but a tool of the corporatist interests that end up controlling it. Anyone worried about the slippery slope to fascism ought to be much more worried about the five conservatives on the US Supreme Court than anything else.
So, you say government is the answer. Give government overwhelming control, because they are the only ones who could ever look for the benefit of the people. We should even prefer a proactive justice system that thinks and acts like government, i.e. total government control.
It's been tried multiple times before, and it does not work. Benevolent dictators aren't. Power corrupts, and government is the ultimate monopoly with no higher authority.
When politicians get into power, they forget all of their promises, which in many cases were not promises at all --only whatever people wanted to hear.
They don't cater to the people. They only listen to their internal voices and try to impose their own visions. That's why they often make misguided decisions that end up costing everyone.
On the other hand, private corporations live by their ability to satisfy the people's needs. Of course except when they aquire monopoly powers, but there are laws and many oversight mechanisms against that.
It is easier to spot wrongdoings in the private sector than in government.
As long as we maintain the rule of law, an effective justice system and limit the power of any single entity, we will be kept clear of problems.
Giving overwhelming power to those who write the law and let them in bed with those who apply the law is just plain nuts.
Note: I suggest that you look up the term "corporatism". It doesn't mean what you think, and has nothing to do with private corporations. Nazism was based on corporatism, which is more related to national unions than anything in the private sector.
Museums and bandwidth are scarce.
A general principle of debate: whenever someone starts with absolutist rantings, they probably don't have a rational position to defend.
"those who oppose it are enemies of a free society"? Really? So the fact that someone might believe in property rights makes them an enemy of free society?
Another general principle of debate is to actually understand what's been said. Nowhere did I say, imply, or even hint that property rights and net neutrality are in any way mutually exclusive.
I can understand liking net neutrality. I can even understand some arguments where it is important. But there are also arguments on the other side. If telcos paid billions of dollars creating a network and other ISPs spent billions of dollars creating THEIR networks, why isn't taking away their rights to control their property 'unjust seizure' under the Constitution? They paid for one thing and are being forced to offer something else.
The telcos were sold privileges to use radio spectrum for the public good. If they abuse those privileges, or if it is decided that the way they are using them isn't for the public good, then they could lose the right to use the radio frequency at all. I think it's a pretty good compromise for them to accept net neutrality and make money from passing Internet traffic over that spectrum. But, should they not comply with the public interest, their privilege to use that spectrum ought to be revoked. And notice, there is nothing involved here that they own, as they do not own the spectrum.
In another thread, you stated: ...
Why is it OK for the government to give licenses to the telcos and then later decide to unilaterally change the terms of those contracts?
See above. Also, free flow of communications is too critical to the health of a democracy to ever allow it to be controlled by corporations for their own benefit. It undermines the very system that allowed those corporations to exist. While it may be a difficult point, a free society can never surrender to a threat, even if it allowed that threat to come into existence, and faced with a choice of contract law vs. freedom, there really is no choice at all. The right thing may sometimes be the lesser of two evils.
(Which, btw, does not in any way apply to the context from which the quote was taken>)
Please stop with the "if you don't agree with me, you're a fascist" nonsense. There are arguments on both sides and it's a case of conflicting rights, so some mechanism has to be defined to deal with that.
Well, since you've only read this nonsense into what I wrote, that won't be a difficult point for me to oblige you on.
So, you say government is the answer. Give government overwhelming control, because they are the only ones who could ever look for the benefit of the people. We should even prefer a proactive justice system that thinks and acts like government, i.e. total government control.
It's been tried multiple times before, and it does not work. Benevolent dictators aren't. Power corrupts, and government is the ultimate monopoly with no higher authority.
When politicians get into power, they forget all of their promises, which in many cases were not promises at all --only whatever people wanted to hear.
They don't cater to the people. They only listen to their internal voices and try to impose their own visions. That's why they often make misguided decisions that end up costing everyone.
On the other hand, private corporations live by their ability to satisfy the people's needs. Of course except when they aquire monopoly powers, but there are laws and many oversight mechanisms against that.
It is easier to spot wrongdoings in the private sector than in government.
As long as we maintain the rule of law, an effective justice system and limit the power of any single entity, we will be kept clear of problems.
Giving overwhelming power to those who write the law and let them in bed with those who apply the law is just plain nuts.
Note: I suggest that you look up the term "corporatism". It doesn't mean what you think, and has nothing to do with private corporations. Nazism was based on corporatism, which is more related to national unions than anything in the private sector.
Well, I can only say that I believe you are mistaken on all counts.
Your points on government are, I think, largely due to a misunderstanding of how government got into the mess it seems today, which is largely the result of a) corporate influence in government, and b) people running government who think government is bad and not only shouldn't do anything, but can't. Naturally, these kind of people are likely to have created a huge mess.
Your points on corporations are just entirely contrary to history. Private corporations, unfettered by regulation, have never acted in the public interest, and in fact have almost always acted contrary to it. I know it's a popular naive fantasy that "competition" will somehow set everything right, but that's all it really is: a fantasy with no basis in reality, human nature or history to support it.
I don't suppose you're referring to me because I never mentioned fascism. I will chime-in to note, however, that I don't agree with your stated paradox. That is, more freedom does not lead to less freedom.
Yes, I was referring to you in my remarks on how libertarianism is a philosophy that ultimately leads to government of the powerful, and less freedom for most everyone. That you didn't mention fascism is irrelevant to the fact. I'm guessing you made the remarks you did, and hold the views you do because you are unaware of the contradictions and problems inherent in them.
Let's look at media conglomeration. Some people say that no one media corporation should own too much (both TV broadcasting stations and newspapers, for example) because it would lead to a reduction in available content for the consumer. ...
It's a beautiful thing.
To you it may be a beautiful thing. To me all this "beauty" you refer to is mostly just mindless junk. And the proliferation of points of view you claim are mostly points of view that are without value: does anyone really find any value in what the Real Housewives of ________ think? Consolidation of media control is certainly not a good thing, by any standard but the most shallow.
Now, consider the hornet's nest that's encountered when we have government subsidizing free expression. ...
Red herring.
Conversely, in just northern europe alone (as well as north of the us border), we see real-world examples of countries that have built admirable functioning societies on a semi-socialist framework?incorporating principles of free markets regulated to produce the best possible social net good. No, I am not saying they're perfect. And like any living organism (which a society is), adjustments constantly need to be made?sometimes in favor of commerce, sometimes in favor of the "the masses." And let's not forget the us had some pretty good decades after the new deal. That's a real-world expample no libertarian can match.
This is most inconvenient for objectivists and their ilk. Their theories actually only appeal to numbskulls, half-wits, teenagers, and raving idealogues, like the Paul family. They make a lot of noise but look up Paul's vote tally last time he ran for president. There were no more than few hundred thousand kooks that believe that crap enough to bother going to vote. Isn't that idiot that publishes "reason" against voting? Right. What's the point if all you can manage is protest vote that does not even cause a blip the radar?
Neo-liberal style libertarianism = FAIL!
Well, I can only say that I believe you are mistaken on all counts.
Your points on government are, I think, largely due to a misunderstanding of how government got into the mess it seems today, which is largely the result of a) corporate influence in government, and b) people running government who think government is bad and not only shouldn't do anything, but can't. Naturally, these kind of people are likely to have created a huge mess.
Your points on corporations are just entirely contrary to history. Private corporations, unfettered by regulation, have never acted in the public interest, and in fact have almost always acted contrary to it. I know it's a popular naive fantasy that "competition" will somehow set everything right, but that's all it really is: a fantasy with no basis in reality, human nature or history to support it.
You are referring to the other extreme, anarchy. I agree with you under those circumstances --in the absence of any legislative framework that includes an effective enforcement apparatus, private corporations and leadership figures usually run amuck, abusing the people left and right.
I believe in the rule of law, and the limitation of government to law enforcement and national defense.
And there is plenty of evidence that private enterprise and competition work wonders, unless you've been living under a rock in Somalia.
At the fall of the soviet empire and the tear down of the Berlin wall, we all witnessed, and there are plenty of testimonials, of the chaos and stagnation created by government rule, proving freedom, capitalism, competition and most importantly, justice and the rule of law, work wonders, sustaining a population previously deemed not possible, and under an unprecedented standard of living and individual rights, to boot.
Modern day rich, fat unions crack me up
Note: The huge mess the government is in today is not because of too much freedom, but the opposite, from 100 years of progressivism creeping in. The housing debacle is a clear example of government progressivism causing a crisis. I sincerely think that the Internet is in for a huge crisis if the government gets involved with ideologue regulations.
You are referring to the other extreme, anarchy. I agree with you under those circumstances --in the absence of any legislative framework that includes an effective enforcement apparatus, private corporations and leadership figures usually run amuck, abusing the people left and right.
I believe in the rule of law, and the limitation of government to law enforcement and national defense.
...
I was referring to exactly what you say you believe in. Although, given that you admit regulation is necessary, but say you don't believe in regulation, maybe that is some form of anarchy.
I believe in the rule of law, and the limitation of government to law enforcement and national defense.
Law enforcement? But let me guess -- only enforcement of laws that involve property rights, correct? Because the ultimate goal of society, nay life itself, is to invent and defend property rights, correct?
Note: The huge mess the government is in today is not because of too much freedom, but the opposite, from 100 years of progressivism creeping in. The housing debacle is a clear example of government progressivism causing a crisis. I sincerely think that the Internet is in for a huge crisis if the government gets involved with ideologue regulations.
100 years of progressivism? Seriously? Right?because you say so, it is true. Life was so much better during the gilded age.
Carriers don't want neutrality, so they're not going to give it to you willingly. The only way to change that is to make them want it. The only way to make they want it is to make them liable for not having it. And that will happen after the first person who sues AT&T for allowing everyone to access libelous material about them off of a random website, rather than suing that website. AT&T will say, we're just an ISP, we can't control content, and then the prosecution will point to all the violations of net neutrality in the past 10 years as a counter point.