how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 Titus PulloI came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
kudos:1
 ·Embarq Now Centu..
| reply to garagerock
Re: Put Up or Shut Up said by garagerock: quote:
You constantly say the government should help this or that person
So, you live on an island? Gov't doesn't help you at all? Are you your own police force, fire department, garbage collection...national defense? EPA? FTC? You've never used a student loan? Attended a public university? Driven on an interstate highway? Eaten food that's been inspected? Somehow I doubt all of the above. Those who would question government's role in these matters hasn't really pondered what government does (and quite well) on a daily basis. I bet you're part of that "the government sucks" crowd that has it's collective head up its ASS in regards to facets of life we as Americans take for granted. Good points 
Most, but not all, who argue against Muni-BB are using the 'socialist' cop-out as the basis for their stance. They advance less government because government is inept, yet I'd bet half or more of them just voted for an administration that currently has the largest and most inept government in recent history.
It's trying to have it both ways: government is so inept it can't get out of its own way :: you can't let government compete or provide services that private industry does because it'll put people out of business.
Which is it?
If govt is so damn inept then how is it exactly that they're able to put any enterprise out of business when they can't agree on anything or balance a budget?
This leaves the anti-munis to cherry pick positions in this regard: government is good as long as it stays out of the way of higher corporate profits or providing -- by whatever means -- a decent standard of living for its citizens. ostensibly because Government is supposed to work for the people and not against it: helping people is tantamount to creating a Welfare State where we'll all end up on the dole, crying and whining for handouts; and, competing with business is not in the best interests of a free market.
The problem I see with this theory is that Government is enmeshed with corporate america so deeply that lines are now blurred, making the traditional argument murky at best. We're moving from a mixed economy to a sort of hybrid where pure capitalism is wedded to government to create a corporate state with minimal oversight (I think that defines fascism when media is under the umbrella). Privatization is just what it implies: taking away basic checks and balances put in place and enforced by government that are a vital protection from the cronyism that leads to blatant exploitation at every turn. I can't help but see their argument as fear of true competition -- something lost due to collusion by the major players. The bottom line is rapacious profit. Look at what Comcast just announced for first quarter profts. And yet prices will go up sure as sunshine.
The muni debate, it seems to me, is one of pure ideology & hyperbole, when it should be a rational discussion about how to create more affordable Internet access for all that want it.
--
"The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose." -- Frederick Douglass | |
| quote:
The muni debate, it seems to me, is one of pure ideology & hyperbole, when it should be a rational discussion about how to create more affordable Internet access for all that want it
Agreed. But the reactionaries that would deride these projects are saying just that-nobody should help anyone get affordable internet access, esp. the government...despite bond issues eating the upfront cost altogether.
I'm not sure I understand anyone who would stop anyone from getting into the broadband business, even if it is your local government. Utilities of all stripes started out life in most small towns being owned and ran by the local governments...why is this any different?
If the projects fail, fine. Pull the plug. Stop writing checks. What I fail to understand is why the attack dogs would stop anyone from even trying. But we're back again at the "don't help anyone with anything...unless it's me!" mentality. | |
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by garagerock:If the projects fail, fine. Pull the plug. Stop writing checks. What I fail to understand is why the attack dogs would stop anyone from even trying. But we're back again at the "don't help anyone with anything...unless it's me!" mentality. I would agree with you if it was only that easy. Government programs can accomplish absolutely nothing for many, many years and still get regular funding increases. Once the government starts financing something, that something will do everything in its power to make sure it stays funded, no matter how bad of a job it does.
The only solution which provides full accountability is one that is not run by the government. If it fails, then the only people who are screwed are the shareholders of that venture. No one else's pocket would be picked to bail it out.
--
Hey Fast Eddie... you're next! | |
|
