nc3090
@windstream.net
 from:
TKJunkMail 
| more
"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."
Ayn Rand
A government run telecommunication system would qualify as interference in the economy. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Although Ayn forgets to say that sometimes those who gain the unearned benefit are the citizen consumers... |
|
Qumahlin
Never Enough Time
Premium,MVM
join:2001-10-05
united state
| reply to nc3090
said by nc3090 :
A government run telecommunication system would qualify as interference in the economy.
It would also qualify as a interference in the economy if the government passed the bill and thereby affected local businesses and startups who need more then TWC provides.
So in this context your Rand quote is useless and wrong.
That and the fact that quoting Ayn Rand in general is idiotic unless your just trying to prove you agree with that line of extremist thought about business/government. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
 ·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to nc3090
said by nc3090 :
A government run telecommunication system would qualify as interference in the economy. A TWC bill that would in effect grant only incumbents an inherent monopoly and a "You can't have it until we do it" broadband solution would also qualify as interference in the economy.
You could also claim that having public schools is interfering with the economy because otherwise private schools would handle education.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
1 edit | reply to nc3090
And I would take that unearned benefit for the consumer over the unearned benefit for the corporation any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
If the people that this network will benefit have agreed and OK'd it being built, then the local incumbents and the elected politicians have no business trying to prevent it.
You can pull out all the government vs. private crap all you want, but at the end of the day it is the consumers and the voters that *should* get the final word.
Companies that don't like the playing field can just go away. They had their chance to serve them and elected not to. Let's not forget that. |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | reply to nc3090
I agree, but I hope TW looses. |
|
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
1 edit | reply to nc3090
said by nc3090 :
"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."
Ayn Rand
A government run telecommunication system would qualify as interference in the economy.
You make that statement as if unfettered capitalism is some sort of goal we must strive to attain at all costs. It isn't. Every single nation has a slightly different mix of market and state economic policies, often determined, at least in democratic societies, by what type of economy the electorate is comfortable with. And these economic models are never static, changing as conditions and voter preferences change.
My point is that, if the residents of Wilson, NC want muni-fiber, what right does TWC have to complain? There is no God-given right to make a profit. It all depends on what the electorate deem to be in their best interest. |
|
Chris 313
Come get some
Premium
join:2004-07-18
Houma, LA
clubs:
·Comcast
·Comcast
·Charter Pipeline
 ·Comcast Digital Vo..
·AT&T CallVantage
| reply to KrK
said by KrK :said by nc3090 :
A government run telecommunication system would qualify as interference in the economy. A TWC bill that would in effect grant only incumbents an inherent monopoly and a "You can't have it until we do it" broadband solution would also qualify as interference in the economy. You could also claim that having public schools is interfering with the economy because otherwise private schools would handle education. Bah, I agree! TWC should put up or shut up. If they can't/won't offer the service that these muni setups can and do well from the look of it and the voters and things that wanted this setup and got it going, incumbents like TWC and others have no business butting in and trying to stop it.
I'll be cheering on Google and others in opposing this. TWC deserves to get stomped for crafting crap like this that would give them an unfair advantage.
If companies like them put all the time and money they spent on bogus crap like this, back into the network, the "playing field" would be level and competitive. (At least speed wise.)
It'll be interesting to see what happens and how this goes. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to KrK
Don't forget private hospitals vs. county run.
I have to pay for both (taxes/medical/medicade/medicare cost me ~ thousands/year, and I'm forced to purchase private insurance which also costs me thousands/year - but I'm techically not allowed to use county because I have an address/SSN). |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| reply to nc3090
maybe the incumbents should offer progressive services at competitive prices so they dont have to worry about muni-fiber.
remember the city has to buy bandwidth and maintain the wires too if they setup the network just as TWC has to buy bandwidth and maintain its network.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
·Comcast
·Embarq
|  reply to nc3090
 I guess Ayn would want all roads to be privately owned toll roads and all water/sewer systems to be privately owned so that consumers can be bled dry.
In the days of dial-up internet service prices declined and service quality and speed increased. Why? Because of competition.
Time Warner and the local Telephone Companies have no competition. Select the company you want to overcharge you for service.
Municipal Broadband is the only way to give the consumer a choice. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to Qumahlin
said by Qumahlin :That and the fact that quoting Ayn Rand in general is idiotic unless your just trying to prove you agree with that line of extremist thought about business/government. Exactly. Even Ayn Rand didn't agree with her own rhetoric. She didn't call for abandonment of zoning laws and building codes ("interference" of otherwise free-market economies) because she personally benefited from them.
Heck, she even opposed the creation of the Libertarian Party. Why? She knew that taking her rhetoric to its logical conclusion would prove it to be absurd. She preferred it remain a faction within the Republican party, where it could play both sides of the fence (hyperbole to criticize moderate Rs, but never actually taken seriously).
Mark |
|
nc3090
@windstream.net
| reply to KrK
said by KrK :said by nc3090 :
A government run telecommunication system would qualify as interference in the economy. A TWC bill that would in effect grant only incumbents an inherent monopoly and a "You can't have it until we do it" broadband solution would also qualify as interference in the economy. You could also claim that having public schools is interfering with the economy because otherwise private schools would handle education. I do happen to claim that government schools are interfering with the economy. More than that they appear to have indoctrinated a nice little mob to pat each other on the back for robbing their neighbor. |
|
vzw emp
@qwest.net
| reply to Mr Matt
said by Mr Matt : I guess Ayn would want all roads to be privately owned toll roads and all water/sewer systems to be privately owned so that consumers can be bled dry. Um, I freely (and proudly) admit that when it comes to Ayn Rand, I don't know a damn thing.
What I do know is that Time Warner is full of crap. They (and others) had ample opportunity to provide the service these people wanted and prevent someone else from moving in on their territory. They did nothing, leaving consumers to languish until they decided to do it for themselves. Now a competing network is in place delivering a product they have no hope of beating on quality or price. Now they are trying a different tactic: legislation.
But I have a special hatred reserved for this bill's sponsor, Rep. Ty Harrell. This man was elected to serve the people of his district. As a representative he is an absolute failure. The only way you don't understand legislation you are sponsoring is if you didn't write it, didn't research it or are only supporting it as a favor to an interested party. I'm not suggesting one has to be an expert on every subject that comes across your desk. Given the volume and breadth of issues you would encounter in that position, a lack of expertise in a given subject is understandable. But how do you argue in support of a bill when you can't even explain why it deserves an affirmative vote? Freely admitting you don't understand a bill you are standing up for is a breach of trust between you and your constituency. You betray your vow to serve the public good when you can't explain why a law would be in the public's best interest.
What ever happened to competence? What happened to accountability? What ever happened to research? Is it so hard to spend a little time researching a subject before deciding to vote yea or nea? There are a number of ways for someone in his position to educate himself on an issue, and if those methods fail there's always Google. Rep. Harrell has shown that his office is available to anyone who can make the appropriate donation to his re-election campaign. In that regard he is no better than ex-Illinois Gov.Rod Blagojevich and he should share a similar fate.
I'd love for some reporter to take this story and run with it, maybe look into the financials. I'd like to see Rep. Harrell's and others bad habits brought to the light of day for all to see. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by vzw emp :said by Mr Matt : I guess Ayn would want all roads to be privately owned toll roads and all water/sewer systems to be privately owned so that consumers can be bled dry. Um, I freely (and proudly) admit that when it comes to Ayn Rand, I don't know a damn thing. Ayn Rand extolled a belief system called "Objectivism," which hard-core Right Wingers claim to be the basis of Conservativism. And, Libertarians (founded in the early '70s by largely disaffected hard-core Right Wingers) claim as the basis of their political party.
The basic principle of Ayn Rand's belief is the "non-coercion" principle. In all matters there should be consent among individuals. That a group (society) can't validate the use of coercive force just because a majority take a vote to approve it.
Therefore, the OP's premise is that unless 100% of current (and future) residents consent to a government-run infrastructure or service (like police, fire, trash, sewer, water, library, fairgrounds, etc.) then it is "coercion."
Taking their belief system to its logical conclusion, there would be no "social contract." Every individual, on every day would be allowed to opt-out of things like national defense, air quality, animal welfare, food- and drug-quality regulation.
The real kicker is that they equate these macro issues to three thugs taking a "vote" to relieve you of your wallet in a dark alley. I.e., "forcing" people to pay for clean drinking water (when they might settle for dirtier water on a "free market" where they could "choose") has the same moral objection as a thug shoving a .38 into your ribs and taking your wallet.
This is why the Libertarian Party garners the same fractions of support today that it did 25 years ago. And, why we continue to see hard-core Right Wingers use absolutist rhetoric to criticize moderate Republicans, as the hard-core continues to slide into irrelevancy.
It sounds good. Everyone gets goose bumply when a complex world can be reduced to such simplistic terms. But, groups of people aren't simple. The issues that arise from group dynamics aren't simplistic.
And, that's why Rand opposed the creation of the Libertarian Party in the early '70s. She knew that her views were entertainment. Like Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. She didn't want to see her views put in a position where they had to be given practical effect.
She wanted them to remain as a fringe element of Republican party. Beating moderate Republicans with high-sounding, principle-based rhetoric. Where nobody would dream of holding the fringe group to the literal meaning of their own rhetoric.
Mark |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | reply to Skippy25
They do get serviced by cable services. The entire city does.
Cities should use their money more wisely instead of trying to become a business and compete. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| reply to Mr Matt
if the City wants more "choices" then they need to talk with another cable company about overbuilding. Maybe WOW? RCN?
and Muni broadband only makes the citizens PAY MORE in TAXES when the network fails. TWC will run the network out and down they'll under cut and the people will lose in the form of taxes. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by hottboiinnc :TWC will run the network out and down they'll under cut and the people will lose in the form of taxes. TWC will do that after being given access to public rights of way, and easements?
Maybe, in addition to society owning the infrastructure, it should better regulate those it lets use that infrastructure?
Mark |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| Maybe you should build out a network the size of TWC so we can take that and regulate it.
Since people on here are all for a level playing field maybe TWC, Comcast, ATT, and VZ need to go to the states and make it set so those Muni networks have to be OPEN access for even them to use.
Hmmm.... after all it's owned by the people. |
|
atuarre
Here come the drums
Premium
join:2004-02-14
Lake Charles, LA
clubs:
| That's the dumbest thing I ever heard. Those companies have their own network. They could provide access to the customers via fiber, coax, etc. They have that choice. They choose to offer what services they do. I am all for a better alternative if that is what the people want. That's the problem with these companies. Too many legislators are in their back pockets. |
|
