WOW just saw the anti net-neutrality "mumbo jumbo" ad

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Get over yourself. Their very existence is due to things like eminent domaine (you think that you have the right to keep that guy wire off of your lawn... well, you don't).

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually I DO have that right, it's just that the governent doesn't recognize it and violates it.

[/ QUOTE ]
You must have one of those extra special property deeds available only to ACers.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are effectively arguing that no matter the public might concede to a telco, that telco can do whaterver the [censored] it wants whenever. That's not how it has ever been, that's not how it should be and hopefully that is not how it will be.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm effectively arguing for no regulation whatsoever. Government provided monopolies is one of those.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are ACers completely unable to recognize and acknowledge the context that exists today? For example, getting rid of OSHA because it's a 'gubmit regulation' while not simultaneoulsy repealing laws that weaken Unions would result in more bad than good despite what your crazy ethics might tell you.

There is some sort of a balance right now within the legal structure. Just because a person is against ALL slavery does not mean that this person needs to be against a particular type of slavery to be consistent. One can both be against slavery as a whole and for a particular type of slavery within a particular context. Or to make an analogy, just because you want to get rid of the slavery all together, does not mean you need to support immediate, full-scale abolition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please do not take this to mean that net neutrality is as bad as slavery. It's just an attempt to demonstrate how silly the "work within the system" argument is.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is just a bad argument and there is no person it would actually convince who does not already agree with it's conclusion. The 2 things aren't even analogus.

It's not a "work within the system" argument that I made, it's that the context is important, which is what your slavery analogy goes out of its way to disregard.

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) We the people who give them the right to incorporate, put up and use telephone polls everywhere, allow them to have monopolies here and there and give them tax breaks/incentives do not want them to.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is fairly convoluted, not the least because "we the people" basically did none of these things. Our government did these things.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the one AC argument that actually has an empirical claim. Stick with it guys ;-)

[ QUOTE ]
And to the degree which government has given telecoms special privileges (limited liability etc.) it should stop. But that's no reason for it to violate the property rights of these companies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which property rights? the government gave them or the ones they have according to the AC property rights ideal? I don't think you can seperate the former from the latter in the case of an incorporated monopoly.

[bobman0330]

After we get net neutrality, will you guys be moving on to a "print neutrality" campaign to force newspapers and magazines to print whatever ads are given to them? A store neutrality campaign to force retail stores to carry all products (I went to an Apple store the other day and they refused to sell me a Zen mp3 player!). The real problem here is restricted competition. If we had multiple ISPs to choose from, there would be no concern, because the first time you came across an error message that said "Page blocked because someone paid us to," you'd just switch over next month. What you'd have is sites like YouTube paying premia to ensure that their customers get the necessary bandwidth to watch videos without skipping.

So, to the extent that net neutrality is needed, it's because there's a dearth of competition in internet access. So long as that persists, maybe it makes sense to regulate ISPs to keep them from abusing their market power. But it would make more sense to lower some of the barriers to entry in the telecom market. And then maybe cable company service wouldn't be so insanely awful.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
For example, getting rid of OSHA because it's a 'gubmit regulation' while not simultaneoulsy repealing laws that weaken Unions would result in more bad than good despite what your crazy ethics might tell you.

[/ QUOTE ]
What would lead you to think that ACers wouldn't support repealing laws that weaken unions? Of course, if you're repealing laws that weaken unions, it seems fair to repeal laws that strengthen them as well. I've had this discussion with valenzuela. Of course repealing certain legislation in a vacuum might turn out bad (like ending public police stations without allowing private police stations), but ACers generally don't do that.

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]
No need for the condesending tone at all time you know. You know theres a rumor that most of 2p2 ignores this forum because of how much others are insulting.
[ QUOTE ]
You must have one of those extra special property deeds available only to ACers.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
My apologies if my tone offened, it's largely out of frustration. The other reason 2p2 avoids it is because everything written is viewed and argued through one (AC) perspective.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you should read up on natural rights and try to think about the idea that maybe what I *own* isn't 100% subject to what the government tells me I own.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's most of what I did in college, and I do not think natural rights are empirical things that can be thought of outside of the society we live in. You call it the government granting rights, I call it the people.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why are ACers completely unable to recognize and acknowledge the context that exists today? For example, getting rid of OSHA because it's a 'gubmit regulation' while not simultaneoulsy repealing laws that weaken Unions would result in more bad than good despite what your crazy ethics might tell you.


[/ QUOTE ]
My position is and always has been is that you don't fix government regulation with government regulation, you get rid of it. Also WTF is this-
[ QUOTE ]
'gubmit regulation'

[/ QUOTE ]
You are quoting here? Did you have the need to strawman me just to insult me? Can you find any ACist on the board that has used this term? Can you at least attempt to stay on a subject and debate honestly rather then attack things no one has even said?

[/ QUOTE ]
I really didn't mean it how you took it. There was a rather long thread about 2 weeks ago where that was the term being used by ACers and non-ACers alike. I did not realize you would take it that way and I won't use it again.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is some sort of a balance right now within the legal structure. Just because a person is against ALL structure does not mean that this person needs to be against a particular structure to be consistent. One can both be against structure as a whole and for a particular structure within a particular context. Or to make an analogy, just because you want to get rid of the building all together, does not mean you need to support getting rid of the windows while you still live in the building in December.

[/ QUOTE ]
I actually like the anology, but it's not apt. Net Neutrality increases regulation, and that's the issue. And just to point out, I'm not aganist structure, I'm against coercize and monopolitive structure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there ever a time when coercion can be justified?

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]

What would lead you to think that ACers wouldn't support repealing laws that weaken unions? Of course, if you're repealing laws that weaken unions, it seems fair to repeal laws that strengthen them as well. I've had this discussion with valenzuela. Of course repealing certain legislation in a vacuum might turn out bad (like ending public police stations without allowing private police stations), but ACers generally don't do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point I was trying to get at was within the system at large, it is always, in some way, getting rid of the public police station. And as such, the one lense of decreasing regulation is not the only applicable one and probably isn't the pertinent one, but it is always the one brought up. A cost/benefit appraisal might be better, or in terms of freedom of speech ejoyed by the public via the internet.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there ever a time when coercion can be justified?

[/ QUOTE ]
As a first aggression? Probably not. I find it both morally wrong (infringes on natural rights) and consequentially wrong (It doesn't bring about the best results).

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is there ever a time when coercion can be justified?

[/ QUOTE ]
As a first aggression? Probably not. I find it both morally wrong (infringes on natural rights) and consequentially wrong (It doesn't bring about the best results).

[/ QUOTE ]

What about coercion to help the coererced. Let's take an absurd example.

Let's say I'm not too bright, and I'm giving some sort of demonstration with a handgun where,in the course of it, I put the gun up to my head and pull the trigger. You're also involved in that you are supposed to talk me out of it, but in the course of your talking me out of it, you realize that there are actual bullets in the gun since it just happens to be that type of revolver. Now, you are trying to talk me out of it...but I just don't listen since, this is our demonstration.

It is plainly coercion to tackle me and force the gun from my hand right? But would it be right?

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is there ever a time when coercion can be justified?

[/ QUOTE ]
As a first aggression? Probably not. I find it both morally wrong (infringes on natural rights) and consequentially wrong (It doesn't bring about the best results).

[/ QUOTE ]

What about coercion to help the coererced. Let's take an absurd example.

Let's say I'm not too bright, and I'm giving some sort of demonstration with a handgun where,in the course of it, I put the gun up to my head and pull the trigger. You're also involved in that you are supposed to talk me out of it, but in the course of your talking me out of it, you realize that there are actual bullets in the gun since it just happens to be that type of revolver. Now, you are trying to talk me out of it...but I just don't listen since, this is our demonstration.

It is plainly coercion to tackle me and force the gun from my hand right? But would it be right?

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, it's coercion and it's a good spot to use it. Let's look at the context of this. It's someone incapable of knowing and/or understanding the outcome (he won't listen, for some reason). Remember the reasons I outlined as being against coercion, those being infringing rights and not leading to the best results. This applies to autonomous humans that understand consequences, meaning people such as babies, young children, possible those that are mentally ill don't apply. I suppose someone that didn't know the results of his own actions in a vacuum apply too. It is also a certainty that if he didn't know the gun was loaded, he'd appreciate the act of you tackling him.

Is there something on your mind that you'd like to draw a comparison to with regards to government intervention?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What would lead you to think that ACers wouldn't support repealing laws that weaken unions? Of course, if you're repealing laws that weaken unions, it seems fair to repeal laws that strengthen them as well. I've had this discussion with valenzuela. Of course repealing certain legislation in a vacuum might turn out bad (like ending public police stations without allowing private police stations), but ACers generally don't do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point I was trying to get at was within the system at large, it is always, in some way, getting rid of the public police station. And as such, the one lense of decreasing regulation is not the only applicable one and probably isn't the pertinent one, but it is always the one brought up. A cost/benefit appraisal might be better, or in terms of freedom of speech ejoyed by the public via the internet.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe I didn't make my point clear enough. A position an ACer should support (getting rid of public police stations) would be a bad thing if it wasn't accompanied by getting rid of some other laws that prohibit competition with the former public service. So when you say that getting rid of OSHA (or whatever other government regulation you want) without accompanying deregulation of other areas (laws that weaken unions) would be bad, ACers should agree. They want to get rid of both.