Censored Internet Getting Closer and Closer>

[subigo]

How is posting nonsense all day on Huffpost and WF a necessity?? Water, Gas and Electricity are the only necessitys that you need to survive.

I don't want government taxing me and sticking their ignorant noses in the Internet so that some hippy in Missouri can troll Wickedfire at 7mpbs.

Go back to sleep grandpa. People who know how the Internet works are talking.

ps - You don't need any of those things to survive.

 

[blank_czech]

I don't see why we couldn't have gov't interference, like forcing them to install those pipes google wanted awhile back, so everyone could have shit fast internet, at least in the longterm.

 

[Moxie]

We could say the same thing about television. Or football. Or books.

Yo dawg, we heard you like pubs, so we put public wifi in your public library, so you can look at the public television website, before you go to the public school football game.

 

[guerilla]

I'm not referring to it being good for the customers that receive it, I'm saying it would be good for society if everyone has access to broadband because we would have a more educated society with better access to more things, and an avenue for the more entrepreneurs to create businesses that they otherwise wouldn't be able to create.

Forgive me for tossing around jargon, but I am a methodological individualist. This means, I don't understand what "good for society" is, since society is composed of individuals, and in order for something to be good for society, it necessarily has to be good for individuals. When you take from Peter and give to Paul, that's good for Paul (in society) but not necessarily good for Peter (in society).

I think it is reasonable to argue that because a government parasite takes a transaction cost out of this redistribution, it is much less economically efficient than Paul just robbing Peter outright, or Peter directly gifting Paul through charity.

Society (the collective whole) is an abstraction of individual human action.

Think of the Internet as infrastructure, like roads and bridges and you'll see what I mean. Do you really think government shouldn't have built roads and bridges?

Many early roads and turnpikes in North America were privately built, and in Europe there are private roads in those free market fortresses in France and in the UK.

Nowhere in my post did I say the Internet should be free, so I don't understand the analogy.

Well, free for some, or steeply discounted.

You mean how I can mail a letter anywhere in this country for 44 cents?

You can only do that because Lysander Spooner created a competing postal service and took on the US government. It was (illegal) competition that brought down the price of stamps, not the economic acumen or moral benevolence of politicians and bureaucrats.

 

[guerilla]

This wasn't addressed to me but I can't resist answering.

You simply want to trade government corruption for business corruption.

Absolutely. Businesses don't have a monopoly on the legal use of force or the power to tax. A corrupt government is infinitely more dangerous than a corrupt business.

The difference being that we can vote our corrupt government officials out of office.

That presumes you can remove the incentives that corrupt from politics, otherwise you're just voting in new people to be corrupted. Libertarians generally believe that the bad rise to the top, but that's a push and a pull effect, where the nature of power, as Lord Acton said, "tends to corrupt". So you have the worst people seeking power, and power corrupting the less than worse people along the way. A system of so much power has all of the wrong incentives for justice, honesty, transparency and accountability.

Market firms on the other hand have to answer to profit and loss. They can't vote themselves more money if they fuck up.

In the market, you can bankrupt a bad company by refusing to give them your business. It's the equivalent of voting out the bums, but the difference is, you aren't restricted to one sort of replacement in one single system. You have choices when you cut the cord.

I think the free market is a great idea, but with zero regulation it wouldn't remain free for long.

If it is regulated, then it isn't free.

I am not being patronizing with this, I really am trying to make a convincing argument.

If we work from a basic logical principle, the law of identity, which is basically, A = A. In other words, A cannot be equal to not A.

Using the law of identity, if a free market is when there is no regulation, then the only way it can become unfree is if it is regulated.

A regulated market is not a free market, and regulation isn't a result of market failure, but the actual cause of market failure.

The real confusion I think stems from the idea that the market has to yield perfect outcomes (like expecting private businesses to maintain universal free speech regardless of cost) and that since we know it can't, then the government has to step in to force perfection on the market. An outcome which we also know, does not happen with government intervention.

The question really is, the state or the market. Both can lead to less than desirable outcomes, but if one really believes in individual freedom, then it seems to me that the market is the only process consistent with that goal.

And if one was predisposed to get empirical (claims to reality as opposed to theory), there is massive evidence that free markets create economic prosperity and social harmony, and increases in regulation diminishes prosperity and institutionalizes antisocial behavior commensurately.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

I don't understand what "good for society" is, since society is composed of individuals, and in order for something to be good for society, it necessarily has to be good for individuals. When you take from Peter and give to Paul, that's good for Paul (in society) but not necessarily good for Peter (in society).

Think of Synergy.

Many early roads and turnpikes in North America were privately built, and in Europe there are private roads in those free market fortresses in France and in the UK.

I'll take that response as a concession to my point, since the vast majority of our roads and bridges (and other infrastructure) were built by the government through taxation. Even rabid Libertarians understand the need for that, although AnCaps believe they would still end up built. Great in theory but not in practice.

You can only do that because Lysander Spooner created a competing postal service and took on the US government. It was (illegal) competition that brought down the price of stamps, not the economic acumen or moral benevolence of politicians and bureaucrats.

I don't often lulz at your responses but that one got me. Spooner has been dead for 120 years so I doubt that fear is still keeping the cost of postage down. FedEx, UPS and DHL have the infrastructure and resources to take them on in first class mail, but don't so that should tell you something.

Absolutely. Businesses don't have a monopoly on the legal use of force or the power to tax. A corrupt government is infinitely more dangerous than a corrupt business.

Only because the government doesn't allow it. In your world of toll roads and bridges, and privately owned resources like water, gas, electricity, internet etc. there would be nothing to prevent a business using force or the power to tax (ie usage tolls) - in fact the profit motive ensures it would happen.

In the market, you can bankrupt a bad company by refusing to give them your business. It's the equivalent of voting out the bums, but the difference is, you aren't restricted to one sort of replacement in one single system. You have choices when you cut the cord.

With enough resources, you can easily put good businesses out of business as well.

If it is regulated, then it isn't free.

Agreed, I was being lazy in my explanation. I think a completely unregulated free market would suffer the same fate as communism did, and for the same reason - failing to account for human nature.

Communism failed because it never accounts for the desire for some people to be smarter, work harder and expect more for their efforts. In short, it assumes all people are essentially good and will look out for their fellow man, even if their fellow man doesn't put forth the same effort (through redistribution).

Unregulated capitalism assumes the same thing, just from a different perspective. It assumes that people will expect more for being smarter, working harder etc, but it also assumes that people are essentially good and will look out for their fellow man, even if their fellow man doesn't put forth the same effort (through charity).

The reality is that people are not essentially good, that wealth necessarily creates more wealth so the incentive to give it away goes against the human nature of greed (greed is good, when controlled), that wealth leads to power and those in power will always seek ways to limit competition by force if necessary, etc.

Picture a sliding scale with communism on the extreme left, and unregulated capitalism on the extreme right. Neither extreme will work, but it's up to us to decide where we want that slider to be, based on our culture. Some cultures do better with more redistribution (Scandinavian culture comes to mind - socialism seems to work for them so their slider is more to the left), whereas our culture is different so our slider needs to be more to the right. But if you push it too far the system will break.

 

[ARVolund]

.......
If we work from a basic logical principle, the law of identity, which is basically, A = A. In other words, A cannot be equal to not A.

.......

Page 641

A beacon in the wilderness of statism.

 

[ARVolund]

I'm not referring to it being good for the customers that receive it, I'm saying it would be good for society if everyone has access to broadband because we would have a more educated society with better access to more things, and an avenue for the more entrepreneurs to create businesses that they otherwise wouldn't be able to create.

Think of the Internet as infrastructure, like roads and bridges and you'll see what I mean. Do you really think government shouldn't have built roads and bridges? If it were left up to companies to decide where the roads would be built, we'd only have logging roads where a lot of our highways are now. Once that infrastructure was put in place, it allowed more businesses to flourish as a result of that initial investment in infrastructure.





Nowhere in my post did I say the Internet should be free, so I don't understand the analogy.



You mean how I can mail a letter anywhere in this country for 44 cents?



I get that, but my point was that it took over 10 years for that to be the case. Do you really think they would have only needed 15 people to make the initial investment worth it 10 years ago? Meanwhile, the rest of us were able to start businesses online and create jobs that those without access couldn't do. See my road analogy above.



This would be true in a perfect world, but unfortunately the profit motive means some will not stop until they own everything. If you want a silly, but somewhat accurate analogy - play a game of Monopoly long enough and you'll see the end result of unregulated capitalism. When the other guy owns everything and you're stuck paying rents you are completely at his mercy. You will never be able to compete because you can never match his resources, and he can squeeze you out of anything by losing money to make sure you don't make any. The only thing that keeps that from happening now is government regulations. Unfortunately, most of our government regulations have unintended consequences, but a complete lack of regulations does to - don't kid yourself.



No I'm not. But since you mentioned health care, don't forget that universal health care or not - hospitals are required to treat people that come into the emergency rooms. If somebody doesn't have health care they generally don't go for routine screenings and check-ups so they don't go to the hospital until they are very sick and at that point the treatment is very expensive. Since the hospitals still have to treat them guess what - the costs are still passed on to consumers. But this thread isn't about health care so I digress.



You simply want to trade government corruption for business corruption. The difference being that we can vote our corrupt government officials out of office.

I think the free market is a great idea, but with zero regulation it wouldn't remain free for long.

Society is made up of individuals, any law or process that takes away from individual to benefit another is nothing more than robbery at the point of a gun. From a moral standpoint the Govt forcibly taking my hard earned money to fufill the needs of another is no different than somebody breaking into my house and robbing me.

I do not agree at all thet we are better off with Govt regulating what services businesses should provide and to whom. There are enough examples of how the Govt has screwed this up to fill a bunch of books. There really is no examples of these large dangerous monopolies that you are talking about. The two biggest example used for the need of anti-trust laws are the railroads and Standard Oil. If you study what really happend though you will find out that the only reason they were able to become dangerous in the first place is because different Govt entities got involved.

I do not believe that we would only have crappy mud roads if the Govt was not involved. We would have roads where they were needed.

While you are correct that hospitals have been required to treat everybody. I disagree that this should be the case. In my mind Medical care is like any other service. Why should a doctor be my slave and work for nothing just because I did not plan ahead. How is this any different than me going to Best Buy and getting a free computer? According to you having a computer and internet is a vital need so they should be required to give me a free one. Yes?

I do not believe that the Govt should be involved in Social Security, welfare or any other so called social program. That is not the Govts job especially the Federal Govt.

I do not believe that the Govt should be involved in Schools. Seriously the schools in this country suck bad and the only ones that are any good are in spite of the Govt not because of it. ( I have some teachers in my family and this one is always good for some spirited debates)


The role of the Govt especially the Federal Govt should be to protect us from the bad guys by removing the use of force as a tool for people to reach their goals. If other people or companies can not force people to do what they want then they have to interact with others in a voluntary manner. This will result in a much better society than what we have now.

The thing about Govt corruption vs Business corruption is very clear. Govt corruption is way more dangerous to us. We can choose not to do business with a corrupt company (unless of course it is a Govt installed monopoly) but we have no choice with our corrupt Govt. The Govt can and does use force to make us do the things it wants. We have no defense against that.


As an example of what I think are good and bad types of laws lets look at an electric company. The Govt should regulate how much pollution they produce at the power plant because that can cause direct harm to the people around the power plant. The Govt should not be able to force the electric company to sell their power for a certain price. That is something that should be decided between the electric company and the individuals wanting to purchase the electricity. There is no reason for the Govt to be involved in that transaction at all.


There is a huge difference between protecting us and supporting us. The Govt should protect us but it should not support us or what actually happens force some people to suport others at the end of a gun.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

From a moral standpoint the Govt forcibly taking my hard earned money to fufill the needs of another is no different than somebody breaking into my house and robbing me.

While you are correct that hospitals have been required to treat everybody. I disagree that this should be the case.

Interesting collection of morals you have there. So it's wrong for government to tax people to create roads for the betterment of society, but it's ok to refuse medical treatment to the sick (in clear violation of every doctors Hippocratic Oath)? Not sure if serious.

There really is no examples of these large dangerous monopolies that you are talking about. The two biggest example used for the need of anti-trust laws are the railroads and Standard Oil. If you study what really happend though you will find out that the only reason they were able to become dangerous in the first place is because different Govt entities got involved.

A company will always seek to increase profit by manipulating rules, regulations etc. These rules and regulations only serve to make it harder to monopolize, but it doesn't stop companies from trying. If there are no rules against monopolization, competition will disappear and that will limit innovation, drive prices up etc. Competition is necessary for our system to work.

I do not believe that we would only have crappy mud roads if the Govt was not involved. We would have roads where they were needed.

Infrastructure creates an environment for businesses to thrive where they otherwise couldn't. Assuming a company would invest in infrastructure that will allow it's competitors to thrive is asinine and goes against their profit motive. However, competition is good for society, so we need to ensure that competition is allowed to flourish. If that means the government has to step in to ensure that competition can exist, so be it.

According to you having a computer and internet is a vital need so they should be required to give me a free one. Yes?

Not sure where you got that idea.

I do not believe that the Govt should be involved in Social Security, welfare or any other so called social program. That is not the Govts job especially the Federal Govt.

I do not believe that the Govt should be involved in Schools. Seriously the schools in this country suck bad and the only ones that are any good are in spite of the Govt not because of it. ( I have some teachers in my family and this one is always good for some spirited debates)

That's nice, but irrelevant to the topic at hand. Where have those issues been discussed?

The role of the Govt especially the Federal Govt should be to protect us from the bad guys by removing the use of force as a tool for people to reach their goals. If other people or companies can not force people to do what they want then they have to interact with others in a voluntary manner. This will result in a much better society than what we have now.

The thing about Govt corruption vs Business corruption is very clear. Govt corruption is way more dangerous to us. We can choose not to do business with a corrupt company (unless of course it is a Govt installed monopoly) but we have no choice with our corrupt Govt. The Govt can and does use force to make us do the things it wants. We have no defense against that.

There is a huge difference between protecting us and supporting us. The Govt should protect us but it should not support us or what actually happens force some people to support others at the end of a gun.

Once a company gets enough resources it will always use those resources to increase profit and limit competition, even by force if necessary. You fail to account for this.

 

[guerilla]

Interesting collection of morals you have there. So it's wrong for government to tax people to create roads for the betterment of society, but it's ok to refuse medical treatment to the sick (in clear violation of every doctors Hippocratic Oath)? Not sure if serious.

It's not a violation of the Hippocratic Oath to withhold treatment.

Also, you're comparing apples and oranges. People choose to be doctors. They don't have to be doctors. Forcing everyone to pay for something completely subverts free choice.

 

[guerilla]

Once a company gets enough resources it will always use those resources to increase profit and limit competition, even by force if necessary. You fail to account for this.

But I did account for it. In my last long post to you several hours ago.

Also, force is very expensive, thats why war is usually a last resort, not a first resort. Governments allow businesses to oppress much more affordably than by having to take the battle to the streets, where a rival firm might back the consumers in return for their patronage.

Since the government has a territorial monopoly on the use of force, there are much lower costs to use state power to enforce private interests.

In other words, it is cheaper to bribe a cop than to kill a cop.

There is an entire field of economics devoted to this, called "Public Choice".

 

[Napolean]

Once a company gets enough resources it will always use those resources to increase profit and limit competition, even by force if necessary. You fail to account for this.

I dont think an unregulated free market would cause business strategy to go the way of mafia tactics.

You cant force someone to buy something, that crosses the line from selling to theft.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

It's not a violation of the Hippocratic Oath to withhold treatment.

"I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures that are required..."

"I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug."


"I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick."

"I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure."


"I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm."


So yes, withholding treatment to the sick is a violation of their oath. Ask any doctor and see what their opinion of the matter is.

But I did account for it. In my last long post to you several hours ago.

Either I missed that, or it avoided the point completely.

I dont think an unregulated free market would cause business strategy to go the way of mafia tactics.

How nice of you to think that. Care to elaborate or give evidence?

 

[subigo]

This has seriously turned into one of the worst debates on net neutrality I have ever seen.

The Internet is too important to be censored or limited. Ever. At any point in time.

You either agree with that statement or you don't. Where you go from there... who knows, but in typical WF fashion it will turn into a debate about Muslims and Mother Russia.

 

[ARVolund]

Interesting collection of morals you have there. So it's wrong for government to tax people to create roads for the betterment of society, but it's ok to refuse medical treatment to the sick (in clear violation of every doctors Hippocratic Oath)? Not sure if serious.

I am not saying the doctor can not treat any patient he wants I am saying that he should not be forced to treat anyone. I can not force a plumber to come fix my pipes for free. Why should I have the right to force a doctor to treat me just because he decided to be a doctor rather than a plumber. Should a plumber really have more rights than a doctor? Should a doctor really be forced to be a slave just because he or she decided to go to medical school? Somehow that is moral? Really?

My needs and wants end at the other persons rights. Just because I need or want something does not give me the right to demand by force something from another person. No person should have the right to demand by force something from another person ever for any reason.

A company will always seek to increase profit by manipulating rules, regulations etc. These rules and regulations only serve to make it harder to monopolize, but it doesn't stop companies from trying. If there are no rules against monopolization, competition will disappear and that will limit innovation, drive prices up etc. Competition is necessary for our system to work.

If all these rules did not exist than the companies would not be able to manipulate them. Remove the rules, remove the problem. What happens is the Govt creates rules or laws that create a problem and then instead of removing the problem causing rules they make more to fix the problem they created in the first place.

No the rules make it easier to monopolize. You keep making this argument that Govt rules are better than the free market and somehow create competition. The exact opposite is true. I can name a lot of examples of how Govt installed monopolies have been a bad thing. Can you name any harmful monopolies that have existed without Govt help?

The free market does not limit innovation or drive up prices, the only thing that does that is the Govt getting involved. You really must not understand how a free market system works but in this you are not alone, most people do not.

Infrastructure creates an environment for businesses to thrive where they otherwise couldn't. Assuming a company would invest in infrastructure that will allow it's competitors to thrive is asinine and goes against their profit motive. However, competition is good for society, so we need to ensure that competition is allowed to flourish. If that means the government has to step in to ensure that competition can exist, so be it.

Again competition is not something that comes from the Govt. Of course a company will not help its competitors. Why should it. Competition is people and companies competing against each other and that is what increase our standard of living. That is exactly the opposite of what you get when the Govt gets involved. Do you charge less for your services than you can? Should the Govt step in and say that there really is no reason for you to make more than $10 an hour? Really charging more than that might hurt someone who needs your services and can not pay more.

Maybe the Govt should decide that there should only be five companies allowed to build backlinks. I am sure that would result in increased competition and lower prices. I mean Govt regulations increase competition and bring lower prices Right?

There is absolutely no reason for the Govt to get involved in the voluntary commercial or private interactions between people and companies. The only role the Govt should play is to make sure that the interactions are voluntary on both sides. Nothing more, nothing less.

Not sure where you got that idea.

Sorry that one is on me. There were a couple of posts by subigo that I attributed to you in my mind.

That's nice, but irrelevant to the topic at hand. Where have those issues been discussed?

just a few examples of how getting the Govt involved screws things up.

Once a company gets enough resources it will always use those resources to increase profit and limit competition, even by force if necessary. You fail to account for this.

No I do not. I have very explicitly said that the main purpose of the Govt is remove force from the interactions of its citizens. If no person or company is allowed to use force against another than everyone interacts on a voluntary basis. That is the Govts job and as we know it does a very poor job at best. Mainly because it is spending so much time and energy doing things it has no business doing.


Speaking of business I need to go make some money for awhile.

 

[Moxie]

The Govt should not be able to force the electric company to sell their power for a certain price. That is something that should be decided between the electric company and the individuals wanting to purchase the electricity. There is no reason for the Govt to be involved in that transaction at all.

Who owns the land underneath the power line poles?

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

First off, you're not talking to some socialist here. I'm an avowed capitalist, I just happen to know that there needs to be rules in any game if you want people to play fair.

I am not saying the doctor can not treat any patient he wants I am saying that he should not be forced to treat anyone. I can not force a plumber to come fix my pipes for free. Why should I have the right to force a doctor to treat me just because he decided to be a doctor rather than a plumber.

Life and death vs. a pipe leak? Really? Besides nobody is saying they should work for free - seems like you're mixing up posts again.

If all these rules did not exist than the companies would not be able to manipulate them. Remove the rules, remove the problem. What happens is the Govt creates rules or laws that create a problem and then instead of removing the problem causing rules they make more to fix the problem they created in the first place.

I agree that the government does not do a very good job of creating the rules - you'll never hear me argue that the government is efficient. But there has to be rules, and if the government doesn't create them, who will? Businesses? Businesses exist to maximize shareholder value, regardless of the good of society and manipulate whatever system you put in place in order to do so.

No the rules make it easier to monopolize. You keep making this argument that Govt rules are better than the free market and somehow create competition. The exact opposite is true. I can name a lot of examples of how Govt installed monopolies have been a bad thing. Can you name any harmful monopolies that have existed without Govt help?

Complete strawman (as my friend guerilla would say) - nobody can name a harmful monopoly that existed without government help, because we have never had an unregulated capitalistic system. That would be like me claiming that you can't point to one president with 3 nipples that didn't lead our country to peace and prosperity. Therefore we should only elect presidents with 3 nipples. Just because it hasn't been tried doesn't mean it would work.

If you insist on these analogies though I would ask you to provide one example of a monopoly that existed without any government control in which prices went down and competition increased. That sounds so counter-intuitive it hurts my head just to type it, but if that's your position so be it.

You really must not understand how a free market system works but in this you are not alone, most people do not.

The opposite is true. I know how a free market system really works (ie. with actual humans involved), whereas you know how we would like a free market system to work (because it sounds utopian in a book). The problem is you guys never fully account for the human factor and you always underestimate the negative consequences of things like greed. I know Gecko said greed is good - but it's just a movie. Greed is powerful - much like a gun. But good and bad things can come from both, depending on how they are used. They both have destructive powers, and they both have constructive powers. Wihtout rules though, bad people make bad decisons that affect others, whether you want them to or not.

I have very explicitly said that the main purpose of the Govt is remove force from the interactions of its citizens. If no person or company is allowed to use force against another than everyone interacts on a voluntary basis.

You wouldn't consider a monopoly on a utility to be exerting force? You wouldn't think that the government should ensure that people have access to certain things?

If I controlled the entire electric grid, I would imagine I would be quite wealthy. I would also promptly shut off all electricity to the state of Ohio because, well fuck them. And there isn't anything anybody could do about it, because with all of my resources I can shut potential competitors out of the market. Some poor sap from Cleveland decides to take me on and bring power to his people - good luck with that. I own the infrastructure. You decide you're going to build your own infrastructure to compete? I will simply buy up all of the wire manufacturing companies that I can and buy out all the stock of the companies that won't sell out. And I'll pay top dollar for every strand of wire they can ever produce just so I can let it sit there in a warehouse and rot because fuck Ohio. I have created what we like to call an unreasonably high barrier to entry without any govt help and because the govt isn't involved there ain't a damn thing you, or anyone in Ohio can do about it. You might say that a company would never do that to Ohio, but why wouldn't they do that to their competitors? Enjoy your Utopian free market.

 

[ARVolund]

First off, you're not talking to some socialist here. I'm an avowed capitalist, I just happen to know that there needs to be rules in any game if you want people to play fair.



Life and death vs. a pipe leak? Really? Besides nobody is saying they should work for free - seems like you're mixing up posts again.



I agree that the government does not do a very good job of creating the rules - you'll never hear me argue that the government is efficient. But there has to be rules, and if the government doesn't create them, who will? Businesses? Businesses exist to maximize shareholder value, regardless of the good of society and manipulate whatever system you put in place in order to do so.



Complete strawman (as my friend guerilla would say) - nobody can name a harmful monopoly that existed without government help, because we have never had an unregulated capitalistic system. That would be like me claiming that you can't point to one president with 3 nipples that didn't lead our country to peace and prosperity. Therefore we should only elect presidents with 3 nipples. Just because it hasn't been tried doesn't mean it would work.

If you insist on these analogies though I would ask you to provide one example of a monopoly that existed without any government control in which prices went down and competition increased. That sounds so counter-intuitive it hurts my head just to type it, but if that's your position so be it.



The opposite is true. I know how a free market system really works (ie. with actual humans involved), whereas you know how we would like a free market system to work (because it sounds utopian in a book). The problem is you guys never fully account for the human factor and you always underestimate the negative consequences of things like greed. I know Gecko said greed is good - but it's just a movie. Greed is powerful - much like a gun. But good and bad things can come from both, depending on how they are used. They both have destructive powers, and they both have constructive powers. Wihtout rules though, bad people make bad decisons that affect others, whether you want them to or not.



You wouldn't consider a monopoly on a utility to be exerting force? You wouldn't think that the government should ensure that people have access to certain things?

If I controlled the entire electric grid, I would imagine I would be quite wealthy. I would also promptly shut off all electricity to the state of Ohio because, well fuck them. And there isn't anything anybody could do about it, because with all of my resources I can shut potential competitors out of the market. Some poor sap from Cleveland decides to take me on and bring power to his people - good luck with that. I own the infrastructure. You decide you're going to build your own infrastructure to compete? I will simply buy up all of the wire manufacturing companies that I can and buy out all the stock of the companies that won't sell out. And I'll pay top dollar for every strand of wire they can ever produce just so I can let it sit there in a warehouse and rot because fuck Ohio. I have created what we like to call an unreasonably high barrier to entry without any govt help and because the govt isn't involved there ain't a damn thing you, or anyone in Ohio can do about it. You might say that a company would never do that to Ohio, but why wouldn't they do that to their competitors? Enjoy your Utopian free market.

Well if you are an "avowed capitalist" in your neck of the woods with your obvious problems with a the free market system and belief that the Govt is going to solve our problems and should provide for us ( or in most cases force others to provide for us) I would sure hate to see the socialists. Somewhere to the left of Karl Marx I imagine.

I am aware of how the free market systems works (and how it should work) with actual humans involved. I started my first business in 1983 and spent more years than I want to think about owing and running a restaurant and if that is not dealing with actual people than nothing is.

I am pretty sure that you are the one that brought up the fact that hospitals were already required to treat patients free before the new health law but if not Sorry. Honestly too tired to wander through the thread looking for it. The fact is though that doctors and hospitals are required to treat everyone that comes to the emergency room whether they can pay or not. That means that they are forced to treat a lot of people for free. The result of this is that 1000's of hospitals have closed their emergency rooms altogether because they could not afford the loses.

What I need is really not the issue whether it is a broken pipe or a broken bone. The issue is the Doctor's rights. Why does a doctor have less rights than a plumber? Just because he decided to go to medical school? This should allow people to force a doctor to provide services for free? Right now it may just be the doctors (or as you suggest the internet companies) but as I pointed out next time it could be you that is forced to provide a service, either for free or for less than you want to charge. It is the use of force to make one person to provide for another that is wrong and in my mind evil that is the problem. I find it no different than slavery from a moral standpoint.


My point about monopolies does not need a environment totally without Govt regulation to hold true. I do belive that there is room for regulation as I noted in an early post. Regulating who I have to provide me service to, what type of service I have to provide. at what price I have to provide it for, and who is allowed to provide a service is not among the regulations we should have in this country.

All the big bad monopolies that were used to create our anti-trust laws only existed because of active Govt help. There is a huge difference between regulations that affect all companies and the Govt helping one particular company become a monopoly. Without that Govt help you are not going to have all those fear mongering examples that you are posting. One more example of how the Govt creates the problem in the first place and then makes more laws to fix the problem they caused to start with. This is the same fear mongering that is leading our country down the path we are now on. If you really think that all this Govt help and control we are seeing is really helping and going to make our lives better you are delusional at best.

I do not agree that a person or company not providing something is the same thing as using force whether it be you or an internet company (the purpose of this thread).

No I do not think that it is the Govts job to make sure that people have access to certain things. . I have a very limited idea of what the Govt should be doing and the use of force to make one person provide for another is not included. If certain things are important to you then you make sure that you live in an area where they are available and make enough money to buy them. If some things are more important to you than others and you can not find a place where you can get everything you want then you have a decision or decisions to make. If you do not have enough money to purchase everything you want then again you have some decisions to make. The Govts job is to keep you free from anyone using force against you so you can make those decisions.


Just like my right to put my fist anywhere I want stops at the end of your nose my right to have what I need or want ends at being able to force you to provide those wants or needs. The governmental use of force to make one person or company provide something something to someone else is wrong. It does not matter if it is an electric company, an internet company (the original point of this discussion) or a guy selling flowers on a street corner. The moral point for all of them is the same. Once you make that moral decision to forcibly sacrifice some for the gain of others than you just start looking for more victims and who knows, maybe you will be next.

I have no illusion about changing your mind. I gave up political arguments about 10 years ago for the most part but every once in awhile I let myself get sucked into one and end up spending time on it that I could put to better use. You believe that the Govt should have the right to force some people to sacrifice themselves for others and I do not. To me there is no middle ground as the moral question is the same for any example we can come up with. The rationalizations on why it is Ok to force some people of companies and not others is just that, rationalizations. To me if it is wrong for you to be forced to provide a service that you do not want to provide at a price you do not want to provide if for then it is equally wrong to force an internet company (back to the original discussion) to do it as well. In my mind they are the same question with the same answer. It is like being a little bit pregnant, you either are or you are not the is no little bit.

 

[ayzo]

You're all a bunch of haters.

Monopolies are awesome, they control everything, contribute nothing, and keep Washington in their pockets. Just look at google and facebook, you all hate when they disapprove your ads and ban you but deep down you know that even if Eric Schmidt and Mark Zuckerberg stormed your house, kicked your puppy, fondled your wife, and then tag teamed you over the kitchen table that 2 hours later you'd be sitting on a donut at your computer tweaking and optimizing your campaigns for adwords/facebook because they are really the only game in town. I think you all secretly want to get on that level, but know that you can't, so you resort to hating.

Besides, we as a country and more importantly as a generation need to regain our productivity and what better way than to kick poor people off of youtube and gaming servers. These people need to be getting jobs, not watching lady gaga videos or spending the next 6 hours on some homo quest.

 

[Napolean]

You're all a bunch of haters.

Monopolies are awesome, they control everything, contribute nothing, and keep Washington in their pockets. Just look at google and facebook, you all hate when they disapprove your ads and ban you but deep down you know that even if Eric Schmidt and Mark Zuckerberg stormed your house, kicked your puppy, fondled your wife, and then tag teamed you over the kitchen table that 2 hours later you'd be sitting on a donut at your computer tweaking and optimizing your campaigns for adwords/facebook because they are really the only game in town. I think you all secretly want to get on that level, but know that you can't, so you resort to hating.

Besides, we as a country and more importantly as a generation need to regain our productivity and what better way than to kick poor people off of youtube and gaming servers. These people need to be getting jobs, not watching lady gaga videos or spending the next 6 hours on some homo quest.

When I see a big company get big by utilizing the free market, then running to the government to eliminate any competition. I see that as a weakness.

Im watching all this with a lot of curiousity too, after seeing big companies and sites like prodigy, aol, excite.com, yahoo.com, friendster.com, myspace.com, really go down the tubes. Its interesting to see two companies doing things a little different to try to stay on top.

They are still doing the same things their predecessors did before they started circling the drain into internet oblivion. They lost their mobility and now focus on imitation instead of innovation. They overbrand their products to the point where, when you see google trying to start yet another social site, your asking "why do they bother??".

Instead of learning the lessons they should have, such as:

1.) Dont brand your main name to every little experiment because the failures will soon start to bring down the reputation of your success.

And

2.) Do as much as you can to maintain mobility, so that you are ahead of the curve and keep the advantage that got you to where you are now in the first place. (Basically, dont overbloat one thing)

Instead, they are trying to go with what they percieve to be the easier route. Get a referree to enforce the new rules they want to make, to keep them on top without having to work harder.

The flaw in their plan is, the government cant force your customers to like your product. No matter how big your monopoly is, if your product sucks, people will stop using it, even if its the only option.