Topic 'Re: Free for all' in forum '' - dslreports.com http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22159219 en Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:00:08 EDT Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:00:08 EDT Re: Free for all http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22168438
quote:
I could go on but you get the point. Services often start out as private entities. Over time some services transition from private to public ownership.

Over time? I'd say immediately when [a] government is formed do the public services (of the type you mention) get absorbed by hostile takeover.

quote:
So what is your solution to corruption? Do nothing or tackle the problem.


There is no solution. NONE. Those who govern us are beyond reproach, and getting worse. The taxpayers and their concerns are in stark contrast to the interests of government.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22168438 Wed, 01 Apr 2009 22:40:12 EDT Re: Free for all http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22167137 said by buccaneere:

I disagree that your examples were once provided by the private sector. Nor are they now. They were always public services, funded by taxation of the service recipients.
quote:
"insurance companies formed private fire brigades to protect their clients’ property. Insurance brigades would only fight fires at buildings the company insured. These buildings were identified by fire insurance marks."
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of···fighting


quote:
Modern police in Europe has a precedent in the Hermandad, literally "brotherhood" in Spanish, a peacekeeping association of armed individuals, a characteristic of municipal life in medieval Spain, especially in Castile. As medieval Spanish kings were often unable to offer adequate protection, protective municipal leagues began to emerge in the 12th century against bandits and other rural criminals, as well as against the lawless nobility or to support a one or another claimant to the crown.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police


quote:
The notion of private highways, which would seem fantastic to our parents, was commonplace to our great-great-grandparents. Initiated in the 1790s in the growing Republic, these roads stimulated commerce, settlement, and population. During the nineteenth century more than 2,000 private companies financed, built, and operated toll roads. States turned to private initiative for much the same reason they are doing so today: fiscal constraints and insufficient administrative manpower. Knowledge of our toll-road heritage may help encourage today’s budding toll-road movement.
»www.thefreemanonline.org/columns···92-1916/


I could go on but you get the point. Services often start out as private entities. Over time some services transition from private to public ownership.

said by buccaneere:

Because the politicians do NOT make the rules. They sign rules formulated by their compaign contributors.

So what is your solution to corruption? Do nothing or tackle the problem. Seems to me the way we finance public officials is inherently corrupting. They have to serve two masters, their constituents and campaign contributors. But that is a discussion for another thread.

/tom]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22167137 Wed, 01 Apr 2009 18:55:01 EDT Re: Free for all http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22166815 quote:
What does that mean?

If I understand you correctly Government should not be involved in Police, Fire, Water, Sewer, roads etc. All those services were once provided by private business. At some point people decided it was best to manage those activities for public good.

For years phone service was a highly regulated monopoly. Is it your opinion that was improper?

Who gets to set the rules of the game, private companies or elected officials?

/tom

It means that government is NOT supposed to be in business.

If it was, and it was profitable, then taxes would not be necessary.

I disagree that your examples were once provided by the private sector. Nor are they now. They were always public services, funded by taxation of the service recipients.

"Who gets to set the rules of the game?" That's a good word that you used - game. Because the politicians do NOT make the rules. They sign rules formulated by their compaign contributors. Like the phone company. That operates under the GUISE of 'regulation' (but which more likely is UNfriendly toward competition).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22166815 Wed, 01 Apr 2009 18:06:47 EDT Re: Free for all http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22165197 said by buccaneere:

Government is NOT supposed to be in business . What does that mean?

If I understand you correctly Government should not be involved in Police, Fire, Water, Sewer, roads etc. All those services were once provided by private business. At some point people decided it was best to manage those activities for public good.

For years phone service was a highly regulated monopoly. Is it your opinion that was improper?

Who gets to set the rules of the game, private companies or elected officials?

/tom]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22165197 Wed, 01 Apr 2009 13:26:09 EDT Re: Free for all http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22165195 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22165195 Wed, 01 Apr 2009 13:25:55 EDT Re: Free for all http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22165046 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22165046 Wed, 01 Apr 2009 13:02:51 EDT Re: Free for all http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22164771 quote:
My post was about notion government should not compete with private enterprise.


Government (.gov) is NOT supposed to be in business (.com[mercial) .

Same as 'religion', which it is NOT to 'establish'.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22164771 Wed, 01 Apr 2009 12:22:53 EDT Re: Free for all http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22162806 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22162806 Wed, 01 Apr 2009 04:50:15 EDT Re: Free for all http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22162510
As no individual or corporation has invested in these, and they are deemed necessary for the most part (corporations did give donations for the sports complex), does that mean that none of them should exist for lack of private investment ?
--
Canada = Hollywood North]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22162510 Wed, 01 Apr 2009 01:53:57 EDT Re: Free for all http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22161473 said by Linklist:

This particular msg thread started with this post:
»Re: Free for all where the poster decided gov't should just seize a private company and take over. Sorry about that - I'm not following this thread as closely as you are. Missed that little tidbit.

Government has power of eminent domain but one hopes that power is used sparingly. As you posted the 5th amendment requires just compensation of confiscated property.

My post was about notion government should not compete with private enterprise. That private companies and only private companies are the one to decide how society operates. I reject that premise. Business operates at the pleasure of the people and is subservient to common good.

/tom]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22161473 Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:13:03 EDT Re: Free for all http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22161362 said by tschmidt:

said by Linklist:

The US is a Republic with a constitution that puts limits on the power of the people exercised thru their elected representatives.
What does that have to do with communities deciding which services they choose to deliver to their citizens?

/tom
This particular msg thread started with this post:
»Re: Free for all where the poster decided gov't should just seize a private company and take over.
quote:
If the incumbent doesnt want to do it, then strip them of their network and send them packing and bring someone in that will. Even if this means a new company has to be formed to do it.


All the subsequent posts were based on refuting that poor argument.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22161362 Tue, 31 Mar 2009 21:53:18 EDT Re: Free for all http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22161328 said by Linklist:

The US is a Republic with a constitution that puts limits on the power of the people exercised thru their elected representatives.
What does that have to do with communities deciding which services they choose to deliver to their citizens?

/tom]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22161328 Tue, 31 Mar 2009 21:47:42 EDT Re: Free for all http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22161269 said by tschmidt:

Power derives from the people. The people collectively decide proper role of government and private enterprise.
Not in the United States. The US is a Republic with a constitution that puts limits on the power of the people exercised thru their elected representatives. The founding fathers saw the danger of the tyranny of the masses(aka pure democracy) and setup a government that puts limits on the power of the majority to ramrod thru changes. The Constitution delineated rights that can NOT be removed by the will of the majority without going thru the cumbersome, time consuming, and excruciating process of amending the Constitution.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22161269 Tue, 31 Mar 2009 21:38:43 EDT Re: Free for all http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22161231 said by Linklist:

So, in effect, you say a city can decide to go in to any business it wants to because there would be no practical restrictions. Absolutely. Citizens, through their elected representatives, have the power decide which services are provided by the city. We seem to have this perverse notion that economics trumps everything else. Capitalism is a means to an end not an end in an of itself.

Power derives from the people. The people collectively decide proper role of government and private enterprise.

said by Linklist:

You sound like Obama taking over the auto industry.
You know that is not true. The Auto Industry came to the government and asked for assistance. The government in turn set conditions on that assistance. I see no constitutional problem with that. No one is forcing GM to take government money.

/tom]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22161231 Tue, 31 Mar 2009 21:30:20 EDT Re: Free for all http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22160623 said by gdicus:

I have to agree.

The service I provide has, on multiple occasions, been wiped out by city projects.

Then, what usually happens is that the Government, or Librarian in this case imposes it's own rules for the service.

Think about having a Librarian regulating your internet service.

Go to the local library and you will see these rules in play. I haven't for awhile, but in one branch they wouldn't allow people to email from their computers.

So, after wiping me out, they in turn provided a substandard service. I couldn't compete with free internet, even with freedom to access any site that you wished to access.
So you are saying the Librarian dictates what you can do from home? or just from the library?

Or if I read your post in a different way, how does providing limited service at a public facility that is (in most places) open for limited hours affecting what I assume was an attempt by you to be an internet provider? Either you provide such poor service each time that it was better to go to the library with the limited hours and time restrictions than to put up with your multiple attempts. I have not seen one library prohibit email, and I have used libraries in California, Arizona, Ohio, Texas, and one in Alberta over the last few years before I got a laptop.

Or the third option which looks more logical, the standard big business troll.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22160623 Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:35:37 EDT Re: Free for all http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22160118 said by coldmoon:

quote:
...Less govt is a good thing.


Actually that is what got us in the hole we are in now. What is needed is more competition...

Just a thought ;)
Ah, so more government must be the answer. Let's nationalize every industry, and let the government run it all. Take all of our paycheck, and give us back what they think we need.

Big government, big business ... it is all the same.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22160118 Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:06:49 EDT Re: Free for all http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22159940 said by Skippy25:

The muni, city, and/or state should do it regardless of any reason if it's people vote for it to be done.

If the incumbent doesnt want to do it, then strip them of their network and send them packing and bring someone in that will. Even if this means a new company has to be formed to do it.
You sound like Obama taking over the auto industry. The 5th Amendment in the US Constitution prohibits the taking of private property(such as a business) from US citizens without just compensation. And that usually results in multi-year court cases where eminent domain is concerned.

5th Amendment
"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22159940 Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:31:35 EDT Re: Free for all http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22159906 said by en102:

Just to make myself clear... I'm not pushing gov't run fiber/wifi over business. I'm stating that if a private run business either does not want to run a modern system, or just wants to provide the bare minimum and charge customers excessive fees, then the city should have the right to wire itself.
And the highlighted segment is entirely subjective. With a proviso like that the city gov't could decide to go against private companies on any pretext whatever. So, in effect, you say a city can decide to go in to any business it wants to because there would be no practical restrictions.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22159906 Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:25:45 EDT Re: Free for all http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22159827 quote:
...Less govt is a good thing.


Actually that is what got us in the hole we are in now. What is needed is more competition...

Just a thought ;)
--
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22159827 Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:11:41 EDT Re: Free for all http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22159808
If the incumbent doesnt want to do it, then strip them of their network and send them packing and bring someone in that will. Even if this means a new company has to be formed to do it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22159808 Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:07:57 EDT Re: Free for all http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22159806 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22159806 Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:07:46 EDT Re: Free for all http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22159756
Letting the govt control the interweb? Go to China. Less govt is a good thing. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22159756 Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:56:58 EDT Re: Free for all http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22159712
I think cities/communities can decide what is best for their citizens better then the big telcos or state and federal governments.

Also, an individual has more sway with the local government then they do with the state/feds, so if something about the service needs to be improved it's more likely to get done. But if all else fails, it's easier to move to a different city then it is out of state or out of country.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22159712 Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:49:53 EDT Re: Free for all http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22159695 --
Canada = Hollywood North]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22159695 Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:45:44 EDT Re: Free for all http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22159628 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22159628 Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:31:20 EDT Re: Free for all http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22159613 said by Matt3:

said by ninjatutle:

Everything should be this way. Are these the same cities that only allow one garbage hauling outfit in the city?
You are free to purchase your own garbage collection if you want. You still pay taxes for city collection, but you can get an alternative service from whomever you want at your own expense.
A more appropriate example would be education.

Sure, you can go send your kid to a private school but you'll still end up paying the school taxes to fund union labor in public schools.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22159613 Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:28:25 EDT Re: Free for all http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22159602
The service I provide has, on multiple occasions, been wiped out by city projects.

Then, what usually happens is that the Government, or Librarian in this case imposes it's own rules for the service.

Think about having a Librarian regulating your internet service.

Go to the local library and you will see these rules in play. I haven't for awhile, but in one branch they wouldn't allow people to email from their computers.

So, after wiping me out, they in turn provided a substandard service. I couldn't compete with free internet, even with freedom to access any site that you wished to access.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22159602 Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:26:53 EDT Re: Free for all http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22159532 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22159532 Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:15:04 EDT Re: Free for all http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22159485 said by ninjatutle:

Not here in Cali. Most cities also make it madatory for you to have garbage service with Waste Managment. I know someone with an empty house and they are forced to have service.
So take it up with your state legislature. What does that have to do with this article about an anti-muni bill in North Carolina?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22159485 Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:07:02 EDT Re: Free for all http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22159382
in any city that is underserved and/or has poor service (ie TW) they should not only be allowed to but encoraged to build their own system to properly compete to reach a good level of service]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22159382 Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:50:25 EDT Re: Free for all http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22159290 Eg. I live in Santa Clarita - 'many' area trash haulers that are located ~ 10 miles from here are not allowed to service this area. Local licenses/agreements.

I think the local governments should have the ability to deploy muni broadband if telco/cableco do not wish to invest. Telco/Cableco has their own agenda at their corporate level, which may not ever meet a local cities wishes - they should not be held hostage, or tied to policies (list AT&T/TWC caps like in parts of Texas) if a municipality wishes to explore better options.
--
Canada = Hollywood North]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22159290 Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:35:06 EDT Re: Free for all http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22159283 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22159283 Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:34:03 EDT Re: Free for all http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22159232 said by ninjatutle:

Everything should be this way. Are these the same cities that only allow one garbage hauling outfit in the city?
You are free to purchase your own garbage collection if you want. You still pay taxes for city collection, but you can get an alternative service from whomever you want at your own expense.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Free-for-all-22159232 Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:23:40 EDT Free for all http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Free-for-all-22159219 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Free-for-all-22159219 Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:21:13 EDT