I like how there are lots of conclusions in this post but no evidence cited whatsoever to back it up.
R.I.P. The Internet will die today
- Thread starter dmnEPC
- Start date
I like how there are lots of conclusions in this post but no evidence cited whatsoever to back it up.
Actually 5 years is too quick, if the Government knows one thing it's that you rape your citizens slowly.
In 5 years the cost to get a licence to own a website will be $300 to $400. This licence only grants you the ability to own and operate a non-ecommerce "personal" site*.
The Government's argument will be that they need to licence all websites no matter what they are for because of all the bad people out there doing bad things. Somebody think of the children!
Any intended alteration of the website beyond the scope of the license will mean applying for a new license.
In other words, if you have a blog, it must stay a blog. You can not without prior approval and appropriate licensing turn it into a video site.
There will be an extra free which will grant you the ability to monetize your site with adverts, but only from selected advertising networks.
This licence will only allow you to run adverts as the sole form of monetization, you will not be allowed to directly sell products on your site.
Over the next 10 to 15 years the Government will keep increasing the fees and cost of compliance until it's financially impossible for anyone without $1 million dollars to start a website that competes with anyone of importance (Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc).
This shit's been in the winds for a long time, Affiliate Nexus Tax, et al.
* People will complain of course, but the response will be, you're a pedophile who rapes children otherwise you would want the licensing system and if you just want a personal blog use wordpress.com, wix.com, etc, etc.
It might seem strange but there have been countries in the past that have implement draconian measures such as these.
For example, in Australia circa 2000 to own a .com.au you need to register a business and the name for the domain had to match the business name exactly, no exceptions.
And while the regulations on what domains were allowed were fairly relaxed (the only words not allowed were words considered profane. Cunt, shit, fuck etc) the regulations on what business names could be used were strict.
But that can't happen in the land of the free!
I think Mikhail Gorbatsjov said it best, "America used to fight against the USSR, now it's desperately trying to become it."
In 5 years the cost to get a licence to own a website will be $300 to $400. This licence only grants you the ability to own and operate a non-ecommerce "personal" site*.
The Government's argument will be that they need to licence all websites no matter what they are for because of all the bad people out there doing bad things. Somebody think of the children!
Any intended alteration of the website beyond the scope of the license will mean applying for a new license.
In other words, if you have a blog, it must stay a blog. You can not without prior approval and appropriate licensing turn it into a video site.
There will be an extra free which will grant you the ability to monetize your site with adverts, but only from selected advertising networks.
This licence will only allow you to run adverts as the sole form of monetization, you will not be allowed to directly sell products on your site.
Over the next 10 to 15 years the Government will keep increasing the fees and cost of compliance until it's financially impossible for anyone without $1 million dollars to start a website that competes with anyone of importance (Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc).
This shit's been in the winds for a long time, Affiliate Nexus Tax, et al.
* People will complain of course, but the response will be, you're a pedophile who rapes children otherwise you would want the licensing system and if you just want a personal blog use wordpress.com, wix.com, etc, etc.
It might seem strange but there have been countries in the past that have implement draconian measures such as these.
For example, in Australia circa 2000 to own a .com.au you need to register a business and the name for the domain had to match the business name exactly, no exceptions.
And while the regulations on what domains were allowed were fairly relaxed (the only words not allowed were words considered profane. Cunt, shit, fuck etc) the regulations on what business names could be used were strict.
But that can't happen in the land of the free!
I think Mikhail Gorbatsjov said it best, "America used to fight against the USSR, now it's desperately trying to become it."
I believe all but a sliver of humanity is rational.
Even murderers, rapists, arsonists, etc. act rationally by virtue of acting with purpose. They weigh the costs and benefits of their actions, and proceed accordingly. They might be less risk-averse than you and I, but they go through a similar cost/benefit calculation.
By that definition, even folks who act on impulse act rationally. They might make choices that you and I consider entirely wrongheaded - for example, killing a spouse caught cheating - but they still act with purpose. And importantly, their impulses are not irresistible. They choose. Then, they act.
There are exceptions. An example is the pedophile who can't control his urges. Another example is the schizophrenic who lacks impulse control.
Market anarchy certainly wouldn't resolve those issues. But guys like myself believe it would handle them more effectively, morally and humanely for all parties.
So much fail.
Monopolies exist for a number of reasons. One of which is that many times a market cannot profitability support more than one provider.
There are many other reasons though. After reading the rest of your post, I have the suspicion that a little thing such as reality won't get in the way of world views and your rhetoric. Making sensationalist statements that appeal to people's fear is great and easy. I should know. I make my money that way.
Providing evidence and engaging in dialectics to prove a point... much harder. And apparently, that is asking too much.
You are no better than those who promote the Patriot Act, or SOPA or any other liberty constricting bill through rhetoric.
Learn to engage in dialectics and you might hold a chance at convincing a marketeer of something.
@JakeStratham
If you truly believe that, then you must be a shitty marketeer and severely disconnected from your fellow man.
Most marketing exists because people are stupid, irrational, lazy and they love rhetoric but hate logic. This thread should give you a glimp into it, even though the average is... as hard as it is to believe.... stupider and more irrational than those on this board.
I will say I'm probably wasting my time talking to someone who thinks schizophrenia is a lack of impulse control.
There's no need to get personal.
I disagree. While some marketers definitely target the "stupid, irrational, lazy and [those who] love rhetoric but hate logic," others - both B2C and B2B - using marketing to position their brands and convey the value of their products.
I realize that might seem naive. But here's an example: I'm looking around my office and see laptops, printer, desktop, iPod, phone, Honeywell floor fan, bookshelf, flooring supplies, wire file folder system, books, and various articles of clothing, shoes, etc.
All of the manufacturers marketed those goods, along with their respective brands, of course. But I don't recall their marketing targeting the "stupid, irrational and lazy." Nor do I recall much hype being used to convince me of each product's value.
Importantly, my purchases reflected rational action since they were made with purpose, an intent to achieve a desire.
You are right. There are marketeers who don't target stupid people. And you can be great at targeting smart people and believing most people are rational.
I was wrong for getting personal.
Yeah, because something logical automatically wins every point even if it isn't to the point.
Here , let me play the 'lets make random general ominous statements that seem to prove a point when there is no point being made'.
Let me see. If I was a republican, I'd say this:
"If Hillary wins the election, bad things await the future of america, including possible terrorist attacks and market downfalls."
Now if I was a Democrat, I could say:
"If Jeb wins the election, bad things await the future of america, including possible terrorist attacks and market downfalls."
Can I now join the cool kid rhetoric club? I'm making vague, general statements that contain elements of truth and are logical. It seems I don't have to mind that they prove nothing or can be used for contradictory points because of the vague, rhetoric nature of the statements. Evidence? Nah, I don't have to justify my vague statements and make them specific and provide evidence... if I did that then I might actually have to prove a point with dialectics and not just rhetoric. And I need to be informed and make reasonable statements for that. Much too hard.
I'll see what I can do. You might want to resign as chair of the angry commission first.
To clarify, I prefer Mises' definition as it pertains to human action. It's more precise than the contemporary definitions of "rational" (source).
As always, definitions matter.
To clarify, I prefer Mises' definition as it pertains to human action. It's more precise than the contemporary definitions of "rational" (source).
As always, definitions matter.
As always, asshole philosophers change definitions to suit their needs or perception of reality. Philosophy is largely a definition war - it's fucking ridiculous.
Code:
Definitions are everything. After all, look at calling something "Net Neutrality".
Indeed. If you haven't read this essay by Orwell, you might enjoy it. Here's a short passage:
That's oddly mesmerizing.
Looky here fellow armchair philosophers. Most rational people these days favor empiricism (observable experimentation) over word-circle-jerks (philosophy) to prove something about reality.. and for good reason.
I don't want to get into it, but for fucks sake.. quit reading god damn Mises hypothesis about the way things could be and START building a real anarchist society as an experiment. Seeing a real anarchist society successfully remain an anarchist society for 100 yrs would change everyone's perspective on the issue.
Here come the excuses on why you can't do it. Because other countries won't play nice with you? So what, is your anarchy supposed to exist in a vacuum?
I wouldn't bring this shit up again except for the fact that you anarchists always seem so self-righteous about everything politically, legally, morally, economically, etc. Like you have the answers for everything.. if we'd just listen to you for once. The problem is that you're all talk in an empirical world. If you want me to believe in Santa Clause then the burden of proof is on you.
I still respect you for trying to improve the world. I just think your methods, ideology, and probably world view are just completely flawed and counterproductive.
I don't want to get into it, but for fucks sake.. quit reading god damn Mises hypothesis about the way things could be and START building a real anarchist society as an experiment. Seeing a real anarchist society successfully remain an anarchist society for 100 yrs would change everyone's perspective on the issue.
Here come the excuses on why you can't do it. Because other countries won't play nice with you? So what, is your anarchy supposed to exist in a vacuum?
I wouldn't bring this shit up again except for the fact that you anarchists always seem so self-righteous about everything politically, legally, morally, economically, etc. Like you have the answers for everything.. if we'd just listen to you for once. The problem is that you're all talk in an empirical world. If you want me to believe in Santa Clause then the burden of proof is on you.
I still respect you for trying to improve the world. I just think your methods, ideology, and probably world view are just completely flawed and counterproductive.
I don't care if you believe me, in fact I don't care if I'm the only one that thinks this is inevitable.
My job isn't to convince you or anyone else of what I'm saying, my job is to take care of me and mine.
I hope I'm wrong, I hope what I'm say is just fear mongering bullshit. I hope in five years time people point this thread out to me and say "Damn acidie you were so fucking wrong!".
But you asked me what I'm basing my claims on, I'm basing them on history. You don't have to look far to see where this will end up.
100 years ago you could broadcast anything over the airwaves as long as you had the equipment, now you face jail time.
I know you and others think this is bullshit and I understand why, the internet seems far too important for the Government to fuck up.
You and I might believe this because our jobs and/or livelihoods depend on it, but the Government doesn't see it that way. They don't give a shit if you or I get priced out of the market because there are larger companies lining up to pay the fees and they will gladly pay them because it removes competition.
People complained that the cable companies where monopolies and should be stopped (from doing what, I still don't know) but the Internet has just been handed to the largest monopoly on earth and this monopoly you can not say no to.
Okay, how about the fact that 242 million people have died in the last 100 years as a direct result of government? That's observable experimentation. Yet you till this to people (statists), and what do they do? Do they suddenly change their mind and consider for one second a stateless society? Fuck no, they get emotional.
There's the FSP (Free State Project) and the BLRP (Blue Ridge Liberty Project) here in the US. There are probably more.
"Like you have the answers for everything"
"If you want me to believe in Santa Claus"
If we're self-righteous, what would one be considered after typing the above quotes? Arrogant? Dickhead?
And shit, "if we'd just listen to you for once", did you decide to start a website recently? Or buy a new pair of shoes? Great, you listened and were an anarchist. Now it's just a matter of extending that philosophy to include property rights.
Anarchists are in a tribe of their own and for some reason don't even recognize the ideological conundrum it represents.
Huhehue
