Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
Re: I can already hear the conversation quote:
No, I believe what you like is a paternalistic, socialist state where the government makes all the important decisions for people and protects them from themselves.
Wow. There you go with the extremes again. I'd like just a functional uncompromised regulatory authority that held corporations accountable for sleazy activity.
Going from that to Cuba is a bridge you're building in your head. |
|
 R4M0NBrazilian Soccer Ownz Joo
join:2000-10-04
Glen Allen, VA
1 edit | said by Karl Bode: quote:
No, I believe what you like is a paternalistic, socialist state where the government makes all the important decisions for people and protects them from themselves.
Wow. There you go with the extremes again. I'd like just a functional uncompromised regulatory authority that held corporations accountable for sleazy activity. Going from that to Cuba is a bridge you're building in your head. Where does the "regulatory authority" stop then? Does it determine what "sleazy activity" is? What if you don't agree with the authority's determinations of "sleazy activity"? What if, decades from now, it decides that selling for any profit is "sleazy activity"?
I'd say you're the one not thinking far enough ahead. |
|
| quote:
What if, decades from now, it decides that selling for any profit is "sleazy activity"?
Yes, clearly I'm advocating that we outlaw profit. Very observant. |
|
 wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | reply to R4M0N
said by R4M0N:said by Karl Bode: quote:
No, I believe what you like is a paternalistic, socialist state where the government makes all the important decisions for people and protects them from themselves.
Wow. There you go with the extremes again. I'd like just a functional uncompromised regulatory authority that held corporations accountable for sleazy activity. Going from that to Cuba is a bridge you're building in your head. Where does the "regulatory authority" stop then? Does it determine what "sleazy activity" is? What if you don't agree with the authority's determinations of "sleazy activity"? What if, decades from now, it decides that selling for any profit is "sleazy activity"? I'd say you're the one not thinking far enough ahead. WOW. Very well said.
--
я люблю медведей! |
|
R4M0NBrazilian Soccer Ownz Joo
join:2000-10-04
Glen Allen, VA
1 edit | reply to Karl Bode
deleted [repost] |
|
R4M0NBrazilian Soccer Ownz Joo
join:2000-10-04
Glen Allen, VA | reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode: quote:
What if, decades from now, it decides that selling for any profit is "sleazy activity"?
Yes, clearly I'm advocating that we outlaw profit. Very observant. Right.... That's exactly what I said. 
And you accused tkjunkmail of creating "bridges in his head"? |
|
|
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
2 edits | You proposed a scenario where a regulatory authority would suddenly deem making a profit something that should be banned. You can re-read your own post above.
TKJunkmail suggested I advocated mirroring Cuba's government.
Pretty common debate club tactic to re-frame an opponent's position to an extreme so it's easier to defeat. Not really interested in that kind of "discussion."
I believe you're missing my very simple point: overbilling the elderly for antique telephones is sleazy. You may think it's fine, I don't. |
|
| reply to wifi4milez
Not particularly. It regurgitates a party line on deregulation and makes a bizarre leap to suggest any reasonable regulatory authority would outlaw "making a profit". |
|
wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:You proposed a scenario where a regulatory authority would suddenly deem making a profit something that should be banned. The point he was trying to make is that if a regulatory authority can determine this specific case as something that should be illegal or banned (given that no laws have been broken), they could later determine anything (such as making a profit) to be illegal as well. Once you cross over the line and start actively making decisions FOR people, nothing else is safe. What if they start making other decisions for elderly people? No entering into contracts just because you might get a bad deal? No purchasing gasoline if it might be cheaper elsewhere? No using email because they might be exposed to something offensive? Old people are not all stupid, and they should also be held responsible for their actions.
--
я люблю медведей! |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| quote:
The point he was trying to make is that if a regulatory authority can determine this specific case as something that should be illegal or banned (given that no laws have been broken), they could later determine anything (such as making a profit) to be illegal as well.
Yes, and Uncle Sam could suddenly outlaw wearing pants? Disband Uncle Sam?
Saying something could possibly happen does not support the position a regulatory authority should or shouldn't intervene in something like this. It's just kind of argumentative fluff for fans of deregulation. A scare tactic.
Obviously if you're designing the "perfect" regulatory authority, it's not some double headed monster that goes around outlawing things like making a profit. It's a reasonable authority, not compromised by industry cash, capable of reasonable regulation at times, but also being able to step back and appreciate instances that require no intervention. |
|
wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | said by Karl Bode:Obviously if you're designing the "perfect" regulatory authority, it's not some double headed monster that goes around outlawing things like making a profit. It's a reasonable authority, not compromised by industry cash, capable of reasonable regulation at times, but also being able to step back and appreciate instances that require no intervention. So what exactly would you have them "outlaw" in this case that couldn't also apply to another situation?
--
я люблю медведей! |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to Karl Bode
You don't think far enough ahead, Karl. You want to live in a utopia but it will NEVER happen.
There is NOTHING in life where it says "life will be fair"... there is nothing wrong with this at all. Some regulatory body should determine the price for everything?
Let's take you for a moment. You are obviously involved in technology to a point... you participate here. Let's say you decide that you want to consult. I, as do many people here, feel that $80 an hour for computer technical support is WAY over the top. Enough people complain to a regulatory body and the next thing you know you are being told you can only sell your service for $25.00 an hour, or even worse, minimum wage.
Competition is great! IT is was is supposed to keep prices down.. not government intervention.
The lease charge is on the phone bill. When did these people stop knowing how to read? Go back to their time, trust me, the older generation read MUCH more than todays generation does.
The only thing building in one's head is a utopian society where everything is perfect. Two questions.. 1) how much does such a perfect society cost everyone? and 2) Do you think you will ever see it? why? (because you won't - it's IMPOSSIBLE)
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | quote:
You don't think far enough ahead, Karl. You want to live in a utopia but it will NEVER happen.
Yet another person who apparently needs to reframe my position to one extreme in order to make it easier to digest and defeat.
Nowhere do I suggest I want a Utopia.
Nowhere do I suggest life should be fair.
There's nowhere I suggest some regulatory body should determine the price "for everything".
I simply suggest over-charging the elderly for antiquated technology is unethical, and our regulatory authority is dysfunctional. Fairly sane and rather correct observation, if I do say so myself.
You clearly are advocating the slaughter of penguins for use in paving American highways! |
|
| reply to Karl Bode
AMEN ! |
|
| reply to Karl Bode
Uh I didn't read all of this arguement but I didn't see Karl post anything bad in the first place. And where did someone get that an authority needed to say it was a sleazy action for them to keep changing the old lady? Is there no common sence anymore? The people at the telephone company should have relized it was sleazy to keep charging her. We don't need an authority to tell us something like this was wrong.
And before someone wants to make a remark saying I said something wrong, Don't cause I am sure I explained what I said directly and clearly. |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
1 edit | reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:I believe you're missing my very simple point: overbilling the elderly for antique telephones is sleazy. You may think it's fine, I don't. Exactly. Even if it isn't illegal, it's hardly ethical, and rightly should be condemned.
Unfortunately these days there's a lot of people who think that profits and business self-interest is far more important and deserves greater privileges and rights then ordinary people. Ie, if it's good for some corporation then it MUST be good for the country. Who cares who the corporate bulldozer runs over.
.... Unless the bulldozer is coming at them.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to Karl Bode
Isn't it amazing how the leap in logic goes....
"Hmmm Telco shouldn't really be allowed to get away with this" means instantly "You COMMUNIST!!"
ROFL |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to Karl Bode
Karl,
you somehow feel that unless you say the "specific words" that you "didn't say it"... That's the way of a politician - happens all the time.
You want a mechanism to correct something you feel is wrong. We don't need that.. a perfect would would have safety nets to catch everything that is "wrong" with the world. THAT, my friend, is a utpoia... perfection. We can't legislate perfection.
The fact is that some people may not get what others feel is "fair"...
You also made comments that they are charging rent for something that is too much for the outdated technology. If it walks like a duck.. it's a duck. Where I come from, that screams someone determining what the price for something should be. And, the way things work in life/the world, they won't stop at telephones. One control leads to another. Isn't that one of the common arguments of the patriot act? It's in the mix! "If they pass a law to go after terrorists, what's to stop them from using it for X?"
If I "clearly advocate the slaugher of penguines for use in paving american highways" then you clearly advocate taking from the rich to give to the poor, Robin Hood. 
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. |
|
