That's not what net neutrality is about at all. Different prices for different bandwidth caps have been a staple since the dawn of consumer internet connections and have NOTHING to do with net neutrality.
Anyway, let me repeat myself. Again. I can keep doing this all week, I'm sure eventually everyone will catch it. Look, I'll bold and colour again:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Jim Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology, who spoke later at the event, said <b><!--coloro:orange--><span style="color:orange"><!--/coloro-->any Internet ID must be created by the private sector--and also voluntary and competitive.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See? That's what you want, isn't it? Almighty Mammon will indeed watch over you, just like you ask. You can sleep safely tonight.
This is the same schizophrenia we've seen with so-called PPPs, Public-Private Partnerships. It's what we see with every appointment to a position of power straight out of industry, and why we have Government-Sachs. It's the government, I mean it's the private sector, I mean... it's all the same, really. Corporations and government working together, hand in hand. Righties and Lefties can all join hands, kumbaya.
Except it's the little guy who gets screwed in the end, because he's not in government, and he's not at the top of a corporation. It's the consolidation of power in the hands of the few that's dangerous, whether "public"(government) or private.
Interesting post, thanks. Previously, we targetted a single social networking hoping for a snowball effect within that space. Now it seems possible to target via Twitter multi-space snowballing across <a href="http://essaywritingservices.org/book-report.php" target="_blank">book reports</a>. Interesting concept :D
<!--quoteo(post=1823419:date=Jan 12 2011, 01:18 AM:name=Sops)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sops @ Jan 12 2011, 01:18 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1823419"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That is the reason government should not provide services more then is necessary. There is no one to hold them accountable, short of huge public uproar, but things should not have to reach that point before something is fixed. I would rather see a government with a smaller financial stake overseeing an industry rather then running it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Erm, how does putting things in the hands of private organisations, which are overseen by the governement, which is overseen by the public, as opposed to putting everything in the hands of the government, do anything other than add another layer of stuff to go wrong?
It's still the government in control, either private organisations are controlled heavily by the government and therefore the government still has all the power, or they aren't controlled in which case they don't have any oversight and the entire idea is pointless.
<!--quoteo(post=1823463:date=Jan 12 2011, 04:34 AM:name=juice)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (juice @ Jan 12 2011, 04:34 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1823463"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No, you enter into a contract with a business for a service.
I will choose the company whose contract prohibits them from cutting off my service without justification. And the company who only offers service which they can turn off at any time will get no business. Neither will companies who break their contracts.
It is government who can do what they wish, and I am personally powerless to prevent it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For some things you do, but there is nothing to stop them making punitive contracts (other than the government) and many companies don't have any contracts, you just buy stuff off them, often very expensively, and if you can't afford it or don't agree then you can get stuffed.
Choice is also only available by government mandate, otherwise everything would be monopolised. The fact that that most countries see fit to illegalise it is evidence of how problematic it is.
<!--quoteo(post=1823632:date=Jan 12 2011, 03:33 PM:name=Wakes)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wakes @ Jan 12 2011, 03:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1823632"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Interesting post, thanks. Previously, we targetted a single social networking hoping for a snowball effect within that space. Now it seems possible to target via Twitter multi-space snowballing across <a href="http://essaywritingservices.org/book-report.php" target="_blank">book reports</a>. Interesting concept :D<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And a spambot comes out of NOWHERE! What a slobberknocker!!
<!--quoteo(post=1823645:date=Jan 12 2011, 04:14 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 12 2011, 04:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1823645"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->the entire idea is pointless<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->My thoughts exactly.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For some things you do, but there is nothing to stop them making punitive contracts (other than the government)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, and there is nothing to stop me from making a contract whereby you sell your car to me for $1. Let me know when you want to sign the paperwork.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Choice is also only available by government mandate, otherwise everything would be monopolised.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Lines like these make me think you are a straw man troll. I know this is the wisdom taught in school, but please, look into some other perspectives. Try <a href="http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/467246/dominick_t_armentanos_arguments_for.html?cat=17" target="_blank">this</a> for an extreme example.
Yes, and there is nothing to stop me from making a contract whereby you sell your car to me for $1. Let me know when you want to sign the paperwork.
Lines like these make me think you are a straw man troll. I know this is the wisdom taught in school, but please, look into some other perspectives. Try <a href="http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/467246/dominick_t_armentanos_arguments_for.html?cat=17" target="_blank">this</a> for an extreme example.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Have you considered what a truly free market would mean? A place in which there are absolutely no immutable rules governing how business must be conducted? No higher power except the stick, or possibly the coin in this case?
It would, in a word, be anarchy. And just like anarchy, the immediate and logical product is that people stop being anarchic and form groups, eventually one group gains all the power or sometimes just enough power to start challenging other groups, and eventually what you end up with is a dictatorship where one group conquered all the rest and started running the place, usually rather unpleasantly. You could also end up with a really nasty war as well, which will either end in one group winning and a dictatorship, or everyone ends up dead. Consider that in a truly free market, where there is no government intervention at all, that would mean the government couldn't control the army, or the police, or the legislative process, because laws about minimum wage and civil rights and unions and all that fun stuff, those are really the only thing, short of common decency, that stops say, microsoft, from buying its own private army and taking over a few US cities, subjugating the population to perform slave labour, and subsequently making an absolute killing selling off the products. The only difference between a corporation and a country is that corporations operate under the rule and regulation of a country, take that away and what you have is a lot of people with a strong organisational structure, a common affiliation, and plenty of resources. Also known as an army.
If you value democracy and hate dictators, giving the government control of things is the best thing you can do, as long as you make sure you can hold them accountable in some way, be it by force, or be it by having laws which provide legal power to citizens which the government can't overrule (those are some of the best things in the constitution by the way). Private organisations simply aren't subject to laws like that unless the government makes them be subject to them, you could simply make private organisations subject to public scrutiny and compel them to do things a certain way, but then they aren't really private any more, that's a nationalised industry.
Now the obvious counterargument to all of that is that humans have been warring for a while and what we currently have is a relatively peaceful earth with all the countries by and large, abiding by rules set by the group, and this is true. But consider the trend. Throughout human history we have fought over things, but no one group can expand too far, because eventually you get out of marching distance of your armies, and you lose the ability to control your territory. However there is a very noticeable trend between the development of logistics and communication and country size. In ancient history the biggest empire was rome, and rome was really good at logistics. It had well organised armies, fancy roads, and strict hierarchies. However even rome fell, probably because the outer provinces were basically their own country under the rule of a governer, and once the central empire started to have problems, most of them either fell to invasion or buggered off and did their own thing.
Nowadays we have very good logistics, which is why countries like america can exist. We have planes and cars and trains and all that jazz, so managing a huge country is fairly easy, you can stay in excellent communication with all the parts of it. Russia is another good example, except russie also exemplifies this throughout history, because russia is really hard to move around in. Mostly the only people who can do it well are the russians, so russia has been pretty big for quite a long time, mostly because on its home turf, it out-logisticked everyone else most of the time.
All of this may seem unrelated but my point is simply that things tend towards lumping together, they tend towards forming one big group, Currently things like oceans are still a big stumbling block. It can take hours to cross a big one even on an airplane, and getting an army across it takes longer still, we have not yet reached the point where you can simply step from one side of the world to another as easy as you could cross the road, but that day will come as technology imrpoves. The point to be taken from this is that groups are always as big as they can support. If you give a group of people the freedom to expand indefinitely, they will do so to the limits of their logistics. Apply this to companies, and it suggests that monopolisation and co-opting or eradication of competition is the likely result.
And once that happens, you lose the ability to choose, you lose the ability to say 'no I don't want to accept this contract' because at that point, refusing will mean you don't have a house, food, water, a job, healthcare, possibly even your life. Because all of those will be controlled by the one company.
Currently most of us live in democracies, it seems very ill advised to throw that away in favour of autocracy.
I agree. Anarchy is bad. You don't need a wall of text to convince me of that.
Anarchy is completely different from a system of laws which protect individuals against acts of aggression toward person or property, and contract law which enforces those agreements made between two consenting adults or parties.
You seem to have thought a great deal about the subject, but clearly have not been exposed to any of the great works on the matter. I like "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Man-Economy-State-Power-Market/dp/1933550279" target="_blank">Man, Economy and State</a>".
Speaking of democracy, privacy is essential to liberty which is essential to democracy. National IDs undermine that privacy, regardless of the public-private doublespeak that comes out in the press with these types of measures.
<!--quoteo(post=1823775:date=Jan 13 2011, 01:30 AM:name=juice)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (juice @ Jan 13 2011, 01:30 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1823775"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I agree. Anarchy is bad. You don't need a wall of text to convince me of that.
Anarchy is completely different from a system of laws which protect individuals against acts of aggression toward person or property, and contract law which enforces those agreements made between two consenting adults or parties.
You seem to have thought a great deal about the subject, but clearly have not been exposed to any of the great works on the matter. I like "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Man-Economy-State-Power-Market/dp/1933550279" target="_blank">Man, Economy and State</a>".
Speaking of democracy, privacy is essential to liberty which is essential to democracy. National IDs undermine that privacy, regardless of the public-private doublespeak that comes out in the press with these types of measures.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would disagree, privacy is only useful if you have something to hide. Democracy is all about making your views and issues known so they can be acted upon. Subjecting everything to public scrutiny is also very helpful to ensure good government. Secrecy is always something I associate with dictatorships. Privacy is an expression of isolationism, something which is very much contrary to cooperation and unity among people.
Also yeah, I don't read political literature, deadly dull stuff. Probaly try to blind myself if I tried for too long.
<!--quoteo(post=1823795:date=Jan 12 2011, 10:15 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 12 2011, 10:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1823795"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would disagree, privacy is only useful if you have something to hide. Democracy is all about making your views and issues known so they can be acted upon. Subjecting everything to public scrutiny is also very helpful to ensure good government. Secrecy is always something I associate with dictatorships. Privacy is an expression of isolationism, something which is very much contrary to cooperation and unity among people.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You must distinguish between personal privacy and government transparency.
You're right to associate secrecy with dictatorships. When a government can do everything in secret, it has much more power to abuse. Some disagree, like the great political philosopher B. Spears when she said "We should just trust the President (Bush) to do what's right."
But the same situation occurs when the government has the power to force individuals to give up their own privacy. That's how oppressive regimes stay in power! The Stasi, for example, used neighbors to spy on neighbors, in order to subdue anyone who questioned the government. They kept huge files on your average individual family, just in case they were subversives. Personal privacy is essential to liberty, and therefore democracy. When you are denied personal privacy, you can't speak freely to exchange ideas in a democracy.
The government needs to be transparent, and at the same time have no power to force you to give up your privacy, to determine your political views, affiliations, travel, or personal purchases. That is the kind of power that leads to dictatorship. And when the government doesn't have that power, the people in a democracy actively choose to speak their minds, and let the world know what they think!
The two are sort of different issues but I don't really see the need to hold a different opinion on each. Personal privacy is a strong impulse for many people but so are things like xenophobia and 'us vs them' mentalities and all the other things which serve to separate people from other people.
The sooner people learn to overcome the need for privacy, the sooner people might start to get along better. As it stands the need to own and the need to be separate and the need to be different are quite destructive forces in society. It might also prevent governments from feeling the need to constantly hoard it if it is socially unacceptable.
When the government has the power to do anything against the will of the people it governs, it causes problems, although it is often neccesary regardess. I don't think privacy is something special though, it is just another thing people irrationally cling to and worry that the government will take it away from them, just as people a few centuries ago complained when the government took their slaves off them, and how people complained quite recently when the government took away their monopoly on heterosexual marriage.
Just for the sake of argument, until there is no NEED for privacy, doing away with it is foolish and utterly unfeasible. Until the day a ###### man can come out to friends, family, coworkers etc. and receive nothing but warm wishes, sympathy and understanding in return, that man has a need for privacy. The USA recently repealed a ban on homosexuals serving openly in the military, which was promptly heralded as the end of the world by major news organisations and political movements. How far away do you think the day is where a man has no need for privacy?
Depends on whether we get taken over by the borg any time soon but probably a few centuries before we get the kind of thing I'm thinking about. Possibly by 2100 we will have something approaching nice? Considering the improvements we've made in the past century it shouldn't be too far away.
As I said, having the government take anything from its citizens is generally a bad idea, I simply disagree that privacy is a special thing that we as a society need to preserve because otherwise it would be, as you said, the end of the world.
OK Chris0132 I say you're a pedophile and prove me wrong. Police confiscates all your computers/disks and publishes contents of it. It also spies on you in every possible way and publishes all the recordings. Do you have anything to hide? No? Then why are you scared?
Chris if you're lazy and don't give a ###### about rules that built civilization just say it. It's not like everyone is interested in it or has to be. And for god's sake stop repeating government. There is legislation, execution and judiciary. People have different political views: communists/socialists, liberals (believers in personal freedom limited by others' freedom). All of this is based on ideas/theories. What you said so far can be summed up to: "I don't care about anything but corporations are bad". Which would make sense given proof that any kind of company/corporation was more powerful than government in history. It's not like any kind of corporation can beat Hitler, Stalin and Mao.But no, you prefer "CORPORATIONS BOO".
Democracy doesn't exist. It was proved by Kenneth Arrow: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem</a>
With respect to antitrust: there's no bigger monopoly than the state. State shouldn't be able to compete as economical entity because it can change the rules. History teaches us that these changes favor the state and lead to ineffectiveness.
<!--quoteo(post=1823872:date=Jan 13 2011, 08:04 AM:name=MOOtant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MOOtant @ Jan 13 2011, 08:04 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1823872"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->With respect to antitrust: there's no bigger monopoly than the state. State shouldn't be able to compete as economical entity because it can change the rules. History teaches us that these changes favor the state and lead to ineffectiveness.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The idea that a private oligopoly on an open but saturated market would be more efficient than a community owned monopoly is something that I see repeated over and over again in different fashions and under different circumstances. It's still not true though.
Democracy doesn't exist. It was proved by Kenneth Arrow: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem</a>
...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe that such a theorem attempts to externally order a system that should spontaneously self-order. It's my belief that what we really mean when we talk about democracy (what we picture) is the result of spontaneous self organization of a community when no other system is in place. A touch of anarchy, I suppose.
The problem with naming political systems and systems of government is that they are never mutually exclusive. Take the US. We call ourselves a democratic republic, and I suppose that's a good description. In legislation, we elect congress who creates laws. But our executive branch is much more like a dictatorship, especially outside the country. I believe that even under the War Powers Resolution, a President can manufacture a reason to invade Canada, notify congress 48 hours in advance, and then storm our poor northern companions for 60 days before Congress can force him to withdrawal. Obviously Congress would have something to say about that, and impeachment, then criminal conviction isn't far away. But how long does an impeachment take? Well, it depends how many times our President can dodge by saying, "It depends what the definition of 'is' is."
Most likely, in such extreme cases, it would be the junior commanders of the military and the citizens themselves who stop the madness, which I believe is a designed fail-safe case of our system of government.
I suppose my point is that you can mathematically and logically prove that given constraints almost any named system of pure government is not possible. But a government is an organism itself, and takes offense at trying to be defined so simply.
<!--quoteo(post=1823959:date=Jan 13 2011, 09:38 AM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tjosan @ Jan 13 2011, 09:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1823959"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The idea that a private oligopoly on an open but saturated market would be more efficient than a community owned monopoly is something that I see repeated over and over again in different fashions and under different circumstances. It's still not true though.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Explain. You argue that public owned common goods and services can be more efficiently distributed and operated than privately owned ones? What metrics do you use to decide who plans operations, handles logistics, and executes labor?
The idea of private ownership is to use survival of the fittest for this metric.
<!--quoteo(post=1823969:date=Jan 13 2011, 03:02 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rob @ Jan 13 2011, 03:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1823969"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Explain. You argue that public owned common goods and services can be more efficiently distributed and operated than privately owned ones? What metrics do you use to decide who plans operations, handles logistics, and executes labor?
The idea of private ownership is to use survival of the fittest for this metric.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No that's not what I argue. I say that there is no evidence that suggests that a privately owned oligopoly would be more efficient than a community owned monopoly. Making a general statement that private enterprises are more efficient than community owned ones is based on nothing but dogma.
<!--quoteo(post=1823970:date=Jan 13 2011, 10:07 AM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tjosan @ Jan 13 2011, 10:07 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1823970"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No that's not what I argue. I say that there is no evidence that suggests that a privately owned oligopoly would be more efficient than a community owned monopoly. Making a general statement that private enterprises are more efficient than community owned ones is based on nothing but dogma.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh, yes. It depends on the situation and what factors contribute to efficiency. There are lots of cases in free market economics where competition is counter productive. Public vs private fire brigades for example. Or power distribution, especially involving who owns the power lines. But, I'd be more apt to believe that for nearly everything, especially when there are no externalities, private competition is the way to go.
<!--quoteo(post=1823974:date=Jan 13 2011, 03:14 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rob @ Jan 13 2011, 03:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1823974"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Oh, yes. It depends on the situation and what factors contribute to efficiency. There are lots of cases in free market economics where competition is counter productive. Public vs private fire brigades for example. Or power distribution, especially involving who owns the power lines. But, I'd be more apt to believe that for nearly everything, especially when there are no externalities, private competition is the way to go.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And again, "believe" is the key word here. It's dogma.
<!--quoteo(post=1823975:date=Jan 13 2011, 10:17 AM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tjosan @ Jan 13 2011, 10:17 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1823975"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And again, "believe" is the key word here. It's dogma.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's no reason to be so abrasive. By saying this, you assert that somehow your beliefs that you've arrived at through inspection, research, and deduction, are somehow morally superior to mine. There are all kinds of things I could point to as proof of what I say, though you'd no doubt have reasons why the proof is invalid - that's fine.
But don't attempt to assassinate my character by calling my ideas dogma when you have absolutely no reference of the thought processes and resources I've dedicated to forming them.
But the idea that private enterprise is more efficient than public management <i>is</i> dogma. You might be right for all I know, of course I <u>believe</u> you are not, but that's not the point. But that assertion is simply what's accepted as a more or less universal truth, despite there being no evidence and in certain fields (weak) evidence to the contrary. Can you be sure this idea is well founded, especially when you dismiss my scepticism as a personal insult? Personally I think it prudent to be critical of beliefs that are commonly held but seldom challenged, and who's challengers are usually publicly berated when voicing their concerns.
This might come off wrong. I have very little experience in carrying discussions at this level in English.
This is most likely a miscommunication. Dogma implies that no thought has been put into a belief; it's a more twisted form of faith. I agree completely that ideas should be tested, and I don't dismiss you based on personal insult; I just wanted to call attention to it. This is why I try to be careful and highlight my opinions as my own belief.
I could well be wrong about free markets entirely, even though the evidence I see in world events leads me to believe that a private free market is the most efficient way to distribute most scarce goods and services. I'm sorry that I took offense of a simple miscommunication, it's tragic that such a small thing is responsible for so much malcontent in the world.
I have absolutely no experience in communicating in Swedish, so I appreciate your effort to have this argument with me! Us Americans especially have a hard time dealing with the fact that there are other languages out there.
Recovery from the current economic crisis is an ongoing effort, with no end in sight. The subprime mortgage bubble swept the rug away from under the feet of the US economy, taking dozens of other western countries with it. If that one was caused by the US government, then it was caused by inaction - a refusal to regulate private enterprise even as experts warned that private enterprise was hurling itself off a cliff. And the head cheeses behind all this (with one or two notable exceptions) still made out like bandits even as their companies fell around them like dominoes and the american taxpayer had to scramble to throw money at them in a desperate bid to shore up the supports. This is the face of free, unregulated enterprise.
You say that private enterprise can do better than governments. What if I said "my three-quarter-inch wingnut company can do better than your three-quarter-inch wingnut company." You'd challenge me to prove it... in the GRAAAAAAND ARENA OF FREE MARKET COMPETITION! IN THE RED CORNER, WINGNUTS INDUSTRIAL LTD! AND IN THE BLUE CORNER, THE UNITED WINGNUT COMPANY! LET'S GET READY TO RRRRRRRRUUUUUMMBBLLEEEEE!
Sorry, got carried away there. Anyway, this applies to "public vs. private" as well. A prime example is your new healthcare bill. It calls on the government to provide a base level of healthcare. It sets standards. It says "this is what we are prepared to accept in a modern, civilised society. No less." No less - but not "no more." It doesn't abolish private healthcare, it competes with private healthcare. And we agree that free market competition is good, right? It drives everyone to lower prices, increase services and cut wasteful spending in a bid to bring customers the cheapest, best healthcare available, and thereby capture the biggest market share. Most importantly, by having social healthcare set an example by not threatening to cut your healthcare the moment you get ill and actually need it, you force private healthcare to step up their game. After all, they're supposed to be in the healthcare business, not the "take your money, then drop you like a hot potato the moment you try to claim the service you have been paying for" business. The end result is that no matter who emerges the victor, the american people should (at least that's the intended outcome) receive better healthcare service than they did pre-healthcare bill. And that's a victory.
You're naive, listen only to popular media (which quotes others without any attempt to understand what they quoted). Most of them didn't mention that a very specific government organization called Fed created whole this mess. Whole existence of Fed is based on assumption that amount of money has to be regulated to keep prices stable. But as predicted by Hayek in 1920s it leads to huge crisis. It makes long term planning impossible: it either seems there are too few resources for long term projects or too many. Then when you have to face the reality huge amount of projects has to be cancelled which leads to big unemployment. The same happened in 1990 (boom), 2001 (bust prolonged by Fed), 2008 (another bust) and now huge money printing. Last time I checked China is expected to overcome USA between 2020 and 2030. If I'm wrong then it'll be very interesting.
If you think that some guy can pass law requiring state to provide healthcare for everyone and that it will create more money for healthcare then you're very naive.
I very much agree that it's criminal to deny coverage to someone who develops a condition after having paid high premiums for health insurance that they never used for years previously. I also believe this is a fringe case and that the answer is not to move the decision making of my own health from me to a government agency.
I have a hard enough time getting my car registered and the tax paid on it already, let alone jumping through silly hoops like mandatory physicals every year for one thing. :P
The real problem, as I see it, is an utter lack of personal responsibility. Not enough people here take the responsibility to learn basic things about their health and what should be done for what things. I'm sure a vast majority here believe that antibiotics will cure a virus, and they want those antibiotics when they have a cold. They NEED them. And so they go to the doctors, and the doctor knows they don't need antibiotics, but they prescribe them anyway because it's easier than explaining over and over and losing business because we're all idiots who don't get it and just fuss an moan either way. And then they charge it to insurance or medicare or medicaid and everyone ends up paying higher premiums and higher taxes and the world suffers because we're breading super bacteria. And that's beside the fact that we end up with more pregnancies because we don't pay attention to the fact that most antibiotics reduce the effectiveness of birth control.
A small fraction of this comical chain of ugly can be incrementally helped by proposed health care changes at nearly insurmountable cost.
OR we could design a system that encourages personal responsibility and fix them all real good.
What I'd like to see is a major tax write-off for the personal savings you place into a medical spending account every year. Save $2,000 towards medical expenses (visits, pharmacy drugs, things like that), and you can deduct $2,000 from federal taxes. Something like that.
Once it's in your account, you can divert some of it to an investment pool run by the Government, who matches your money with those who need money because they don't have enough. Your money earns a small interest rate and can be placed back into your health spending account at no tax cost or removed for personal spending and treated like income, so you'd get taxed on it. This would encourage someone like me, who has no known risk factors in my family, to save money for the tax write off, then invest it, because I go to the doctor maybe once every 3 years. And there are many people like me out there.
On the other side, someone who doesn't have money but needs it, can borrow at very low interest. Payments can be adjustments on your income tax rate, even, so you won't have to worry about missing a payment. The downside there is that your employer would notice a change in your tax rate and they would know why... Then, the government can plug any holes in funding by either seizing unused and uninvested money from tax payers' health accounts or siphoning it from what's left of medicare, medicaid, social security, or what have you.
Looks good to me on paper, and it's too bad it probably isn't that simple. :/
<!--quoteo(post=1823872:date=Jan 13 2011, 07:04 AM:name=MOOtant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MOOtant @ Jan 13 2011, 07:04 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1823872"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->OK Chris0132 I say you're a pedophile and prove me wrong. Police confiscates all your computers/disks and publishes contents of it. It also spies on you in every possible way and publishes all the recordings. Do you have anything to hide? No? Then why are you scared?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually I do have a few things to hide, and it'd make conversations kind of awkward, and it would be kind of annoying to have the police following me everywhere, otherwise no not particularly concerned about that. As long as I get the computer back once they're done publishing the contents.
I don't imagine many people share my view, like I said I don't think it is a very prevlent view at the moment, I simply think it is a worthwhile goal, and hope that it becomes more prevalent as time goes on.
There actually many good arguments for the existence of corporations, they are quite practical up to an extent, just like most things. I am specifically arguing that they aren't all that good for preserving truth justice and democracy and all that jazz.
<!--quoteo(post=1823448:date=Jan 11 2011, 10:58 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Jan 11 2011, 10:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1823448"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Potential for abuse? Interesting. This doesn't follow from the article you linked (since all that article talks about is a voluntary system that allows people to retain pseudonymity and anonymity), so I assume you have some secret source of information beyond what you linked initially, full of troubling facts that are not known to the rest of us. Please share this secret source with us, so that we can properly discuss it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Like I said before, the use of the work voluntary does not mean that your access can not be restricted without complying.
If this was just dreamed up by some bureaucrat to save himself the hassle of remembering 20 passwords this proposal would never have been put on the president's desk and the DHLS and NSA would not have been jockeying for position to run the program.
Further this is not government regulating a service consumers and industry deemed useful this is government creating a service it has deemed useful, there is a difference.
<!--quoteo(post=1824058:date=Jan 13 2011, 06:26 PM:name=Sops)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sops @ Jan 13 2011, 06:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1824058"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Further this is not government regulating a service consumers and industry deemed useful this is government creating a service it has deemed useful, there is a difference.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That isn't neccesarily a bad thing, from what I understand the government of britain created the NHS after world war 2 along with stuff like big housing projects because it thought they would be useful to try to strenghthen the country, and also probably becase it helped them win the election with the lower and middle class vote at the time. It was done in the face of strong opposition from the house of lords though, because all the rich people didn't want to pay for it, which means it was done in opposition of a large portion of the members of parliament.
Sometimes simply being populist can produce suboptimal solutions. A bit of direction can beneifit a country. Of course it depends on the direction as it is by no means always benevolent, but 'the government thought of it so it's bad' is not the soundest bit of logic. The government employs a lot of very smart people who make it their job to know how to run a country and what it needs. They may occasionally have good ideas.
Comments
Anyway, let me repeat myself. Again. I can keep doing this all week, I'm sure eventually everyone will catch it. Look, I'll bold and colour again:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Jim Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology, who spoke later at the event, said <b><!--coloro:orange--><span style="color:orange"><!--/coloro-->any Internet ID must be created by the private sector--and also voluntary and competitive.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See? That's what you want, isn't it? Almighty Mammon will indeed watch over you, just like you ask. You can sleep safely tonight.
Except it's the little guy who gets screwed in the end, because he's not in government, and he's not at the top of a corporation. It's the consolidation of power in the hands of the few that's dangerous, whether "public"(government) or private.
Erm, how does putting things in the hands of private organisations, which are overseen by the governement, which is overseen by the public, as opposed to putting everything in the hands of the government, do anything other than add another layer of stuff to go wrong?
It's still the government in control, either private organisations are controlled heavily by the government and therefore the government still has all the power, or they aren't controlled in which case they don't have any oversight and the entire idea is pointless.
<!--quoteo(post=1823463:date=Jan 12 2011, 04:34 AM:name=juice)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (juice @ Jan 12 2011, 04:34 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1823463"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No, you enter into a contract with a business for a service.
I will choose the company whose contract prohibits them from cutting off my service without justification. And the company who only offers service which they can turn off at any time will get no business. Neither will companies who break their contracts.
It is government who can do what they wish, and I am personally powerless to prevent it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For some things you do, but there is nothing to stop them making punitive contracts (other than the government) and many companies don't have any contracts, you just buy stuff off them, often very expensively, and if you can't afford it or don't agree then you can get stuffed.
Choice is also only available by government mandate, otherwise everything would be monopolised. The fact that that most countries see fit to illegalise it is evidence of how problematic it is.
And a spambot comes out of NOWHERE! What a slobberknocker!!
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For some things you do, but there is nothing to stop them making punitive contracts (other than the government)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, and there is nothing to stop me from making a contract whereby you sell your car to me for $1. Let me know when you want to sign the paperwork.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Choice is also only available by government mandate, otherwise everything would be monopolised.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Lines like these make me think you are a straw man troll. I know this is the wisdom taught in school, but please, look into some other perspectives. Try <a href="http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/467246/dominick_t_armentanos_arguments_for.html?cat=17" target="_blank">this</a> for an extreme example.
Yes, and there is nothing to stop me from making a contract whereby you sell your car to me for $1. Let me know when you want to sign the paperwork.
Lines like these make me think you are a straw man troll. I know this is the wisdom taught in school, but please, look into some other perspectives. Try <a href="http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/467246/dominick_t_armentanos_arguments_for.html?cat=17" target="_blank">this</a> for an extreme example.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Have you considered what a truly free market would mean? A place in which there are absolutely no immutable rules governing how business must be conducted? No higher power except the stick, or possibly the coin in this case?
It would, in a word, be anarchy. And just like anarchy, the immediate and logical product is that people stop being anarchic and form groups, eventually one group gains all the power or sometimes just enough power to start challenging other groups, and eventually what you end up with is a dictatorship where one group conquered all the rest and started running the place, usually rather unpleasantly. You could also end up with a really nasty war as well, which will either end in one group winning and a dictatorship, or everyone ends up dead. Consider that in a truly free market, where there is no government intervention at all, that would mean the government couldn't control the army, or the police, or the legislative process, because laws about minimum wage and civil rights and unions and all that fun stuff, those are really the only thing, short of common decency, that stops say, microsoft, from buying its own private army and taking over a few US cities, subjugating the population to perform slave labour, and subsequently making an absolute killing selling off the products. The only difference between a corporation and a country is that corporations operate under the rule and regulation of a country, take that away and what you have is a lot of people with a strong organisational structure, a common affiliation, and plenty of resources. Also known as an army.
If you value democracy and hate dictators, giving the government control of things is the best thing you can do, as long as you make sure you can hold them accountable in some way, be it by force, or be it by having laws which provide legal power to citizens which the government can't overrule (those are some of the best things in the constitution by the way). Private organisations simply aren't subject to laws like that unless the government makes them be subject to them, you could simply make private organisations subject to public scrutiny and compel them to do things a certain way, but then they aren't really private any more, that's a nationalised industry.
Now the obvious counterargument to all of that is that humans have been warring for a while and what we currently have is a relatively peaceful earth with all the countries by and large, abiding by rules set by the group, and this is true. But consider the trend. Throughout human history we have fought over things, but no one group can expand too far, because eventually you get out of marching distance of your armies, and you lose the ability to control your territory. However there is a very noticeable trend between the development of logistics and communication and country size. In ancient history the biggest empire was rome, and rome was really good at logistics. It had well organised armies, fancy roads, and strict hierarchies. However even rome fell, probably because the outer provinces were basically their own country under the rule of a governer, and once the central empire started to have problems, most of them either fell to invasion or buggered off and did their own thing.
Nowadays we have very good logistics, which is why countries like america can exist. We have planes and cars and trains and all that jazz, so managing a huge country is fairly easy, you can stay in excellent communication with all the parts of it. Russia is another good example, except russie also exemplifies this throughout history, because russia is really hard to move around in. Mostly the only people who can do it well are the russians, so russia has been pretty big for quite a long time, mostly because on its home turf, it out-logisticked everyone else most of the time.
All of this may seem unrelated but my point is simply that things tend towards lumping together, they tend towards forming one big group, Currently things like oceans are still a big stumbling block. It can take hours to cross a big one even on an airplane, and getting an army across it takes longer still, we have not yet reached the point where you can simply step from one side of the world to another as easy as you could cross the road, but that day will come as technology imrpoves. The point to be taken from this is that groups are always as big as they can support. If you give a group of people the freedom to expand indefinitely, they will do so to the limits of their logistics. Apply this to companies, and it suggests that monopolisation and co-opting or eradication of competition is the likely result.
And once that happens, you lose the ability to choose, you lose the ability to say 'no I don't want to accept this contract' because at that point, refusing will mean you don't have a house, food, water, a job, healthcare, possibly even your life. Because all of those will be controlled by the one company.
Currently most of us live in democracies, it seems very ill advised to throw that away in favour of autocracy.
Anarchy is completely different from a system of laws which protect individuals against acts of aggression toward person or property, and contract law which enforces those agreements made between two consenting adults or parties.
You seem to have thought a great deal about the subject, but clearly have not been exposed to any of the great works on the matter. I like "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Man-Economy-State-Power-Market/dp/1933550279" target="_blank">Man, Economy and State</a>".
Speaking of democracy, privacy is essential to liberty which is essential to democracy. National IDs undermine that privacy, regardless of the public-private doublespeak that comes out in the press with these types of measures.
Anarchy is completely different from a system of laws which protect individuals against acts of aggression toward person or property, and contract law which enforces those agreements made between two consenting adults or parties.
You seem to have thought a great deal about the subject, but clearly have not been exposed to any of the great works on the matter. I like "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Man-Economy-State-Power-Market/dp/1933550279" target="_blank">Man, Economy and State</a>".
Speaking of democracy, privacy is essential to liberty which is essential to democracy. National IDs undermine that privacy, regardless of the public-private doublespeak that comes out in the press with these types of measures.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would disagree, privacy is only useful if you have something to hide. Democracy is all about making your views and issues known so they can be acted upon. Subjecting everything to public scrutiny is also very helpful to ensure good government. Secrecy is always something I associate with dictatorships. Privacy is an expression of isolationism, something which is very much contrary to cooperation and unity among people.
Also yeah, I don't read political literature, deadly dull stuff. Probaly try to blind myself if I tried for too long.
You must distinguish between personal privacy and government transparency.
You're right to associate secrecy with dictatorships. When a government can do everything in secret, it has much more power to abuse. Some disagree, like the great political philosopher B. Spears when she said "We should just trust the President (Bush) to do what's right."
But the same situation occurs when the government has the power to force individuals to give up their own privacy. That's how oppressive regimes stay in power! The Stasi, for example, used neighbors to spy on neighbors, in order to subdue anyone who questioned the government. They kept huge files on your average individual family, just in case they were subversives. Personal privacy is essential to liberty, and therefore democracy. When you are denied personal privacy, you can't speak freely to exchange ideas in a democracy.
The government needs to be transparent, and at the same time have no power to force you to give up your privacy, to determine your political views, affiliations, travel, or personal purchases. That is the kind of power that leads to dictatorship. And when the government doesn't have that power, the people in a democracy actively choose to speak their minds, and let the world know what they think!
The sooner people learn to overcome the need for privacy, the sooner people might start to get along better. As it stands the need to own and the need to be separate and the need to be different are quite destructive forces in society. It might also prevent governments from feeling the need to constantly hoard it if it is socially unacceptable.
When the government has the power to do anything against the will of the people it governs, it causes problems, although it is often neccesary regardess. I don't think privacy is something special though, it is just another thing people irrationally cling to and worry that the government will take it away from them, just as people a few centuries ago complained when the government took their slaves off them, and how people complained quite recently when the government took away their monopoly on heterosexual marriage.
As I said, having the government take anything from its citizens is generally a bad idea, I simply disagree that privacy is a special thing that we as a society need to preserve because otherwise it would be, as you said, the end of the world.
Chris if you're lazy and don't give a ###### about rules that built civilization just say it. It's not like everyone is interested in it or has to be. And for god's sake stop repeating government. There is legislation, execution and judiciary. People have different political views: communists/socialists, liberals (believers in personal freedom limited by others' freedom). All of this is based on ideas/theories. What you said so far can be summed up to: "I don't care about anything but corporations are bad". Which would make sense given proof that any kind of company/corporation was more powerful than government in history. It's not like any kind of corporation can beat Hitler, Stalin and Mao.But no, you prefer "CORPORATIONS BOO".
Democracy doesn't exist. It was proved by Kenneth Arrow: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem</a>
With respect to antitrust: there's no bigger monopoly than the state. State shouldn't be able to compete as economical entity because it can change the rules. History teaches us that these changes favor the state and lead to ineffectiveness.
The idea that a private oligopoly on an open but saturated market would be more efficient than a community owned monopoly is something that I see repeated over and over again in different fashions and under different circumstances. It's still not true though.
Democracy doesn't exist. It was proved by Kenneth Arrow: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem</a>
...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe that such a theorem attempts to externally order a system that should spontaneously self-order. It's my belief that what we really mean when we talk about democracy (what we picture) is the result of spontaneous self organization of a community when no other system is in place. A touch of anarchy, I suppose.
The problem with naming political systems and systems of government is that they are never mutually exclusive. Take the US. We call ourselves a democratic republic, and I suppose that's a good description. In legislation, we elect congress who creates laws. But our executive branch is much more like a dictatorship, especially outside the country. I believe that even under the War Powers Resolution, a President can manufacture a reason to invade Canada, notify congress 48 hours in advance, and then storm our poor northern companions for 60 days before Congress can force him to withdrawal. Obviously Congress would have something to say about that, and impeachment, then criminal conviction isn't far away. But how long does an impeachment take? Well, it depends how many times our President can dodge by saying, "It depends what the definition of 'is' is."
Most likely, in such extreme cases, it would be the junior commanders of the military and the citizens themselves who stop the madness, which I believe is a designed fail-safe case of our system of government.
I suppose my point is that you can mathematically and logically prove that given constraints almost any named system of pure government is not possible. But a government is an organism itself, and takes offense at trying to be defined so simply.
Explain. You argue that public owned common goods and services can be more efficiently distributed and operated than privately owned ones? What metrics do you use to decide who plans operations, handles logistics, and executes labor?
The idea of private ownership is to use survival of the fittest for this metric.
The idea of private ownership is to use survival of the fittest for this metric.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No that's not what I argue. I say that there is no evidence that suggests that a privately owned oligopoly would be more efficient than a community owned monopoly. Making a general statement that private enterprises are more efficient than community owned ones is based on nothing but dogma.
Oh, yes. It depends on the situation and what factors contribute to efficiency. There are lots of cases in free market economics where competition is counter productive. Public vs private fire brigades for example. Or power distribution, especially involving who owns the power lines. But, I'd be more apt to believe that for nearly everything, especially when there are no externalities, private competition is the way to go.
And again, "believe" is the key word here. It's dogma.
There's no reason to be so abrasive. By saying this, you assert that somehow your beliefs that you've arrived at through inspection, research, and deduction, are somehow morally superior to mine. There are all kinds of things I could point to as proof of what I say, though you'd no doubt have reasons why the proof is invalid - that's fine.
But don't attempt to assassinate my character by calling my ideas dogma when you have absolutely no reference of the thought processes and resources I've dedicated to forming them.
This might come off wrong. I have very little experience in carrying discussions at this level in English.
I could well be wrong about free markets entirely, even though the evidence I see in world events leads me to believe that a private free market is the most efficient way to distribute most scarce goods and services. I'm sorry that I took offense of a simple miscommunication, it's tragic that such a small thing is responsible for so much malcontent in the world.
I have absolutely no experience in communicating in Swedish, so I appreciate your effort to have this argument with me! Us Americans especially have a hard time dealing with the fact that there are other languages out there.
This is the face of free, unregulated enterprise.
You say that private enterprise can do better than governments. What if I said "my three-quarter-inch wingnut company can do better than your three-quarter-inch wingnut company." You'd challenge me to prove it... in the GRAAAAAAND ARENA OF FREE MARKET COMPETITION! IN THE RED CORNER, WINGNUTS INDUSTRIAL LTD! AND IN THE BLUE CORNER, THE UNITED WINGNUT COMPANY! LET'S GET READY TO RRRRRRRRUUUUUMMBBLLEEEEE!
Sorry, got carried away there. Anyway, this applies to "public vs. private" as well. A prime example is your new healthcare bill. It calls on the government to provide a base level of healthcare. It sets standards. It says "this is what we are prepared to accept in a modern, civilised society. No less." No less - but not "no more." It doesn't abolish private healthcare, it competes with private healthcare. And we agree that free market competition is good, right? It drives everyone to lower prices, increase services and cut wasteful spending in a bid to bring customers the cheapest, best healthcare available, and thereby capture the biggest market share. Most importantly, by having social healthcare set an example by not threatening to cut your healthcare the moment you get ill and actually need it, you force private healthcare to step up their game. After all, they're supposed to be in the healthcare business, not the "take your money, then drop you like a hot potato the moment you try to claim the service you have been paying for" business.
The end result is that no matter who emerges the victor, the american people should (at least that's the intended outcome) receive better healthcare service than they did pre-healthcare bill. And that's a victory.
If you think that some guy can pass law requiring state to provide healthcare for everyone and that it will create more money for healthcare then you're very naive.
I have a hard enough time getting my car registered and the tax paid on it already, let alone jumping through silly hoops like mandatory physicals every year for one thing. :P
The real problem, as I see it, is an utter lack of personal responsibility. Not enough people here take the responsibility to learn basic things about their health and what should be done for what things. I'm sure a vast majority here believe that antibiotics will cure a virus, and they want those antibiotics when they have a cold. They NEED them. And so they go to the doctors, and the doctor knows they don't need antibiotics, but they prescribe them anyway because it's easier than explaining over and over and losing business because we're all idiots who don't get it and just fuss an moan either way. And then they charge it to insurance or medicare or medicaid and everyone ends up paying higher premiums and higher taxes and the world suffers because we're breading super bacteria. And that's beside the fact that we end up with more pregnancies because we don't pay attention to the fact that most antibiotics reduce the effectiveness of birth control.
A small fraction of this comical chain of ugly can be incrementally helped by proposed health care changes at nearly insurmountable cost.
OR we could design a system that encourages personal responsibility and fix them all real good.
What I'd like to see is a major tax write-off for the personal savings you place into a medical spending account every year. Save $2,000 towards medical expenses (visits, pharmacy drugs, things like that), and you can deduct $2,000 from federal taxes. Something like that.
Once it's in your account, you can divert some of it to an investment pool run by the Government, who matches your money with those who need money because they don't have enough. Your money earns a small interest rate and can be placed back into your health spending account at no tax cost or removed for personal spending and treated like income, so you'd get taxed on it. This would encourage someone like me, who has no known risk factors in my family, to save money for the tax write off, then invest it, because I go to the doctor maybe once every 3 years. And there are many people like me out there.
On the other side, someone who doesn't have money but needs it, can borrow at very low interest. Payments can be adjustments on your income tax rate, even, so you won't have to worry about missing a payment. The downside there is that your employer would notice a change in your tax rate and they would know why... Then, the government can plug any holes in funding by either seizing unused and uninvested money from tax payers' health accounts or siphoning it from what's left of medicare, medicaid, social security, or what have you.
Looks good to me on paper, and it's too bad it probably isn't that simple. :/
Actually I do have a few things to hide, and it'd make conversations kind of awkward, and it would be kind of annoying to have the police following me everywhere, otherwise no not particularly concerned about that. As long as I get the computer back once they're done publishing the contents.
I don't imagine many people share my view, like I said I don't think it is a very prevlent view at the moment, I simply think it is a worthwhile goal, and hope that it becomes more prevalent as time goes on.
There actually many good arguments for the existence of corporations, they are quite practical up to an extent, just like most things. I am specifically arguing that they aren't all that good for preserving truth justice and democracy and all that jazz.
Like I said before, the use of the work voluntary does not mean that your access can not be restricted without complying.
If this was just dreamed up by some bureaucrat to save himself the hassle of remembering 20 passwords this proposal would never have been put on the president's desk and the DHLS and NSA would not have been jockeying for position to run the program.
Further this is not government regulating a service consumers and industry deemed useful this is government creating a service it has deemed useful, there is a difference.
That isn't neccesarily a bad thing, from what I understand the government of britain created the NHS after world war 2 along with stuff like big housing projects because it thought they would be useful to try to strenghthen the country, and also probably becase it helped them win the election with the lower and middle class vote at the time. It was done in the face of strong opposition from the house of lords though, because all the rich people didn't want to pay for it, which means it was done in opposition of a large portion of the members of parliament.
Sometimes simply being populist can produce suboptimal solutions. A bit of direction can beneifit a country. Of course it depends on the direction as it is by no means always benevolent, but 'the government thought of it so it's bad' is not the soundest bit of logic. The government employs a lot of very smart people who make it their job to know how to run a country and what it needs. They may occasionally have good ideas.