 nc1165
join:2001-04-10
Delray Beach, FL | Sure, it looks good on paper but so does Marxism and Homeowners Associations (which are synonymous). What happens when somebody wants to park their boat in the driveway, the internet equivalent of running a server that takes up a little bandwidth than the next guy? Hmmmmmmm? The Lawn Nazis will be on you like a Christmas sweater and you'll do and say anything to get either one off your back.
--
If my enemy cuts me, I will drown him in my own blood. |
|
| What's so bad about Marxism? It's just scientific socialism... |
|
nc1165
join:2001-04-10
Delray Beach, FL | said by cidhigh42:
What's so bad about Marxism? It's just scientific socialism...
It's a great theory that discounts the penchant for human greed and selfish ambition. The human factor was not properly accounted for.
--
If my enemy cuts me, I will drown him in my own blood. |
|
|
|
| reply to nc1165
very true! also regarding the above post, you have just built yourself a network with hundreds of points of failure. Plus you have to feel sorry for the guy on the end who can only push 10kbps because everyone else is using all the bandwidth. |
|
 dnoyeBFerrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI | reply to nc1165
What happens is the community finds out who you are. Declars that you are stealing from them. You get a bandwidth fine for abuse. Next offence you get fined and clamped.
Believe me, people will act when they can directly FEEL the impact of your negative behavior. |
|
dnoyeBFerrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI | reply to wjwallace3
Why should you design such a poor fault intolerant network. Is that how it works today? Why should the same citizens that are technicians for @home and AT&T and other broadband companies suddenly become stoopid since they work for the city? |
|
| reply to nc1165
Marxism has never been really tried. System claiming to be Marxists have been established, but have never been followed through upon.
Before you compleatly discount Marxism, remember that it has never really been given a chance. Publicly owned Utilities are a great place to apply the Marxist / socialist ideology on a smaller scale.
With private owned utilities, we got enron. Let us see what the outcome of these community owned utilities is, and if it is better than that with enron, then let it be called a sucess for socialism / Marxism. |
|
| reply to nc1165
Agreed! There are some things in life that are better left to private industry (and the profit motive.) Hell...my city government can't even pick up the garbage properly! Why would I want to entrust them with my telephone and internet service. |
|
| reply to dnoyeB
You've got the right idea Dnoye. If someone is going to run a web server maybe they should pay for what they use if they are using a lot of a scarce resource. If I decide to run a quake server or something like that sustaining a lot of bandwidth to the public Internet perhaps I should pay for that too. If you are building a network today though without some of the legacy issues and bottlenecks that the incumbent telcos and cable companies are dealing with and can invest in building something with an eye to the future (where everyone has a LOT more bandwidth) a couple people sucking up a little more bandwidth shouldn't be a big deal, nor should it be very expensive for you the provider. A big upside that I see of this kind of public net access is a great potential to develop a really kick butt local network infrastructure. I mean I'd love it if i could dial up a website to make reservations at local restaurants or order flowers from the florist down the street, or maybe order chinese food without having to overcome a language barrier. Etropolis tried to do a lot of this stuff, but never really could get off the ground because nobody wanted to invest any money in a local network infrastructure. Of course not all municipalities can do this, but then not all municipal governments are created equal. How many other governments could create a local electric utility and save their residents 30% compared to prevailing private sector rates in the state.
I'm not one that usually advocates government involvement in areas best left to the private sector, but I make an exception if government infrastructure exists that can decrease the cost of an essential public services while increasing the quality. Anyone that can't see the good in that has been worshipping at the temple of unregulated market forces just a bit too long.
--
Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!! |
|
| reply to bhan261
"Agreed! There are some things in life that are better left to private industry (and the profit motive.) Hell...my city government can't even pick up the garbage properly! Why would I want to entrust them with my telephone and internet service."
Why? Because of ENRON! |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Fine...let's put it in the government's hands. You think customer service at your ISP/ILEC/CLEC stinks now? Wait 'til you have to deal with a civil servant to try and get your phone or internet connection working. Oh yeah...that's a REALLY good idea. |
|
| The main problem,as I see it, with the current utilities is the necessity of profit. Without profit motive, customer service could be given more of a priority.
Also, network buildout to rural locations could be more extensive with governmental or community support. The reason ILEC's etc are currently so reluctant to enter rural markets is that the profit margins decrease with population density. I mean, just look at the broadband availability in Canada under a socialist system as compared to that found in the United States. |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Yes, but who pays for it? The taxpayer, that's who. No thanks...I'm perfectly willing to pay for the broadband I use but NOT what you use. If you choose to live in the boondocks and your ILEC or cable company is unwilling to string wire due to the cost, that's your problem. Don't make it mine. Access to broadband is not one of the inalienable rights promised by our forefathers. |
|
| "Access to broadband is not one of the inalienable rights promised by our forefathers."
Come on, our "forefathers" didn't know a computer from a microwave oven. Times were simpler then.
In order for government to effectivly deal with the complexities of modern times, it simply must expand. Lazzie - Fair economics went out in the 1930s. The American system itself is now on the way out, and has been since then.
The transition form Adam Smith's system to Marx's is now underway throught the 1st world. For example, socialized medicine is a poilicy in ever 1st world nation except the United States. The US is bringing up the rear to its own detriment. It will soon be overtaken in quality of life, productivity, and basic freedoms by the rest of the world if nothing is done.
Our forefathers established a flexible government to deal with changes they could not forsee. They would be ashamed by the current regimes lack of any willingness to bend. |
|
| reply to cidhigh42
said by cidhigh42:
Marxism has never been really tried. System claiming to be Marxists have been established, but have never been followed through upon.
Everytime I hear someone bring Marxism up, I hear this quote right after it, verbatim, like there is a string being pulled. Don't you see that the inherent flaw that nc1165 brings up:
said by nc1165:
It's a great theory that discounts the penchant for human greed and selfish ambition. The human factor was not properly accounted for.
Is the reason Marxism will never be tried? Because everytime it's tried someone with ambition ie.: Stalin, Ceaucescu, Castro, Pol Pot, Hussein, etc. will come along and take advantage of a naive system of government? But then people can keep on saying, "But it's never really been tried!"
Alright this thread skirts the edge of this post but I had to respond to that. |
|
| reply to cidhigh42
Are you just trolling? |
|
| No, I'm serious. If I were trolling, I would post anonymously. All the points I made are valid.
The winner of a debate is the last one to resort to personal attacks, anyway.
[text was edited by author 2002-02-07 18:34:06] |
|
| reply to redleaf
You know what's "naive"?
Leaving everything up to these mysterious "market forces". It is much more logical to have some form of planned economy, one in which such "economic vodoo" is avoided. |
|
| reply to nc1165
yep and reactionaries call anything that the government does beyond raising an army marxism. I'd like to think broadband internet will be a strategic infrastructure, like the interstate highways, electricity, water, I could go on and on. I'd like to see one example of Market forces successfully creating such a vast infrastructure that can be used by everyone. If there's one good example out there I'll shut up.
--
Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!! |
|
| reply to cidhigh42
Haha ok. You got me you win. There's no way you or I can win this debate. It's been tried since 1848. You have your opinion I have mine. I just called you a troll because you're leaving the topic of thread and going off on a whole other, and much more complex, thing. |
|
