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

121–130 of 148 posts

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#121

Post by warrenwilkinson »

jshen wrote: post #91
warrenwilkinson wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who needs to own cables? You could rent cable in some areas, rent satallite for others, build short range wireless towers in others, use laser transmission here, build above ground infrastructure there, channel packets through power cables here, and phone lines there, and speed it up with local caching here, here and here. Technology changes, don't expect the ISP killer to look like an ISP. Just as the land-line phon…

Who would you rent them from? In a libertarian world who should have owned the cables for the past 20 years? How would competition happen when the cost of running new cables all around the country is extremely high?

As with everything, if you want something you either buy it or build it. If the cost to use existing infrastructure is too high, demand for alternatives will grow. If this demand can supplied, great, if it can't, then nothing can be done by market or government.

You've correctly pegged me as a Libertarian =), but I don't know who should be the title holders of the existing infrastructure.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#122

Post by jbooth »

webXL wrote: post #113
jbooth wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Well, yes, I'm a firm Democrat, and every Republican in federal office favors the Patriot Act, so yeah, coincidentally, my single-issue ducks are in a row there.

Feingold was one of like maybe 10 honest senators. Down to less than that, now.

Also, the Koch brothers supported Michelle Bachmann. Again, they are not libertarian, they are conservative. "Libertarian" just gets better press on boards like HN.

Lastly, I love the amount of self-programming that has to go on for you to call campaign finance reform, quote, "limiting the free speech of corporations". After all, why shouldn't my voice count nearly as much as theirs? Ohh, I get it.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#123

Post by jshen »

webXL wrote: post #117
jshen wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My pay comes from people who bought a service with after tax income. Why should you pay a lower percentage than me?

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#124

Post by [deleted] »

jshen wrote: post #92
smokeyj wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not just use a different ISP over the same cables? The cables could be maintained by a "home owner association" type license that connects you to a main tower or something similar. Is the only possible way to connect to the internet by a State granted monopoly? I don't think so, but I feel our creativity has been shot because this is how it's worked for years.

So if I want a faster connection I'd have to gather a quorum of people who live in my area and convince them to force everyone in the area to chip in the money required to upgrade the cables? When my internet is down and the ISP claims the cables are bad who do I call? Myself?

[deleted]

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#125

Post by jshen »

warrenwilkinson wrote: post #121
jshen wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who would you rent them from? In a libertarian world who should have owned the cables for the past 20 years? How would competition happen when the cost of running new cables all around the country is extremely high?

As with everything, if you want something you either buy it or build it. If the cost to use existing infrastructure is too high, demand for alternatives will grow. If this demand can supplied, great, if it can't, then nothing can be done by market or government. You've correctly pegged me as a Libertarian =), but I don't know who should be the title holders of the existing infrastructure.

The point is that a new business can't dig up everyones backyard if they think the current phone companies are doing a bad job, even if there is demand. I don't see how the libertarian model can work in this case.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#126

Post by webXL »

jbooth wrote: post #122
webXL wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Well, yes, I'm a firm Democrat, and every Republican in federal office favors the Patriot Act, so yeah, coincidentally, my single-issue ducks are in a row there. Feingold was one of like maybe 10 honest senators. Down to less than that, now. Also, the Koch brothers supported Michelle Bachmann. Again, they are not libertarian, they are conservative. "Libertarian" just gets better press on boards like HN. Lastly, I lov…

Has your senator been Feingold or a Republican since the passage of the Patriot Act? Or did you not vote for one? If an anti-patriot act Libertarian ran against a pro-patriot act Democrat, who would you support?

You can support the lesser of two evils without being called an evil, right? Who are we (Obama incl.) giving aid to in the Middle East? Why do you hold the Kochs to such a high standard? Bachmann has a higher pro-free trade rating than any of her viable opponents did... are they supposed to let her lose to someone they dislike more??

BTW, Rand Paul and Ron Paul are Republicans and against the Patriot Act.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#127

Post by webXL »

jshen wrote: post #123
webXL wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My pay comes from people who bought a service with after tax income. Why should you pay a lower percentage than me?

Your pay most likely comes from sales of goods and services, buyers of which are taxed at a lower rate. They are using after tax income, so it is double taxation there, too. But value was created in those instances, so one can say that the government helped create that value to justify it. I supposed the value of the stock can also be viewed in that manner, but why should it be taxed as much as income, when goods and services aren't?

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#128

Post by jbooth »

webXL wrote: post #126
jbooth wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, yes, I'm a firm Democrat, and every Republican in federal office favors the Patriot Act, so yeah, coincidentally, my single-issue ducks are in a row there. Feingold was one of like maybe 10 honest senators. Down to less than that, now. Also, the Koch brothers supported Michelle Bachmann. Again, they are not libertarian, they are conservative. "Libertarian" just gets better press on boards like HN. Lastly, I lov…

Has your senator been Feingold or a Republican since the passage of the Patriot Act? Or did you not vote for one? If an anti-patriot act Libertarian ran against a pro-patriot act Democrat, who would you support? You can support the lesser of two evils without being called an evil, right? Who are we (Obama incl.) giving aid to in the Middle East? Why do you hold the Kochs to such a high standard? Bachmann has a higher…

Bachmann is straight up fucking crazy. End of story. (If you ask me to justify this, I'll just refer you to google for some of her crazier quotes).

The Koch brothers supporting someone like her says to me that they're either more interested in profit than sound public policy, or they're fucking crazy too. More likely the first.

Look, just own it. "Conservative". You are what you do. Nothing wrong with it, 45% of the country agrees with you and them.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#129

Post by jshen »

webXL wrote: post #127
jshen wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My pay comes from people who bought a service with after tax income. Why should you pay a lower percentage than me?

Your pay most likely comes from sales of goods and services, buyers of which are taxed at a lower rate. They are using after tax income, so it is double taxation there, too. But value was created in those instances, so one can say that the government helped create that value to justify it. I supposed the value of the stock can also be viewed in that manner, but why should it be taxed as much as income, when goods and…

because someone like warren buffet shouldn't pay a lower percentage of his income in taxes than the rest of us.

Hell, you're the one that is making the case that a worker generates more value than people who gamble on stocks.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#130

Post by webXL »

jbooth wrote: post #128
webXL wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has your senator been Feingold or a Republican since the passage of the Patriot Act? Or did you not vote for one? If an anti-patriot act Libertarian ran against a pro-patriot act Democrat, who would you support? You can support the lesser of two evils without being called an evil, right? Who are we (Obama incl.) giving aid to in the Middle East? Why do you hold the Kochs to such a high standard? Bachmann has a higher…

Bachmann is straight up fucking crazy. End of story. (If you ask me to justify this, I'll just refer you to google for some of her crazier quotes). The Koch brothers supporting someone like her says to me that they're either more interested in profit than sound public policy, or they're fucking crazy too. More likely the first. Look, just own it. "Conservative". You are what you do. Nothing wrong with it, 45% of the…

Bachmann is straight up fucking crazy

Justify it. And don't use Media Matters as a source. They recently accused Huckabee of endorsing "ethnic cleansing" because he suggested that Arab states should offer land for a Palestinian state, and Jews have a right to settle the West Bank. Using "ethnic cleansing" in that way is crazy.

Own what? Which sane candidate were the Kochs supposed to support?

I assume you voted for Obama. Was that vote in favor of his open opposition to same-sex marriage? If you didn't vote for Obama, did 60 million other Americans cast an anti-same-sex ballot? No. They took the bad with the good.

In that same vein, why can't a libertarian vote for a candidate that shares 51% of his views versus one that supports 15% of his views????????

Post reply on HN