Coercion.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Bob_Robertson Jun 02, 2006 9:50 AM EDT |
Here's a problem. You give ad space to people who give you money to advertise on LXer. The quantity they pay influences how much space they receive. If I pay my ISP more money, they will give me more bandwidth. If I choose to use very inexpensive dial-up, I receive comparably fewer bits per second. CNN pays far more for their service than LXer, because CNN dumps far more data into the mess of wires called the "internet" than LXer does, or likely ever could. A packet I request from LXer, regardless of your or my ISP, is given just as much chance of arriving at its destination as a packet from CNN. Where things are designed well, there is little or no congestion that would cause those packets to be dropped, but if they are then I simply re-request the packet. The reality is that secondary customers have always been lower priority. Fewer servers, shared servers, more hops to the backbone, lower bit per second connections, whatever. ISPs compete on price or service, just look at their advertising. What the "Net Neutrality" law does is allow prosecution of an ISP for giving priority to the packets from their customers that pay more through QoS settings. It makes illegal a business model, prevents innovation. Do you like legally mandated hardware DRM? Do you like other people telling you what you may and may not do with property you thought you owned? Then don't empower government to do unto others what you do not want done to you. That said, packets are generally delivered "best effort". This law might very well be just legislating the style you, and I, prefer. But what about the next law? And the one after that? And the one after that? And the one after that? And the one after that? Back in 1995, I too was doing stuff. I was network engineer for a small ISP. Small, yes physically, but with a couple of very profitable contracts: Distributing updates for a very large software company for the first time across this "internet" thing. I sat at the table across from "big" ISPs who wanted priority given to their traffic, their customers. Many times. Our customers were paying for QoS, both by pipe and number of servers, locations of servers, and for access the Frame Relay circuits were explicitly set up with "Committed Information Rates", just QoS by another name. Routers being what they were, peering QoS as a router setting was not at issue, peering itself was. Ever since 1993 and the NSF dropping control of the Internet, peering between ISPs remains a private matter. In and around 1995 some stupid suits decided they could turn it into a revenue stream. "Charge for Peering". So why didn't it become The Way Business Was Done, same as charging for business cards and charging for electricity? Because those who didn't play nice with others discovered that their own customers couldn't reach certain destinations. It took a while, and there were always those who *cough*Alternet*cough* never learned, but so-called "open" peering has remained the rule throughout rather than the exception because it works better for both peers. It is simply more efficient in the long run. Those few who pushed hardest are long gone. Private peering points, like AADS-NAP and PacBell-NAP, set up Mutual Peering Agreements. Any ISP who signed up with the MPA was automatically "allowed" to peer with every other signatory. Failure to play nice with others would mean they would be kicked out of the MPA. It worked. The private peering points with MPAs made more money because more ISPs came there for the hassle-free peering. I suggest that instead of going crying to Big Mommy Government to do something coercive, simply find cooperative answers that obliviate the problem. I believe you will find that, especially in an environment as competitive as ISPs, the better business model will quickly prove itself. Government must indeed do something, it must butt out of other peoples lives. Ok, on to another thought. WHO has put all this Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt into the airwaves concerning paid QoS? Paid QoS has always existed, will always exist, simply because people with money will pay for bigger pipes. SOMEONE wants this to be an issue, SOMEONE wants legislation in order to protect their interests by law. That's what always happens, that's what has always happened. The bought-and-paid-for politicians and their wealthy staffs wouldn't be doing anything about it unless there was payola and campaign contributions to be made. |
| Inhibit Jun 02, 2006 10:32 AM EDT |
"This law might very well be just legislating the style you, and I, prefer. But what about the next law? And the one after that? And the one after that? And the one after that? And the one after that?" When the next law, and the one after that, and the one after that, and the one after that are on the floor I'll worry about them. Until then, I'll worry about *this* law, which is somewhat more pressing. And I generally try to get laws enacted that will benefit citizens or enshrine rights of the populace. Call me sick if you want. The fun thing about your argument is that it's currently 2006 and last I checked ATT just re-formed. This means there's what.. 3 companies that carry all that bandwith, period? So what'll you argue for when there's only one company regulating the spiggot? Competition's going to win out over greed? Anyway, if we break down your argument it's that there "has always been extra payments made to providers for preferred service" right? Fortunately, the FCC has some mandates in effect that *regulate* this type of stuff. Currently providers are limited in what they can do to hamper services to promote their own. Unless I'm totally missing the mark the bills that are being spoken of in the article seek to terminate that ability of the FCC. So we should just hope that the corporations collecting all the pipes will play nice with customers. Because that's always worked out well in the past? Where are the examples of that? "Government must indeed do something, it must butt out of other peoples lives." -- As for that statement, I prefer to think of corporations as *companies*. Not people. |
| jdixon Jun 02, 2006 11:15 AM EDT |
Everyone may have noticed (or not) that I've stayed out of the Net Neutrality debate. This is for a good reason: I have no idea who's right. Government interference with the net has historically never been a good thing. On the other hand, I trust big telco and cable companies as far as I can throw them (there are sound historical reasons for this distrust, but there's no need to cover that here). So, do I trust government to make everything right (yeah, sure), or do I trust the big providers to play fair? As far as I can see, we're screwed either way. Sufficient competition would ensure that the big providers couldn't dictate to their customers, but do we have that? Purely as a guess, I'd say we need at least 4 providers in each area to ensure fair service. In most areas you have a choice of at most two providers (your telco and your cable company). Some areas can add wireless to the mix. Is doubt that's enough to ensure fair service. Power line and/or gas line service (both of which I've heard about but never seen in use) would add to the possible providers, and would help a lot. Anyway, I'm leaning towards the possibility that government mandated standards might be our only option at this point. I don't like it, but it's fairly obvious to me that monopolies can't be trusted to provide fair net access. |
| dcparris Jun 02, 2006 11:37 AM EDT |
Therein lies the rub. HR5252 (COPE Act) does not prevent the kinds of monopolistic abuse I pointed out in my article. In fact, it even prevents the FCC from doing anything about monopolies. The COPE Act does have some provisions I support, but lacks the protections against monopolies and could undermine our freedom. So amending HR 5417 to HR 5252 does that. The senate version goes a bit further in this regard. What's interesting is that this debate crosses the normal Democrat-Republican boundaries. |
| jimf Jun 02, 2006 11:46 AM EDT |
> Anyway, I'm leaning towards the possibility that government mandated standards might be our only option at this point. I don't like it, but it's fairly obvious to me that monopolies can't be trusted to provide fair net access. ' Exactly. Now that the ball has been put into play, we are really 'forced' to choose. While neither choice/side is the ideal answer, a corporate controlled tiered internet is the worst solution. Just be aware that this may not be the end of the whole issue. Now we'll have to deal with the Government :( |
| grouch Jun 02, 2006 11:51 AM EDT |
jdixon: Due to selective government interference and non-interference, the Internet within the U.S. could be controlled by what is essentially the old Ma Bell monopoly, just with different names and faces. You pay for access (ostensibly) based on how fat a pipe you need. What they want to do is to charge a sort of extortion to not cap the pipe at the other end. You've already paid for the resources you need for your connection. MegaGlobal Widgets, Inc. has paid for its many large pipes. Bubba's Cheap CDs and Custom Tombstones has paid for its one little pipe. Now the backbone owners want to charge those companies again, to not put a restrictor valve on the outflow from those companies' pipes. This is a way to mostly hide the charges from you. "Pay us or maybe your packets never reach your audience". Allowing this to take place would be equivalent to allowing private toll booths to be erected on exit ramps to the Interstate highways. The analogy also fits in that our tax dollars were involved in creating the Internet backbone, as well as tax-funded subsidies provided to those telcos, just as our taxes funded the creation of the Interstate highway system. Think about the gigantic economic boost given by the creation of the Interstate highway system. Compare it to the days when many roads were privately owned (see the origins of the word "turnpike"). The telcos would turn back the clock and reneg on the deals they made with taxpayers during the building of the communications system. |
| NoDough Jun 02, 2006 12:02 PM EDT |
>So, do I trust government to make everything right (yeah, sure), or do I trust the big providers to play fair? As far as I can see, we're screwed eithe[r] way. That's my conclusion as well. I believe that soon the geeks among us (I count myself as one) will be forced to establish an alternative to Telco/Cable controlled access. I envision a wireless mesh network built from commodity hardware (probably WiMax) which links households together. The network will operate independently of the Internet with everyone able to add their own servers, use VOIP, etc. Only one access point to the old Internet will be required for every (n) nodes. Requests for data from the old Internet will route to the nearest access point where the information may be retrieved from the Internet server, or from a caching server on the mesh (squid.) As the mesh grows in popularity, site operators such as Yahoo and Google will add themselves to it. Depending on how badly screwed up the Internet gets, the wireless mesh could eventually replace it (long, long term.) Think about it, you buy about $200 worth of equipment and have access for life (the life of the equipment anyway.) Who controls the on-ramps? Everyone. There will be hundreds of them in your subdivision. And we will all live happily ever after. Hmmm, maybe I should be writing an RFC... |
| devnet Jun 02, 2006 1:04 PM EDT |
I visualize myself becoming a courier with a 40 GB hard drive integrated into a neural network of my brain. I'll change my name to Johnny and charge large corporations tremendous amounts of money to carry information from client to client. Charge me for information? Hell no, I charge you! Ha Ha! |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 02, 2006 1:12 PM EDT |
It's easy in a time of perceived "crisis" to call for someone to "do something". In the end, it doesn't work. Yes, AT&T is back. Do you know why? Because the government monopoly grants were never repealed. The baby bell companies retained their monopoly status over territories. It was inevitable that corruption like that would attract itself, and gather again under one label. But AT&T cannot (legally) prevent anyone else from running "backbone" circuits. No, not "all traffic" flows over one companies circuits. There are several backbone providers. I'll mention Sprint no matter how awful they are technically, Qwest (Quest? can never remember) and such. MCI build their "backbone" while AT&T was still one company. The ISPs I've worked for contracted their own backbones cross-country, so that someone like AT&T never touched the data itself and if they tried playing with the bandwidth available they would run directly into the contract they had signed. I think the error here is thinking anything about this internet is monolithic. It ain't. Just as there are multiple peering points, there are multiple carriers. If one starts not playing nice with others, it is very easy to just use someone else. Yes, last-mile issues still exist. But I've already derided how the last mile problem is a creation of government granted monopolies. We are not suffering from an excess of competition, nor an excess of "big corporations". Even the biggest corporation cannot compel anyone to purchase service from them, that is a perview solely of government. |
| r_a_trip Jun 02, 2006 1:31 PM EDT |
Depending on how badly screwed up the Internet gets, the wireless mesh could eventually replace it (long, long term.) Why do I fear this more than throttled bandwidth.... Oh yeah, the place I live is filled with Joe and Jane Sixpacks. The chance that they setup a commons controlled wireless mesh is near nill. I'd rather have a shitty connection than no connection at all. In all of the three years that I've lived in Hoogezand I've only discovered one other nearby wireless router. I don't reckon Joe and Jane to be able to suppress the broadcast signal. |
| jdixon Jun 02, 2006 1:42 PM EDT |
Bob: > Even the biggest corporation cannot compel anyone to purchase service from them... Theoretically true, but... In my area, if I want broadband, I have to deal with Verizon. I have no cable provider and no wireless provider. I could get satellite, but the relative cost and bandwidth limitations make it worthless to me (once the bandwidth limitations kick in, dialup has a more effective throughput). The supposed alternative solutions I mention above (power and gas line) are still a pipe dream. Verizon is an effective monopoly. I can get the service from a number of providers, but they all ride Verizon's wire. If Verizon starts filtering the flow, there's nothing I or any of the providers can do to stop them, and comments by the Verizon folks indicate that's exactly what they have in mind. There are a lot of people in this situation, and while I readily admit that the government created the problem with their monopoly grant to the local telco's, there's no obvious solution in the short term. So, short of legislation, how can we fix this problem? I agree that legislation is the least desirable solution, but how else do I keep Verizon in check when there is no effective competition? |
| jimf Jun 02, 2006 3:06 PM EDT |
> So, short of legislation, how can we fix this problem? I agree that legislation is the least desirable solution, but how else do I keep Verizon in check when there is no effective competition? Your question it moot. The legislation is already a given. and, we only have a choice of which legislation. |
| dcparris Jun 02, 2006 3:11 PM EDT |
Well, my Pa has been having trouble getting his Internet access where he lives. I believe he switched to Verizon - and has had a loooonnngg wait. Who knows when they'll actaully get him hooked up. Mind you, he still lives back up in the holler - you know, where they have to pipe in the sunshine. ;-) |
| Inhibit Jun 02, 2006 9:49 PM EDT |
> We are not suffering from an excess of competition, nor an excess of "big corporations". Even the biggest corporation cannot compel anyone to purchase service from them, that is a perview solely of government. You're absolutely right. But I don't think any of us are thinking of throwing in the towel and going back to string can networks just yet. And I remember there being distinctly more than the three providers you name a few years back... why do you assume there will still be three a few years hence? And why would the ever smaller number of companies allow lenient contracts? So yea, if you're an ISP you've got a *few* options for who to go to for pipe. Maybe. But I don't see market collusion as being a real big sticky point with the corporations mentioned. Somehow, I don't think they'd have a problem with just competatively raising rates (darned if I'll ever figure how *that* logic works) and bleeding customers as the number of suppliers dwindles. |
| mecrider Jun 03, 2006 4:07 AM EDT |
Just imagine a day when government entities of all levels find themselves paying huge amounts of money to backbone providers, just so people can continue visiting their sites. What a waste of our money as taxpayers. Once that starts, I guarantee the price will only go up, as big companies reach deeper into their pockets to keep the majority of bandwidth for themselves. |
| dcparris Jun 03, 2006 6:11 AM EDT |
Bob:
> Here's a problem. You give ad space to people who give you money to advertise on LXer. The quantity they pay influences how much space they receive. I just decided to come back this point. You are right, but the situation is different. When one company pays more than another for priority, the second company loses priority. On LXer, a company paying for a button will always have a button, unless they quit paying for it. One advertiser buying a banner doesn't relegate another advertiser to a button. I suppose it's possible to have one advertiser win the front page banner on a higher bid, but the other advertizers still have banner pages. On the other hand, I might still get my cable Internet speed, but if Microsoft pays my ISP for higher priority, they could make Google slower to load, and that is not fair, either to me or to Google. And what about the millions of small fries out there who would be in a worse position, unable to pay for any priority at all? The only way that could be fair is if each company actually negotiates and upholds equal priority terms in their contracts. Given that they're not interested in that, I'm not willing to accept HR5252. If all these guys wanted was to charge a higher fee for Internet access, I would be all for it. But they want something very different from what we now have. What the telecable giants want could easily impact what little freedom of speech we have left. |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 05, 2006 1:19 PM EDT |
JDixon, "So, short of legislation, how can we fix this problem?" Since the problem is a legal monopoly grant that makes Verizon your only provider, I submit that the answer is the repeal of the legislation creating the problem in the first place. Even the single place that I can imagine "legislation" being important, "Thou Shalt Not Stomp On Anyone Else's Signal", is dealt with better by the same rules that stop my neighbor from building a fence on my side of the property line: Private Property. Stomping on my signal, or damaging my cable, or whatever, is trespassing. Inhibit, the problem you're suggesting is called "cartel". Cartels don't last, because someone in the cartel, or an outsider, always comes in and cuts their price and makes a greater profit by selling more for less than the cartel members were making by selling less for more. The only means by which a monopoly or cartel is perpetuated is by government fiat. Competition can only be restricted by law, because only law can punish someone who comes along with a better idea. DC, "When one company pays more than another for priority, the second company loses priority." Ah, the "tragedy of the commons". Zero sum games. I suggest that this is not relevant because networking is not a zero sum game. If I sell 10Mbps to company A, and company B buys 95Mbps, then I figure out how to get 105Mbps worth of circuits. If I decide to cut company A back because I only can get 100Mbps, then I am in violation of contract. But because company B has paid me so much more, I can go out and provision another 200Mbps, and sell to more customers without infringing on any of the contracts I already have. "I suppose it's possible to have one advertiser win the front page banner on a higher bid, but the other advertizers still have banner pages." Exactly. Same with network capacity. The more that is sold, the more capital is available to build yet more capacity. There is no "commons" because every bit travels over private circuits. Any provider that cannot keep up with the demand loses customers. That is why I object to the idea of bringing government into it. So far, I *and* my service provider have a choice who we buy service from. Once government gets into it, once the "big players" see that they can create a government mandated monopoly the same way that Baseball, railroads, radio stations, power generators, and the rest of the "utility" companies have, that choice is going to be taken away and given to a campaign contributor. "The only way that could be fair is if each company actually negotiates and upholds equal priority terms in their contracts." There's a factor you're not considering: Or gets their service from someone who will uphold those terms. There's an old saying, "Censorship is viewed as a network fault, and gets routed around." Squelching someones bandwidth is no different than censorship. And it will be just as successful. "What the telecable giants want could easily impact what little freedom of speech we have left." Only if they gain the power of government to mandate usage. |
| jimf Jun 05, 2006 2:25 PM EDT |
> the answer is the repeal of the legislation creating the problem in the first place. Of course you're right Bob, but you know as well as I do that it's much more expeditious for them to pass 'new' laws. Heck, If we are going to repeal anything, let's just repeal everything clear back to the Constitution and start over. I really believe that might give us a chance. |
| dcparris Jun 05, 2006 2:35 PM EDT |
Hear! Hear! jimf for President! Just think. We can nominate Bob for Vice-Prez, and everyone can just vote the Jim-Bob ticket. |
| jdixon Jun 05, 2006 3:02 PM EDT |
> ...jimf for President... I could go for that. |
| jimf Jun 05, 2006 4:11 PM EDT |
If nominated I will not run, If elected I will not serve... Or put another way "what!!! you think I'm crazy! |
| dcparris Jun 05, 2006 4:40 PM EDT |
Crazy is as crazy does! Look Jim, We *need* someone who can understand all this newfangled tech_naw_loh_gy stuff. That thar Internet that Al Gore invented is a really complex thang. We *need* yew to go represent the intrests of thuh people. |
| dinotrac Jun 05, 2006 4:49 PM EDT |
>If elected I will not serve... Which, I guess, makes you a typical politician. |
| jimf Jun 05, 2006 4:50 PM EDT |
It's really very simple Don, Al Gore's Internet has caused the global warming and manbearpig is the logical one to run the country and get us out of the morass. |
| jimf Jun 05, 2006 5:04 PM EDT |
> Which, I guess, makes you a typical politician. Well, the quote is actually from William Tecumseh Sherman, who never ran for any office, although he certainly livened up warfare. |
| dinotrac Jun 05, 2006 6:25 PM EDT |
jimf - Yes, but unlike Sherman, who was never elected to anything, today's politicians take office and then refuse to serve. |
| dcparris Jun 05, 2006 6:28 PM EDT |
> Yes, but unlike Sherman, who was never elected to anything, today's politicians take office and then refuse to serve. Oh, I don't know, Dino... Bush has done an excellent job of serving.... the oil industry, the defense industry, the... |
| dinotrac Jun 06, 2006 3:47 AM EDT |
>Oh, I don't know, Dino... Bush has done an excellent job of serving.... the oil industry, the defense industry, the... Ah Rev, if you open the door, you gotta let me walk through it... I'm not sure what Bush has done for the oil industry. I'm sure he hasn't hurt it, but I don't know what he's done for it. I do know that he prosecuted Enron, unlike his predecessor. As to the Defense Industry, they certainly make out OK because of Iraq, but I'm not sure how to score that. Congress earns a few points in that category, too, for fighting base closings. If you're going to bash him, at least remember that he had to contend with a growing recession when he took office, the aftermath of 9/11 and it's additional impact on the economy (especially the travel industry), and hurricane Katrina. That explains why our economy is in such a shambles. Oh, wait! Last I looked, unemployment was at or near an all-time low, and economic growth lagged only China. After that, I run out of nice things to say, except maybe that he recently had the good sense to listen to Condaleeza Rice and consider direct communication with Iran. He does keep himself in pretty good shape, and Laura seems like a real nice lady. |
| dek Jun 06, 2006 6:03 AM EDT |
Dino:: if you open the door, you gotta let me walk through it.. Mutters to himself: "I will not walk through this door. I will not walk through this door I will not walk through this door. but ..... NO!!! I WILL NOT WALK THROUGH THIS DOOR!!!" Laura being a nice lady is probably more or less irrelevant, you realize . . . (All right, I know I broke my promise. I took one small step through that door! At least I didn't go all the way in!!) Don K PS: Clinton/Boxer in '08! (I'm kidding, I'm kidding!!!) |
| dinotrac Jun 06, 2006 6:12 AM EDT |
dek - It pains my many years of independant voting, former Perot campaign volunteering, onetime Democrat gone conservative self to say this, but, right now, Hillary looks like the most appealing candidate the Democrats have. |
| dcparris Jun 06, 2006 6:24 AM EDT |
> It pains my many years of independant voting, former Perot campaign volunteering, onetime Democrat gone conservative self to say this, but, right now, Hillary looks like the most appealing candidate the Democrats have. On Perot: I was with him all the way up to his accusation that the Republicans had a plot involving photos of his daughter's wedding. He had me, hook, line, and sinker, till then. On Hillary - I have never been a supporter of hers. I fell out of my chair when the guy from SaveTheInternet.com told me that she plans to co-sponsor the Senate version of the Net Neutrality bill. And worse - she seems to have some grasp of the issues. What's happening to me? Am I becoming a Democrat, and just can't see it??? Former Republican turned independent runs off screaming, "Noooooo!" |
| NoDough Jun 06, 2006 6:53 AM EDT |
This thread has degraded into the lowest form of communication: political discussion. Still, it's nice to know that this Independent is in good company. :-) |
| tuxchick2 Jun 06, 2006 7:00 AM EDT |
dino, there are a number of smart clueful Democrats. Republicans too. The trouble is they're ineffective. I guess the moral is ruthlessness triumphs over smarts. |
| dinotrac Jun 06, 2006 7:07 AM EDT |
tc - I don't know if you read the Peggy Noonan piece I hyperlinked in some other discussion -- I don't remember which. You might like it. I think it might be linked from Drudge, if not, I think it came from the Wall Street Journal's Opinion section. |
| jimf Jun 06, 2006 8:06 AM EDT |
> Hillary looks like the most appealing candidate the Democrats have. The French snake? Nothing has changed. We are still, at best, voting for the leser evil. |
| dinotrac Jun 06, 2006 8:11 AM EDT |
jimf - I think the state of things says less about Hillary -- although she actually has shown a rather grown-up tendency to take this notion of governing seriously and to care a bit about the voters -- and more about the sorry state of the Democrats. Let's be very clear: regardless of how you evaluate the 2000 Presidential election, over the last 6 years, they have more or less been creamed by -- can you believe this? -- George W. Bush. That should be a wake-up call, but Hillary seems like one of the very few who didn't hit the snooze button. |
| jimf Jun 06, 2006 8:23 AM EDT |
> Hillary seems like one of the very few who didn't hit the snooze button. I'm not doubting that Hillary is wide awake. Most effective predators are. I've seen her back some valid issues, and I've seen her following some that are pure garbage. Overall, I think she is just expedient. Do I trust her? Absolutely not! As President? That thought terrifies me... |
| dek Jun 06, 2006 8:49 AM EDT |
tc2: The trouble is they're ineffective. I guess the moral is ruthlessness triumphs over smarts. From the looks of things, I'd say they're also a minority. That is, more or less, an indictment of the voters (and non-voters, for that matter) about valuation of smart and clueful. I have reservations about Hillary's candidacy. No 1. If she were nominated, I don't think her candidacy could withstand the onslaught of negative impressions engendered by her former time in the White House. No. 2, if she were elected, she would have a hard time because of No 1. A Republican congress would make hay wit their conservative constituents whatever she did. And heaven help her if she stepped out of line even once. They'd be snapping at her heels for impeachment. That's not to say she wouldn't be a good smart president under different circumstances. I just don't see the odds in her favor right now. Don K. PS. OK I did step through that door!! I will now turn around and sneak back out!! |
| tuxchick2 Jun 06, 2006 8:50 AM EDT |
Having a hypothetically good President is just a tiny piece of the problem anyway. Wholesale replacement of Congress is the next step. Then we can look at all the permanent staffers in various federal bureacracies- those folks wield a lot of power simply from being experienced in the job and knowing all the ins and outs, unlike frequently-replaced elected persons. |
| NoDough Jun 06, 2006 9:32 AM EDT |
>A Republican congress would make hay wit their conservative constituents... Oops, you've hit one of my buttons. Republican does not equal Conservative. I am a Conservative. I am not a Republican. GWB is a Republican, but his domestic policies (with the exception of tax cuts) are not Conservative. |
| jimf Jun 06, 2006 10:01 AM EDT |
> I am a Conservative. I am not a Republican Heh... well, that is one of the bigger problems with our two party system. The vast majority of Americans are neither raving left wingers, nor are they right wing nazis, yet that seems to be the choice presented to us. If you don't choose one side or the other, then you are anathema. This is further confused because left and right often 'claim' issues that may be entirely universal (like tax cuts). About the only thing that seems to be a truly equal opportunity issue in both parties is corruption. |
| grouch Jun 06, 2006 5:50 PM EDT |
Corporatism appears to be the current fashion in religious-political melding. It's the antithesis of Marxism, but just as silly when someone attempts to apply it to the real world. Each takes a simplistic view of the influences acting in societies and predicts some grand, egalitarian utopia resulting from selected influences in their respective, naive theoretical worlds. |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 07, 2006 10:45 AM EDT |
Grouch, actually, it's not the opposite of Marxism. Centralized control by a small group _is_ Marxism. If that group is called "corporations", "congress", "Your Majesty", whatever, it makes no difference. As has been said many times, "it's not about guns, it's about _control_." As far as electing JimF to President, I would ask everyone here instead to go back and read the Libertarian party platform. Notice, if you will, a deep understanding of economics, technology, the importance of a rational defense without "foreign entanglements", etc. The last Libertarian presidential candidate, Michael Badnarik, is a computer consultant in Texas. No kidding that "republican does not equal conservative". If you examine the Libertarian platform again, you will see the conservative values paramount. There are a large number of people who call Libertarians "disgruntled Republicans". Hillary as President? There is only one good thing about that, and it's the same good thing that she had the last two terms of her Presidency: Opposition. Nothing would thrill me more than real opposition in congress and the media to the policies and actions of the present administration. It just isn't there. Lastly, reading as DC cheers the idea of rolling back the size and scope of American government to its founding document is actually painful. That very idea was suggested over and over by Harry Browne, a two-time Libertarian party presidential candidate, as a way of welding the two aspects of the freedom movement: Anarchists and Minarchists, until someone could finally get in there and do something about it. Once the US Fed.Gov was rolled back to what powers it has explicitly been granted, he would rent a stadium and we could all get together to argue and bicker about whether to cut more. Until then, arguing and bickering was rather pointless. I remember the first time on LXer I suggested repeal rather than making new laws just because the news laws "favor" this particular forum's bias. What a trouncing I got! I'm very happy that JimF can make the same suggestion and not get pounded. It gives my anarcho-capitalist heart a little bit of cheer. |
| grouch Jun 07, 2006 11:30 AM EDT |
Bob_Robertson: >'Grouch, actually, it's not the opposite of Marxism. Centralized control by a small group _is_ Marxism. If that group is called "corporations", "congress", "Your Majesty", whatever, it makes no difference.' Marxism is not about centralized control by a small group. That's Stalinism. Marxism is that utopian fantasyland wherein each receives according to his needs and contributes according to his abilities. There is no market, nor any influence on human behavior save the desire to fit the utopia. Corporatism is the opposite fantasyland wherein a utopian marketplace solves all problems. Naturally, it requires the elimination of all inconvenient regulations on corporations in order for the magic to take place. |
| dinotrac Jun 07, 2006 12:12 PM EDT |
grouch: >Marxism is not about centralized control by a small group. Technically true, but practice seems to dictate otherwise. In the absence of a market, you need a mechanism to take its place -- as history shows, badly. That mechanism tends to be a very small group relative to the number of decision makers in a market economy. |
| tuxchick2 Jun 07, 2006 12:25 PM EDT |
/me belabors Bob_Robertson about the head with a furled umbrella. Does that makes you feel more at home? ;) |
| dinotrac Jun 07, 2006 12:35 PM EDT |
tc: Don't know about anybody else, but I certainly feel more at home. Of course, as a resident whacko right-wing kook, I may not be representative... |
| NoDough Jun 07, 2006 12:44 PM EDT |
>Of course, as a resident whacko right-wing kook, I may not be representative... I'm a right-wing kook, but I don't live here. |
| grouch Jun 07, 2006 4:46 PM EDT |
dinotrac: >"Technically true, but practice seems to dictate otherwise." That's pretty much the point; it doesn't work in the real world. Like corporatism, it makes for cozy mental fantasies, but makes life miserable when real people are forced to live in it. Marxism was just a decoy used while setting up a small control group. Corporatism is now being used as a decoy. It gets the simple-minded to rally behind the poor, downtrodden multi-national corporation as it seeks relief from all that gubmint repression. |
| dinotrac Jun 07, 2006 5:06 PM EDT |
grouch: Everything is beautiful in theory -- if it's your theory. I come to have more respect for democracy -- in all of its imperfect flavors all the time. It sucks. It's messy. Leaders pander. The people often want stupid things. It can take too long to do anything, invest power in bureaucrats who can smugly outlast the people ostensibly wielding the true power, etc. Everything about is either inefficient, silly, or scary. Maybe that's why it works so much better than everything else. Now -- I know I'm mixing apples and oranges here: political systems and economic, but they seem to mix in real life, too. After all, a market economy is a sort of economic democracy: suppliers responding to the votes of consumers. So...as nothing works the way it does in the school book, please allow a little slip'nslide. ;0) |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 08, 2006 9:29 AM EDT |
TC, thank you. I haven't been bruised and battered in so long.... Dino, democracy does have one redeeming feature: It is inefficient. Government grows slowly so long as there is opposition. Unfortunately, democracy in all its incarnations has led to factions battling over the spoils. There's a great statement somewhere, written in the 19th century, about "democracies last about 200 years, fail because of loose fiscal policy, and always lead to dictatorships." I find that most interesting because the US has no foreign enemies who could endanger the country, yet we are reaching a crisis point in terms of fiscal policy. The US dollar is at the melt down point. Being "libertarian", I'm far more "right" than the "right", far more "left" than the "left". Here's how it works: The more authoritarian you get, the more of both left and right policies are enacted, but just all those policies that restrict peoples actions. The more freedom oriented you get, the more policies of both left and right are enacted, but just all those policies that do _not_ restrict peoples actions. Guns? Sure! Drugs? Sure! Communism/Capitalism? Go right ahead, interact with each other in any way you want so long as no one initiates force against anyone else. Taxes are out, because in order to collect them some group has to have greater rights than the other group. The "right" to extract, under threat of force, the money from someone else's pocket. Dino is absolutely correct about the mixing of economic and political models, because they indeed do mix. Someone who espouses free-market principles will tend to want to "live and let live", the essence of the libertine or anarchist position. The Corporate/State alliance, or whatever the flavor of socialism is this week, is the opposite. It is authoritarian at its core, because if you leave people alone they will trade in mutually agreeable terms. The free-market is what you get when you don't interfere with peoples decisions. As far as pure communism, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need", who decides what that ability is, what that need is? That is why every experiment in "communism" has failed. When Lenin tried abolishing money and making all production "common", the cities emptied as people went off looking for food, and otherwise starving to death. The greater the purity of the "communism", the faster disaster strikes. Here's one of my favorite examples: http://www.fee.org/in_brief/default.asp?id=106&year=2005&mon... |
| Scott_Ruecker Jun 08, 2006 4:16 PM EDT |
With my entire being I believe that the Internet should remain neutral, but I do think it will stay so. The Government and Telecoms have found out what we already know, that the Internet is the single most effective and direct way of discovering information and self expression yet created. To not have control over its access and content is to admit that they are not in control. In order for any government to perpetuate itself it must have control over what its 'subjects' have access too. A public that has access to information that the government has no control over will eventually become un-governable. "Control" at its core is about resistance to change. To stay in charge is to endeavor to keep things as they are. Why else would there be a need to create laws that give control of its access and content to the entities that the government already works with to control what we are allowed to see and hear with existing technology? |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!