US votes to scrap net neutrality

[Cray]

Not at all. It's no secret.

Mr McCarthy I presume...?

 

[konfab]

Pfff, the market is still correcting -very, very slowly...

I know, let's get the government to build the internet infrastructure so they will do it equally and fairly and will always provide good internet at low prices. Especially across large and underpopulated areas.

 

[Cray]

If you live in the middle of nowhere and you want to watch SABC, you have to watch it through DSTV. So do you think the government should force DSTV to provide its service for free because DSTV is the only person who offers it?

I doubt the UN will ever declare access to the SABC to be a basic human right.

 

[konfab]

I doubt the UN will ever declare access to SABC to be a basic human right.

Not the point.

Also lol, if access to the internet is a basic human right then all that is needed is your ability to go to a library and use the free internet there. I don't think the right to access to the internet is applicable when comparing Cletus's ability to stream the latest season of Nascar in 4k vs Achmed being denied access to Wikipedia because it contains haram information.

 

[Urist]

No. Our internet is lousy because our government already has a very heavy hand on telecommunications. "Net neutrality" was a deceptive move by the previous Obama regime to bring government regulation and control. It was a disgusting power-grab by the government. Good that it's gone.

sorry, I was being sarcastic, should have made it more clear.

 

[Arthur]

Mr McCarthy I presume...?

Hehe.

You and pushers/defenders of "Net Neutrality" are ones saying freedom doesn't work, the free market is bs. Like lemmings you rush to Big Brother and beg "Regulate us! Control us! Tell us what we can and cannot do! We just can't handle all this freedom - it's so unfair!" Whether you see or admit it or not, you stand ineluctably with the Statists who believe they have the right and the responsibility to control other people's lives and property. History shows over and over and over and over and over and over and over again how that morphs into tyrannies, always justified in the name of the people.

That is a view of the world and power in human affairs that I reject in principle.

I say: laissez-faire!

 

[scudsucker]

Whether you see or admit it or not, you stand ineluctably with the Statists who believe they have the right and the responsibility to control other people's lives and property. History shows over and over and over and over and over and over and over again how that morphs into tyrannies, always justified in the name of the people.

That is a view of the world and power in human affairs that I reject in principle.

I say: laissez-faire!

Just like the Catholic Church then? Very laissez-faire, that lot.

 

[Cray]

Hehe.
You and pushers/defenders of "Net Neutrality" are ones saying freedom doesn't work, the free market is bs. Like lemmings you rush to Big Brother and beg "Regulate us! Control us! Tell us what we can and cannot do! We just can't handle all this freedom - it's so unfair!" Whether you see or admit it or not, you stand ineluctably with the Statists who believe they have the right and the responsibility to control other people's lives and property. History shows over and over and over and over and over and over and over again how that morphs into tyrannies, always justified in the name of the people.

This would be laughable if it didn't sound like you actually believe it... So you believe in the total absence of government regulation, is that right?

 

[konfab]

This would be laughable if it didn't sound like you actually believe it...

Considering that there is ample evidence of it all around the world, it isn't that far away from the truth.

You take something like welfare. On the surface it looks like charity, but its dark underbelly is to make people dependant on government handouts. If you don't think that is the case then you should look at which politicians want to import people who are more likely to be on welfare:

In 2012, 51 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) reported that they used at least one welfare program during the year, compared to 30 percent of native households. Welfare in this study includes Medicaid and cash, food, and housing programs.

https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native-Households

If the people who are advocates for welfare reform *really* cared about the people on welfare, they would be advocating for controlled immigration so you could reduce the amount of people on welfare.

Politicians love it, they get to redistribute money stolen from other people and tell everyone they are doing good by doing it.

And all it does is just create welfare dependance, as the Australian Abo's call it: Sit-down money. They are paid by the government to do nothing.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-07/20111107-cdep/3650560

 

[Cray]

And all it does is just create welfare dependance, as the Australian Abo's call it: Sit-down money. They are paid by the government to do nothing.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-07/20111107-cdep/3650560

Not sure if your know this but that term is considered to be pretty offensive..

 

[Arthur]

This would be laughable if it didn't sound like you actually believe it... So you believe in the total absence of government regulation, is that right?

One can't possibly answer that question because it's equivocal - do you mean no regulation whatsoever in any area, or do you mean no regulation in business generally, or specifically in telecommunications? So it depends what you're really asking.

What is it with you that can see only in binary terms - all-government or no-government??!! :crylaugh: The real world is analogue, not digital, for Pete's sake.

But since you ask, I'll give a quick and serious answer:

Initiating physical force or its threat to compel another person against his/her will to provide/surrender a good or service is immoral and evil. The role of government is to place the retaliatory (ie defensive) use of force under objective control. Government is a necessary and good institution, and there cannot be a society without government. The first rule of social living is that force and fraud are banned in all human relations, ie no-one may ever initiate the use of force in their dealings with others. It is the role of government to protect and vindicate the life, liberty and property of every person without exception - and that means it acts in the defence of those who are victims of force or its threat, or of fraud. Of course that means a whole body of laws that the State must enforce justly (common law, eg against murder, assault, theft, violations of personal or proprietal integrity, and so on. And it must enforce this universally and without favour. But nowhere in this conception of the State is there a requirement that the State become directly involved in economic relations. In fact it is highly undesirable that the State involves itself in the economy, because that amalgamates the power of the sword (unique to the State) with economic power, and - given human nature - that is a very dangerous concentration of power and open to massive abuse (as we know only too well). Moreover, the State plays a role in being an impartial arbiter in disputes between citizens, and it cannot do so fairly if it also has a direct economic interest in the outcome. So the State ought to remain aloof of human commerce. One of the consequences of this view is that the State should have nothing to do with regulating telecommunications, content, speech, business, spectrum, bandwidth, prices, etc, etc, etc. And neither should it be the houser, educator, medicator, nanny, nursemaid.

Your false binarism about the State tries to resolves everything into all-government or no-government. I do not see it thus. As I said, in my view government is good and necessary -- but it has a very specific function and very unique and awesome power required to exercise its function: the power of the legal use of physical force. Provided human beings abide by the first rule of social living (no force or fraud), the intercourse of humans in society, commerce, economics, arts, culture, sport, technology, science, etc, etc, etc should be left to citizens with no State interference, control regulation -- all these of these work entirely by compulsion, and compulsion is the enemy of liberty. Compulsion is the method and the mode of slavery, and I reject that utterly when it comes to the interactions of adult human beings. Liberty is a precious and fragile flower, and must be nurtured and preserved lest we lapse into tribal warfare and barbarism.

 

[konfab]

Not sure if your know this but that term is considered to be pretty offensive..

Didn't really know it was offensive. Always thought it was like what we call "coloured".

 

[konfab]

One can't possibly answer that question because it's equivocal - do you mean no regulation whatsoever in any area, or do you mean no regulation in business generally, or specifically in telecommunications? So it depends what you're really asking.

What is it with you that can see only in binary terms - all-government or no-government??!! :crylaugh: The real world is analogue, not digital, for Pete's sake.

But since you ask, I'll give a quick and serious answer:

Initiating physical force or its threat to compel another person against his/her will to provide/surrender a good or service is immoral and evil. The role of government is to place the retaliatory (ie defensive) use of force under objective control. Government is a necessary and good institution, and there cannot be a society without government. The first rule of social living is that force and fraud are banned in all human relations, ie no-one may ever initiate the use of force in their dealings with others. It is the role of government to protect and vindicate the life, liberty and property of every person without exception - and that means it acts in the defence of those who are victims of force or its threat, or of fraud. Of course that means a whole body of laws that the State must enforce justly (common law, eg against murder, assault, theft, violations of personal or proprietal integrity, and so on. And it must enforce this universally and without favour. But nowhere in this conception of the State is there a requirement that the State become directly involved in economic relations. In fact it is highly undesirable that the State involves itself in the economy, because that amalgamates the power of the sword (unique to the State) with economic power, and - given human nature - that is a very dangerous concentration of power and open to massive abuse (as we know only too well). Moreover, the State plays a role in being an impartial arbiter in disputes between citizens, and it cannot do so fairly if it also has a direct economic interest in the outcome. So the State ought to remain aloof of human commerce. One of the consequences of this view is that the State should have nothing to do with regulating telecommunications, content, speech, business, spectrum, bandwidth, prices, etc, etc, etc. And neither should it be the houser, educator, medicator, nanny, nursemaid.

Your false binarism about the State tries to resolves everything into all-government or no-government. I do not see it thus. As I said, in my view government is good and necessary -- but it has a very specific function and very unique and awesome power required to exercise its function: the power of the legal use of physical force. Provided human beings abide by the first rule of social living (no force or fraud), the intercourse of humans in society, commerce, economics, arts, culture, sport, technology, science, etc, etc, etc should be left to citizens with no State interference, control regulation -- all these of these work entirely by compulsion, and compulsion is the enemy of liberty. Compulsion is the method and the mode of slavery, and I reject that utterly when it comes to the interactions of adult human beings. Liberty is a precious and fragile flower, and must be nurtured and preserved lest we lapse into tribal warfare and barbarism.

tl;dr Governments should only act according to the non-aggression principle.

 

[Arthur]

tl;dr Governments should only act according to the non-aggression principle.

Or,
i. remove compulsion by physical force (or its threat) from human relations.
ii. protect and vindicate the rights of all to integrity of life, person, liberty, and the fruits of their labour (ie property)

 

[Cray]

One can't possibly answer that question because it's equivocal - do you mean no regulation whatsoever in any area, or do you mean no regulation in business generally, or specifically in telecommunications? So it depends what you're really asking.

What is it with you that can see only in binary terms - all-government or no-government??!! :crylaugh: The real world is analogue, not digital, for Pete's sake.

This from the person branding anyone who disagrees with him on net neutrality as a communist? You claim that all regulation with regards to the internet is bad, that laissez-faire should be the default based on some kind principle that you personally detest government telling people that there are certain ways that business should be conducted in a just society.. So I want to know if that same principle applies to all areas or just business, you claim to fear tyranny of government but you are okay with tyranny that could be inflicted by big business running rough shod over people?

But since you ask, I'll give a quick and serious answer:

Initiating physical force or its threat to compel another person against his/her will to provide/surrender a good or service is immoral and evil. The role of government is to place the retaliatory (ie defensive) use of force under objective control. Government is a necessary and good institution, and there cannot be a society without government. The first rule of social living is that force and fraud are banned in all human relations, ie no-one may ever initiate the use of force in their dealings with others. It is the role of government to protect and vindicate the life, liberty and property of every person without exception - and that means it acts in the defence of those who are victims of force or its threat, or of fraud. Of course that means a whole body of laws that the State must enforce justly (common law, eg against murder, assault, theft, violations of personal or proprietal integrity, and so on. And it must enforce this universally and without favour. But nowhere in this conception of the State is there a requirement that the State become directly involved in economic relations. In fact it is highly undesirable that the State involves itself in the economy, because that amalgamates the power of the sword (unique to the State) with economic power, and - given human nature - that is a very dangerous concentration of power and open to massive abuse (as we know only too well). Moreover, the State plays a role in being an impartial arbiter in disputes between citizens, and it cannot do so fairly if it also has a direct economic interest in the outcome. So the State ought to remain aloof of human commerce. One of the consequences of this view is that the State should have nothing to do with regulating telecommunications, content, speech, business, spectrum, bandwidth, prices, etc, etc, etc. And neither should it be the houser, educator, medicator, nanny, nursemaid.

Your false binarism about the State tries to resolves everything into all-government or no-government. I do not see it thus. As I said, in my view government is good and necessary -- but it has a very specific function and very unique and awesome power required to exercise its function: the power of the legal use of physical force. Provided human beings abide by the first rule of social living (no force or fraud), the intercourse of humans in society, commerce, economics, arts, culture, sport, technology, science, etc, etc, etc should be left to citizens with no State interference, control regulation -- all these of these work entirely by compulsion, and compulsion is the enemy of liberty. Compulsion is the method and the mode of slavery, and I reject that utterly when it comes to the interactions of adult human beings. Liberty is a precious and fragile flower, and must be nurtured and preserved lest we lapse into tribal warfare and barbarism.

Your no force or fraud thing sounds great until you realize that, in your world, there should be no government regulations to prevent something like the Grenfel tower fire from happening again. There was no fraud there, just developers cladding a building in cheap, hazardous material that went up like a torch. No one forced those people to live there, but in a place like London, with outrageous rent and a housing crisis, people remained in that tower despite knowing the dangers because they had no where else to go no way to enforce proper safety. Or is 88 people dying one of those things the market will correct itself....?

Do you believe in workplace safety regulations, , laws against child exploitation or should we just let businessman make their own rules on the alter of "everyone should be free to make a buck" and screw the social consequences?

 

[OrbitalDawn]

So much competition...

https://arstechnica.com/information...-internet-provider-or-none-at-all/?comments=1

The UK were in a similar position and they forced more competition through regulation - now they've got better internet, lower prices and somehow the companies didn't dissolve into mist.

https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/28/why-is-european-broadband-faster-and-cheaper-blame-the-governme/

This from the person branding anyone who disagrees with him on net neutrality as a communist? You claim that all regulation with regards to the internet is bad, that laissez-faire should be the default based on some kind principle that you personally detest government telling people that there are certain ways that business should be conducted in a just society.. So I want to know if that same principle applies to all areas or just business, you claim to fear tyranny of government but you are okay with tyranny that could be inflicted by big business running rough shod over people?




Your no force or fraud thing sounds great until you realize that, in your world, there should be no government regulations to prevent something like the Grenfel tower fire from happening again. There was no fraud there, just developers cladding a building in cheap, hazardous material that went up like a torch. No one forced those people to live there, but in a place like London, with outrageous rent and a housing crisis, people remained in that tower despite knowing the dangers because they had no where else to go no way to enforce proper safety. Or is 88 people dying one of those things the market will correct itself....?

Do you believe in workplace safety regulations, , laws against child exploitation or should we just let businessman make their own rules on the alter of "everyone should be free to make a buck" and screw the social consequences?

He prefers rule via robber baron and their private security forces.

That's how this bad faith/strawman thing works, right?

 

[milomak]

Hehe.

You and pushers/defenders of "Net Neutrality" are ones saying freedom doesn't work, the free market is bs. Like lemmings you rush to Big Brother and beg "Regulate us! Control us! Tell us what we can and cannot do! We just can't handle all this freedom - it's so unfair!" Whether you see or admit it or not, you stand ineluctably with the Statists who believe they have the right and the responsibility to control other people's lives and property. History shows over and over and over and over and over and over and over again how that morphs into tyrannies, always justified in the name of the people.

That is a view of the world and power in human affairs that I reject in principle.

I say: laissez-faire!

that works as long as you believe everythin should be provided for by the private sector.

which is a dangerous view because it talks nothing to public utility. which private enterprise won't.

how we as citizens pick up the cost obviously becomes an issue

 

[Arthur]

Small aside: A public utility easily fits into a free market system, because there is no necessary requirement that it be state-owned; nor does it necessarily have to be a legislated monopoly. South Africa once had quite a number of such public utilities, but almost all have over time been nationalised and turned into state-owned corporations.

 

[Nick333]

So amazing, much wow. That'll be R65 extra for accessing MyBB please.

Dude, your ISP is free to charge you whatever it wants to allow you to access MyBB. They don't charge you extra, because you'd just change ISP's if they did.

Despite a complete lack of net neutrality regulation, Netflix works just fine on my shaped, uncapped Telkom account. Amazingly the market works just fine at solving imaginary problems. Or, you know, you just don't need to solve imaginary problems, because they don't actually exist.

 

[RanzB]

They don't charge you extra, because you'd just change ISP's if they did.
.

Yeah 'imaginary problems' like not being able to move to a competitor because none exists, or those that do service the area colluding on prices.

Because that'd never happen, right?