how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to hottboiinnc
Re: They have my full support said by hottboiinnc:Even though I disagree with you on many points on this site, I actually agree with you on this one. I think you'll find me very libertarian, anti-government interference, and pro-business.
The reason you and I disagree is because I am calling for minimal government intervention to fix problems that are rooted in the lack of healthy market competition.
While there are some things that the government can get right, most of the time it cannot compare (and shouldn't interfere) with the inherent economic efficiency of the free market.
But when that free market disappears, then the people are left with two choices, neither which are desireable --
- Deal with the powerful regulation by a government by, of, and for the people; or
- Deal with the powerful regulation by a for-profit company acting in a monopolistic fashion.
-- and I haven't decided one way or another across the board, some things that a powerful company or a powerful government may do with its power are good for freedom and our future, and some things are not. Unless the market forces improve, we have no other choices.
The EFF is in a tight spot, because now we have the Executive, Legislature, and the Telcos (who are monopolies in their regions) in collusion. The courts are the check and balance, and our last hope.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
| very very true. | |
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
3 edits | reply to funchords
Libertarianism is a joke said by funchords:-- and I haven't decided one way or another across the board, some things that a powerful company or a powerful government may do with its power are good for freedom and our future, and some things are not. (Chuckle). The libertarian's convenient "out."
There is always government intervention. From health-care standards, to food and drug quality standards. From the SEC (moderating a "market"), to banking regulations (eliminating a huge swath of willing buyers and sellers). From building codes to zoning laws (restricting how an individual may exercise her property rights).
Libertarianism could only exist in a pure anarchy. But, anarchy has never existed for more than 20 minutes. Why? Because when three people join together to take the property of one, that one person joins together with four to protect themselves from the three. The three join with 12. And the five join with 20.
Within about 2 hours you have the "social contract."
And as soon as you have people joining together for "mutual" benefit, there will always be winners and losers. Those who use the "will of society" to benefit more than others. Those who are criminalized (for example, lessor health-care choices) in ways they wouldn't if they had remained in a Lockean "state of nature," unaffiliated with a "group."
In a group, it always boils down to "the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few." Mutual benefit is an inexact science.
Most rational people understand this. Libertarians, on the other hand, employ self-serving and high-principled rhetoric to make it sound like they're different. Everyone else is for "big government." Libertarians stand for "free markets" and "individual rights."
But, when confronted with being irrelevant (if they follow their ideology to its natural conclusions), they admit that "government can do some things better than the market place."
Which usually translates into, "those things that are 'better' are the things what *I* think are beneficial, or that benefit me."
Which means, libertarians are no different than anyone else. They engage in the game of "who's ox is being gored." It's just that everyone else doesn't feel inclined to employ high-sounding rhetoric about "principles" and "coercion". As if everyone *else* is using government for impure purposes.
Mark | |
1 edit | reply to funchords
Re: They have my full support said by funchords:said by hottboiinnc:Even though I disagree with you on many points on this site, I actually agree with you on this one. I think you'll find me very libertarian, anti-government interference, and pro-business. The reason you and I disagree is because I am calling for minimal government intervention to fix problems that are rooted in the lack of healthy market competition. While there are some things that the government can get right, most of the time it cannot compare (and shouldn't interfere) with the inherent economic efficiency of the free market. But when that free market disappears, then the people are left with two choices, neither which are desireable -- - Deal with the powerful regulation by a government by, of, and for the people; or
- Deal with the powerful regulation by a for-profit company acting in a monopolistic fashion.
-- and I haven't decided one way or another across the board, some things that a powerful company or a powerful government may do with its power are good for freedom and our future, and some things are not. Unless the market forces improve, we have no other choices. The EFF is in a tight spot, because now we have the Executive, Legislature, and the Telcos (who are monopolies in their regions) in collusion. The courts are the check and balance, and our last hope. I agree with your assessment of illegal blanket warrantless wiretapping by the NSA and AT&T, Verizon, et al.
Here is AT&T's Residential Service Agreement counterstrike at standing for the EFF class action lawsuit. I'd suggest reading it carefully, if you have AT&T/SW Bell telecommunication services. The immunity, indemnity, mandatory arbitration, and prohibition of class actions and participation in class action lawsuit provisions are very interesting. The agreement becomes effective on October 1, 2008, or at payment in advance for September services, whichever is sooner. | |
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | reply to amigo_boy
Re: Libertarianism is a joke WARNING TO READERS -- THIS POST AND EVERYTHING THAT FOLLOWS IS OFF TOPIC, TROLLING, FLAMING, AND BAITING -- Robb
said by amigo_boy:said by funchords:-- and I haven't decided one way or another across the board, some things that a powerful company or a powerful government may do with its power are good for freedom and our future, and some things are not. (Chuckle). The libertarian's convenient "out."... ...Libertarianism could only exist in a pure anarchy... ...Most rational people understand this. Libertarians, on the other hand... ...if they follow their ideology to its natural conclusions... Other than childish name calling, the only thing you've accomplished here is to demonstrate that you can take any political model to an absurdly extreme conclusion and discover absurdity. You have persuaded nobody and have contributed nothing.
If you have anything to say about the topic at hand, which is either the NSA wiretapping, or hotboiinnc and my rare agreement on any issue, feel free to contribute.
Making pot-shots at general political purviews is just trolling.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| | |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
3 edits | said by funchords:the only thing you've accomplished here is to demonstrate that you can take any political model to an absurdly extreme conclusion and discover absurdity. But, that's the problem with "libertarianism." It uses high-sounding, principled rhetoric as if it's on a moral high ground compared to everyone else who is supposedly using government (coercion) to impede perfect liberty.
If taken seriously, and followed to its logical conclusion, "libertarianism" is irrelevant. If relevancy matters, and adherents make pragmatic choices about *when* government intervention is useful, they're no different than everyone else participating in the social contract (goring oxes). It's just that everyone else doesn't pretty themselves up with high-minded rhetoric, false claims to "liberty," etc.
said by funchords:If you have anything to say about the topic at hand, which is either the NSA wiretapping, ... You're the one who invoked libertarianism as some kind of standard to follow.
Mark | |
1 edit | reply to funchords
said by funchords:said by amigo_boy:said by funchords:-- and I haven't decided one way or another across the board, some things that a powerful company or a powerful government may do with its power are good for freedom and our future, and some things are not. (Chuckle). The libertarian's convenient "out."... ...Libertarianism could only exist in a pure anarchy... ...Most rational people understand this. Libertarians, on the other hand... ...if they follow their ideology to its natural conclusions... Other than childish name calling, the only thing you've accomplished here is to demonstrate that you can take any political model to an absurdly extreme conclusion and discover absurdity. You have persuaded nobody and have contributed nothing. If you have anything to say about the topic at hand, which is either the NSA wiretapping, or hotboiinnc and my rare agreement on any issue, feel free to contribute. Making pot-shots at general political purviews is just trolling. His post laid out his ideas and there wasn't any name calling or trolling. And taking potshots(as you call it) at political groupings isn't trolling either. But accusing others of trolling is trolling.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:(...a bunch of repeated stuff, deleted...)You're the one who invoked libertarianism as some kind of standard to follow. No, I said no such thing. I said that it was my point of view and it was possibly an explanation of why hotboiinnc were in some rare agreement here.
Every single political persuasion has its "high-sounding, principled rhetoric as if it's on a moral high ground compared to everyone else."
Again, you are contributing nothing and making pot-shots at general political purviews is just trolling and its off-topic. Have you noticed that I haven't refuted anything that you've said? Yet you continue to argue back.
My next step is to hit "hey mods" and let them delete the whole thread, including this message, if they so desire.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
3 edits | said by funchords:Every single political persuasion has its "high-sounding, principled rhetoric as if it's on a moral high ground compared to everyone else." I've never seen the Right or Left refer to the "non-coercion" principle. Only libertarians (and so-called Ayn Rand "objectivsts") do.
The obvious problem is if you take "non-coercion" to its natural conclusion. At that point you're in a Lockean "state of nature." No social contract. Perfect rights -- that are *only* as perfect as you, as an individual has the power to assert/protect.
As I said in a previous post, such a state of nature only lasts a few minutes. A few bad people join together in a "society" to overpower the "principled" individuals. The "principled" individuals join together to protect themselves from the bad people. And, in about 19 minutes, you have social contracts. An emphasis on the "common good." Where "common" always leaves some people better or worse than they would have been in a Lockean state of nature.
Rs and Ds argue for more or less government in different areas (banning weed, or same-sex marriages, or abortion, etc.). But, you never see them refer to some kind of so-called absolute standard of Libertarian "consentualism." Neither argue for "less government" (as if those who call for more government are anti-American, or anti-Liberty). They simply call for different kinds of government (throwing Cheech and Chong Fans in prison, or defining marriage differently).
It's only the libertarians who toss around high-sounding terms like "consent" (or lack of consent). But, the odd thing is, they're perfectly happy with using government in an unconsensual manner -- while depicting themselves as focused on non-coercion. They're no different than anyone else. They just feel they can pretty themselves up with high-sounding, idelogical rhetoric.
Mark | |
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | Mark,
That is not resonating with me at all. If that's your view of libertarianism or Libertarians, then you and I are have different definitions, and before you help me figure out that you're right and I'm wrong, let me tell you now that I don't care. I used the word to describe my point of view, and if I used it wrong I'll still have the same basic point of view -- just one with the wrong name. Perhaps it's best that you forget I used the word or just assume that I don't know what it is.
That said, my position remains -- with residential telecom, we have a choice between private regulation by the company or companies that serve our address, or public regulation by the government. Private regulation by companies is usually not a major problem because people can often switch to a company that suits their wants and needs. But when the situation doesn't allow that choice, then I am not opposed to limited government involvement.
That's all.
Whether that's right, left, up, or down -- I don't care. It's how I feel on the matter.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by funchords:you and I are have different definitions I'm just going by what is official Libertarian dogma from the Libertarian party. And, from Ayn Rand's "objectivism." The premise is the "non-coercion" principle.
If you've found a "pragmatic" position that accepts "coercion" sometimes, that's fine with me. That's what Libertarians do. They either follow the dogma to its natural conclusion (irrelevancy and anarchy). Or, they do the same thing everyone else does: be pragmatic.
As I said before, everyone else is pragmatic without claiming to be defenders of individual liberty, according to a perfect standard.
Libertarianism is essentially self-deceit.
said by funchords:with residential telecom, we have a choice between private regulation by the company or companies that serve our address, or public regulation by the government. Again, simplistic libertarian world views. Telcos are corporations, a fictional, yet legal entity created by state legislatures. To serve as the "fall guy" if officers and investors make the wrong "free market" choices.
That's the problem I have with libertarianism. It redefines reality. Ignore all the social moderation of capital markets, and then claim that some isolated, narrow activity is anti-liberty.
Like I've said a few times. For libertarianism to have any significant meaning, it would have to oppose things like state-creation of corporate charters (a social interference in consentual relationships). Or, libertarians have to be pragmatic and say "that's ok, but something else is wrong." Which makes them no different than any other political idelogy. I.e., it's not about liberty, it's about pragmatism and "the common good."
Mark | |
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Fine, but DSLReports is about Broadband, Telecom, DSL, and the like.
I'm sorry I said one of your magic words or whatever set you off, but "Libertarian is a joke" is entirely off-topic and seemed to just serve as an opportunity for you to spout off about something that wasn't being discussed. | |
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by funchords:Fine, but DSLReports is about Broadband, Telecom, DSL, and the like. Libertarinism is about taking so-called personal responsibility. Maybe you need to take responsibility for
IMO, this is sounding like typical libertarianism. "Let me spout off about my high-sounding principles. But, if anyone challenges me, I want to 'hey mod' them, or claim they're off topic."
Mark | |
approval from:
amigo_boy 
| reply to ross
Re: They have my full support too bad we all know you won't do anything about it ross accept keep paying at&t for there services
you stated before you had other options available to you but that your too lazy to go for them
so you will whine and complain but in the end you will not stand up and put your money where your keyboard is | |
1 edit | said by toobad :
too bad we all know you won't do anything about it ross accept keep paying at&t for there services
you stated before you had other options available to you but that your too lazy to go for them
so you will whine and complain but in the end you will not stand up and put your money where your keyboard is
Once again, for your edification, the choices I have are AT&T and Comcast, and a number of third party providers of VOIP that would require a DSL circuit, or a cable connection. As it happens, I have ADSL service through COVAD over AT&T copper. That means I can just get a VOIP provider, use Skype, Magicjack, etc.. EXCEPT, if I cancel my AT&T landlines, I believe I will lose my ADSL with COVAD, or I will have to convert it to dryline service. I don't think, but haven't investigated the issue fully as yet, I can get a dryline DSL service without going directly with AT&T. I think there may also be a few remaining CLECs in my area, and I will find out more in the next few days.
My AT&T services have been reliable, though unimproved, for the 30+ years I've lived here. The service is reasonable, but not as cheap as it could or should be. There is so much noise on my lines I can't get over 3Mbps/520Kbps ADSL. That pisses me off. So does the prospect of having to subscribe to Comcast HSI, unbundled. I like having a hard-wired telephone service, especially with 911 service that is reliable and accurate.
I don't understand why I can't get Verizon service in my AT&T area. After all, isn't this the post Bell monopoly era 30 years on? Fuck, where is all that competition that was supposed improve technology and lower costs, and allow me to choose among multiple vendors for service?
Lastly, I do have some choices, though they are far from ideal. However, why am I being forced to accept such a major change in terms, and such a lopsided position in a contract that has lasted for so long? Christ, I have excellent credit, and an on-time payment history for the entire length of my service with AT&T. Why should I have to agree with the onerous terms in AT&T's new Residential Service Agreement? Why am I forced to surrender my legal rights to privacy, and indemnify everybody under AT&T umbrella for illegal acts AT&T has, or may, undertake?
I have to change telephone company providers, DSL providers, and potentially lose telephone numbers I have had for 30+ years. It is a major PITA, but I will not accept the terms of the new AT&T RSA. Why should my life be disrupted without benefit to me?
FUCK AT&T! | |
|
