Yes, finally another Ron Paul-thread

[Ron Burgundy]

[ QUOTE ]
http://youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8

about 1 minute into that video he says that he wants government to stop printing all the money that ...."causes all the inflation"

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure he understands that there is some natural inflation with an expanding economy. But he didn't exactly have time to explain that. In televised debates you need to make some shortcuts with your speech in order to get your point across.

[Ron Burgundy]

[ QUOTE ]
7. Ron Paul talked about wanting to reduce the number of military bases overseas, and sending the personell home to America. If the US is at war with a foreign nation, will its ability to defend itself and to attack the enemies interests be as strong as before even without bases in Asia and Europe?

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, installing US military bases around the world is a significant factor that causes terrorism.

Second, if a war/terrorist organization does start, we have plenty of allies in every area of the world that would be more than happy to assist our military if a retaliation, or preemptive strike is justifiable.

[Low Key]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But suppose these aforementioned sites couldn't pay racket money to all of them and all the ones in your area stopping giving access to them?

And don't say they wouldn't do that. That's exactly why ISPs were against Net Neutrality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop looking for monsters under the bed. You realize that you are basically describing a conspiracy theory here, right? Why do people always assume that for-profit companies are always trying to hatch some scheme to [censored] over their customers. Free markets are really good at providing services that people want. If one ISP pisses off its customers it then opens the door for another company to take its place by providing a service that people want.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. You explain why ISPs would be against legislation that says they can't favor web content and websites that give them extra money and stop customer's access to websites that don't.

[Ron Burgundy]

[ QUOTE ]
8. Ron Paul also states that the US should only allow itself to engage in war after it has been attacked first. Does that mean that he will allow an enemy that is planning to attack the US to build up its army and logistics in peace and quiet, and not intervene until the first attack on the US has occured?


[/ QUOTE ]

That's a very vague hypothetical.

[Ron Burgundy]

low key,

What's stopping Full Tilt from rigging their games and/or stealing all the money in my account?

[Low Key]

International law, assuming they don't operate from the middle of the ocean?

That aside, would they fight some sort of legislation that says they can't steal all the money in your account? And if they did, would you trust that at some point in the future they weren't planning on it? If not, why would they oppose such legislation that said they have to continue to act how they do and not become thiefs?

[Bedreviter]

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, installing US military bases around the world is a significant factor that causes terrorism.

Second, if a war/terrorist organization does start, we have plenty of allies in every area of the world that would be more than happy to assist our military if a retaliation, or preemptive strike is justifiable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except for the US military presence in Saudi-Arabia (The Holy Land to Muslims) that Osama gave as an initial reason for terrorism against US, are there any other bases that has provoked terrorism? Military bases in Europe and South-Korea arent really too upsetting to most of the people living there.

Im not so sure about the "more than happy" to assist in a retaliation. Several European countries seem less enthusiatic about helping out in a war, and would rather see that US takes care of the problem alone. Much of the abilities of foreign governments to help is also built on US military presence in that country. Im from Norway myself, and most of the relevant equipment that is stored in secret areas in Norway is US material. When I was in the army our patrol cars were 20 year old outdated vehicles, but apparantly there are lots of American Humvees stored inside the mountains.

Europe has depended on US aid since WWII, and as a result important military infrastructure needed to launch attacks are dependent on US financing.

[Bedreviter]

[ QUOTE ]
That's a very vague hypothetical.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find it quite important. Lets say the situation arises where this hypothetical situation is not hypotetical anymore, is ron Paul then likely to think that a first strike is appropiate, or will he insist that US need to be attacked first? We already know W.s views on this, so I just wonder what we can expect with Ron Paul as commander in chief.

[JayTee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But suppose these aforementioned sites couldn't pay racket money to all of them and all the ones in your area stopping giving access to them?

And don't say they wouldn't do that. That's exactly why ISPs were against Net Neutrality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop looking for monsters under the bed. You realize that you are basically describing a conspiracy theory here, right? Why do people always assume that for-profit companies are always trying to hatch some scheme to [censored] over their customers. Free markets are really good at providing services that people want. If one ISP pisses off its customers it then opens the door for another company to take its place by providing a service that people want.

[/ QUOTE ]



Fair enough. You explain why ISPs would be against legislation that says they can't favor web content and websites that give them extra money and stop customer's access to websites that don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because they don't think the government should tell them how to run their business. Things aren't always as simple as they seem, and I guarantee you net neutrality isn't.


First off, let me state that I am no expert on net neutrality or internet protocols etc... That being said I am initially opposed to this simply because it is a regulation which is a force of will through coercion.

Secondly, regulation often times has negative effects on investments in new technology. Just consider the massive increase in the amount of bandwith that people are using. I don't think that when you pay $30/month or whatever for Internet access that you necessarily are bargaining for round the clock download of gigabytes of movies and music. Perhaps companies would invest in new technologies (fiber optic to everyone's home?) if they could redistribute that price to "bandwith hogs".

Something about net neutrality supporters irks me. Maybe it's because most of them are arguing for the government to intervene on their behalf while bitching out of the other side of their mouth about lawsuits against people pirating music and movies.

Lastly, if it's not broke don't fix it. Point out where ISPs are blocking low bandwith sites like 2p2 and then we can talk. Also, I would like an explanation as to why all things on the net should be neutral. Apple is going to put out $1.29 drm-free songs that are higher quality than their $.99 counterparts, is that not in a way a violation of what the government would consider net neutrality.

I actually need to read up more on this subject, so someone else on here can probably make a better argument.

[Low Key]

[ QUOTE ]
I actually need to read up more on this subject, so someone else on here can probably make a better argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will give you that, because:

[ QUOTE ]
Apple is going to put out $1.29 drm-free songs that are higher quality than their $.99 counterparts, is that not in a way a violation of what the government would consider net neutrality.

[/ QUOTE ]

makes no sense whatsoever.

[ QUOTE ]
Something about net neutrality supporters irks me. Maybe it's because most of them are arguing for the government to intervene on their behalf while bitching out of the other side of their mouth about lawsuits against people pirating music and movies.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never heard anyone who supported Net Neutrality even mention the RIAA or MPAA lawsuits in the same sentence.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps companies would invest in new technologies (fiber optic to everyone's home?) if they could redistribute that price to "bandwith hogs"

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't even an issue here. As it stands, all bits travel thru the interweb equally. One site using more bandwidth isn't an issue to an ISP. Most hosts charge more to allow more bandwidth to customers (those who make the websites), which is why you'll frequently see "bandwidth exceeded" pics in place of the actual picture for people who use certain photosharing sites. They're essentially free sites, the most revenue they make is usually thru ads, and if they have paid subscriptions, these people get better treatment, more bandwidth allotment.

Which is essentially how the hosts works in regards to their customers. The hosts in turn have to purchase a certain technology, be it a T-3 line or fiber optic or what have you, to meet the promised minimum available bandwidth. This is where the ISP comes in.

And this has worked fine up until now. Now the ISP wants to be able to strong arm some extra cash out of the websites themselves. And if they don't pay, instead of getting a higher priority assigned to packets coming out of their source IP address, they could be assigned a low one that doesn't take a good route to it's destination, or tries to take a broken or severed link and thus never makes it thru.

I understand being against regulation, but this is where we're at now. We have regulations and we need to work within them.

It would be great if tomorrow, we all woke up and all the bureaucratic BS was just magically gone and all the markets worked flawlessly and everyone [censored] cinnamon buns, but it ain't gonna happen. Getting rid of most/all legislation would be a painful, long, drawn-out task. And there would be after effects there, too.

As I said, I don't really want to have to experience those after effects. I mean, there's protests now, but if the only way to stop a company from doing something bad was via protest, holy nuts, you'd get so sick of protest songs you'd probly rip your ears off. There'd be one every day, if not more.

Before you rail against legislation for having after effects, consider too the after effects of changing a whole system to your preferred style of government.