Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 148 posts

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#111

Post by webXL »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #29
reedlaw wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a libertarian, I would interpret protecting "our most basic freedoms" meaning the right to freely enter into agreements with whichever service providers we choose. If a service provider chooses to limit bandwidth to certain sites I would be free to buy Internet service elsewhere. But, as a libertarian, I also recognize the fact that this will never work as long as government continues to regulate these services in…

There's a third way that works for everybody: defining the market. So government could simply say there are seven different types of internet service. Perhaps the lowest would be free service that forces you to watch ads. The highest service could be a SLA -- guaranteed bandwidth. That way there is no regulation, _and_ the market is free to operate, _and_ you can have net neutrality, you only have to pay extra for it…

"So government could simply say... That way there is no regulation"

When the government says something, people, desks, computers, buildings, health plans, 401Ks, and occasionally arsenals, all need to be set up to prevent Joe Schmoe from saying, and more importantly, doing something contradictory. That's called regulation.

"The individual will lose more in the long run than they will gain..."

So why are you in favor of Net Neutrality again??

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#112

Post by webXL »

bane wrote: post #53
jshen wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in a libertarian world who owns the cables to your house? How does someone with a better idea/business model get new cables out to everyones house?

libertarianism is often a placeholder for "a world where everybody has virtually unlimited piles of money for which they can pay for basic services like clean water or a functioning local road system"

No, libertarians understand the allocation of scarce resources. Politicians, on the other hand, act as if taxpayers have "virtually unlimited piles of money for which they can pay for basic services like clean water or a functioning local road system".

With $14 Trillion of mounting debt, you can continue to bury your head in the sand and pretend the wealthy will somehow be able to pay for it all and everything will be alright, OR you can perhaps use reason and facts to ascertain that government pyramid schemes (SS and Medicare), unnecessary wars, and corporate welfare (Ethanol subsidies!) have a little bit more to do with the problem than libertarian thinking.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#113

Post by webXL »

jbooth wrote: post #85
yummyfajitas wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very true - those Koch Brothers, often discussing freedom, really are just pushing orthodox conservative views. Like decriminalizing drugs, legalizing gay marriage, and ending the patriot act (their #1 political position, based on money spent). http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/frrth/stop_the_koc...

Based on money spent, they gave an awful lot of money in 2010 to people who not only disagree with those positions, but disagree with them LOUDLY and will call you a godless heathen, communist, terrorist, muslim or all of the above if the subject comes up. Just saying. Maybe the Koch brothers don't watch Fox News. Someone should write them a letter and tell them where their money's going. After all, they helped finan…

Feingold said corporations don't have a right to free speech, so I hardly think he should be supported by libertarians.

And based on that lofty single-issue standard, have you refrained from supporting candidates who voted in opposition to your views on the Patriot Act?

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#114

Post by jshen »

webXL wrote: post #112
bane wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

libertarianism is often a placeholder for "a world where everybody has virtually unlimited piles of money for which they can pay for basic services like clean water or a functioning local road system"

No, libertarians understand the allocation of scarce resources. Politicians, on the other hand, act as if taxpayers have "virtually unlimited piles of money for which they can pay for basic services like clean water or a functioning local road system". With $14 Trillion of mounting debt, you can continue to bury your head in the sand and pretend the wealthy will somehow be able to pay for it all and everything will b…

We had surpluses under Clinton. What's changed since then? I can only think of a few major changes, the bush tax cuts, the wars, medical costs rose, and derivatives finally collapsed.

I don't think taxpayers have unlimited money, but I do think the super rich should pay more on capital gains which makes their tax rate lower than mine!

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#115

Post by webXL »

jshen wrote: post #114
webXL wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, libertarians understand the allocation of scarce resources. Politicians, on the other hand, act as if taxpayers have "virtually unlimited piles of money for which they can pay for basic services like clean water or a functioning local road system". With $14 Trillion of mounting debt, you can continue to bury your head in the sand and pretend the wealthy will somehow be able to pay for it all and everything will b…

We had surpluses under Clinton. What's changed since then? I can only think of a few major changes, the bush tax cuts, the wars, medical costs rose, and derivatives finally collapsed. I don't think taxpayers have unlimited money, but I do think the super rich should pay more on capital gains which makes their tax rate lower than mine!

More on capital gains?? If I buy 1 share of GOOG with my after-tax income, and someone buys it from me for a $100 more with their after-tax income, why should the government get a cut of that, let alone more of a cut?

And I don't think they have a lower rate. The super-rich (top 1%) already pay 38% of all tax revenue, but they only earn 20% of total income (http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html). You can only squeeze them so much before they leave. Ask Mayor Bloomberg.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#116

Post by jshen »

webXL wrote: post #115
jshen wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We had surpluses under Clinton. What's changed since then? I can only think of a few major changes, the bush tax cuts, the wars, medical costs rose, and derivatives finally collapsed. I don't think taxpayers have unlimited money, but I do think the super rich should pay more on capital gains which makes their tax rate lower than mine!

More on capital gains?? If I buy 1 share of GOOG with my after-tax income, and someone buys it from me for a $100 more with their after-tax income, why should the government get a cut of that, let alone more of a cut? And I don't think they have a lower rate. The super-rich (top 1%) already pay 38% of all tax revenue, but they only earn 20% of total income ( http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html ). You can…

Let's say you bought microsoft early on and sold it for a huge profit. You then bought google early on and sold it for a huge profit. You then use that to buy apple 7 years ago, and you now sell it for a huge profit. Let's ay you made millions on this. You believe that you should pay a lower percentage on that than what I pay on my income as a programmer?

The rich weren't squeezed out before the bush tax cuts were they?

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#117

Post by webXL »

jshen wrote: post #116
webXL wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More on capital gains?? If I buy 1 share of GOOG with my after-tax income, and someone buys it from me for a $100 more with their after-tax income, why should the government get a cut of that, let alone more of a cut? And I don't think they have a lower rate. The super-rich (top 1%) already pay 38% of all tax revenue, but they only earn 20% of total income ( http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html ). You can…

Let's say you bought microsoft early on and sold it for a huge profit. You then bought google early on and sold it for a huge profit. You then use that to buy apple 7 years ago, and you now sell it for a huge profit. Let's ay you made millions on this. You believe that you should pay a lower percentage on that than what I pay on my income as a programmer? The rich weren't squeezed out before the bush tax cuts were th…

In order to make millions on my investments, I would have had to risked millions more of already taxed income to do so. The fact that others' after-tax income was transferred to me along the way in exchange for shares is irrelevant to the question why a positive or negative return on investment should involve the government for a second, third, fourth... time. It's called double-taxation, and it prevents people from buying and selling more than they actually would with the money the government lets them keep.

I don't think they were squeezed, but the bush tax cuts were a step back after decades of tax increases, when the wealthy were paying a larger share. Sure the top bracket wasn't the 90% pre-Kennedy rate, but the group of 38-42%'ers were paying a larger a share of GDP that they ever did before.

There is a point of diminishing returns on tax increases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve How else did the government fund itself when Kennedy cut taxes? Someone at the time must have thought the rich were being squeezed.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#118

Post by warrenwilkinson »

leot wrote: post #71
warrenwilkinson wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technological barriers mean high profits for existing players. This in turn brings more and more entrepreneurs looking to bypass the barrier (either through new technology, capital intensive partnerships, or other avenues) and reach the gold.

The fallacy here is the engagement of "long-run" reasoning, which assumes that market inefficiencies are static long enough for entrepreneurs to overcome the various barriers to entry (the long-run requires an assumption of stationarity). It's an empirical question whether entrepreneurs can reach the gold when it's constantly moving, and whether the economic cost of doing so is less than the cost of some smart regula…

If the incumbents close the opportunity by offering better service -- than the original parents problem no longer exists.

Businesses compete with potential competitors and potential technologies too. The higher the price, the more incentive for your users to look at alternative solutions (which includes starting a competing service). Greater demand for alternatives will be answered.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#119

Post by warrenwilkinson »

Bud wrote: post #81
warrenwilkinson wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Net neutrality' is a plan for government to regulate ISPs. Ostensibly, the government will only regulate in the consumers interest --- but the egyptian gov showed the other side of regulation (censorship). He says he is against net neutrality; he is against government regulation of ISPs. More interesting than anything he said, is the quote "No man can serve two masters". Currently ISPs serve you, but after net neutr…

Currently, ISPs serve their shareholders. If net neutrality or anything similar to it ever does pass, ISPs will still largely serve their shareholders, but will have slightly less freedom to gouge consumers, and to censor content they don't like.

All businesses ultimately serve their shareholders. That is not grounds for regulation.

After net neutrality does pass, how will the legislation (and associated regulatory body) actually decrease prices? Will starting an ISP be easier once they require a regulatory stamp-of-approval? Will censorship be rarer when all ISPs are subject to a single, central regulatory body?

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#120

Post by warrenwilkinson »

khafra wrote: post #57
warrenwilkinson wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Net neutrality' is a plan for government to regulate ISPs. Ostensibly, the government will only regulate in the consumers interest --- but the egyptian gov showed the other side of regulation (censorship). He says he is against net neutrality; he is against government regulation of ISPs. More interesting than anything he said, is the quote "No man can serve two masters". Currently ISPs serve you, but after net neutr…

> Currently ISPs serve you I'm not a board member of Comcast. I don't even hold any voting shares in CMCSA.

Comcast is everybodys whipping boy since the bittorrent blocking fiasco. They acted against their customer base and have been paying for it since. Why regulate beyond what Comcast's customers thought appropriate?
Post reply on HN