Stop the E-Parasite Act • Hacker News Board

Re: Stop the E-Parasite Act

#51

Post by jbooth » Tue, Nov 01, 2011, 3:52 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #49

javek wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you were to take away power from the government, who would be left to defend the interests of the powerless? While it's true that government usually turns out to be an instrument used by the powerful to control the powerless, it is undeniable that the rule of law has occasionally functioned well enough to protect a minority from a majority. It offers a framework with at least the possibility of protecting the powe…

You are arguing against a straw man. Cheez wasn't advocating taking all power from the government, just "most". Applying the principle of charity ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity ) to cheez's remarks, one would assume that preventing violence is not one of the powers he advocated taking from the government.

I'd say it's incumbent on Cheez to make a less simplistic argument if he doesn't want to be subject to reductio ab adsurdum.

If his argument is a silly one-liner that's demonstrably refuted with a pointer to Somalia as an example of "less government", it's not javek's responsibility to fill in the blanks for him.

Re: Stop the E-Parasite Act

#52

Post by CWuestefeld » Tue, Nov 01, 2011, 3:52 PM UTC

_delirium wrote: post #26

jterce wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. It's the same as the "occupy" movement saying that corporations shouldn't influence government. It's true, but it's the politicians who are the problem. Everyone, the content providers included, should be representing their best interests to politicians. The burden is on the politicians to remain uncorrupted and to represent the best interests of their constituents to the fullest degree possible under law.

If, after several hundred years of trying, we haven't yet found the mythical race of "uncorruptible politician", it might be time for a plan B, like systemic changes to reduce the effects of corruption on the very-human politicians we do have (and are likely to continue having). That's essentially the campaign-finance-reform argument, that the problem isn't going to be solved by hoping that the next crop of politicia…

it might be time for a plan B, like systemic changes to reduce the effects of corruption ... That's essentially the campaign-finance-reform argument

No, your response doesn't address your goal at all. CFR doesn't do a darned thing to "reduce the effects of corruption". It seeks to decrease the possible vectors of corruption (both in quantity and magnitude), but it does absolutely nothing to address the effects of corruption.

What yummyfajitas and others have been arguing is precisely for a solution to the problem you cite, the effects of corruption. That is to make it so that it matters much less how a bureaucrat gets corrupted, by stripping him of power to the greatest extent possible, so that the potential for damage he can cause is minimized.

Re: Stop the E-Parasite Act

#53

Post by javek » Tue, Nov 01, 2011, 4:01 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #49

javek wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you were to take away power from the government, who would be left to defend the interests of the powerless? While it's true that government usually turns out to be an instrument used by the powerful to control the powerless, it is undeniable that the rule of law has occasionally functioned well enough to protect a minority from a majority. It offers a framework with at least the possibility of protecting the powe…

You are arguing against a straw man. Cheez wasn't advocating taking all power from the government, just "most". Applying the principle of charity ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity ) to cheez's remarks, one would assume that preventing violence is not one of the powers he advocated taking from the government.

Suppose the government only lost the power to regulate the telecom industry. In this case, the gatekeepers could do whatever they wanted regarding telecom policy without any fear of legal pushback, instead of having to at least consider their small and manageable fear. If you don't like what they do and there is no framework for making your voice heard on this particular issue, what options do you have? Try to start your own ISP?

Re: Stop the E-Parasite Act

#54

Post by yummyfajitas » Tue, Nov 01, 2011, 4:09 PM UTC

jbooth wrote: post #51

yummyfajitas wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are arguing against a straw man. Cheez wasn't advocating taking all power from the government, just "most". Applying the principle of charity ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity ) to cheez's remarks, one would assume that preventing violence is not one of the powers he advocated taking from the government.

I'd say it's incumbent on Cheez to make a less simplistic argument if he doesn't want to be subject to reductio ab adsurdum. If his argument is a silly one-liner that's demonstrably refuted with a pointer to Somalia as an example of "less government", it's not javek's responsibility to fill in the blanks for him.

Similarly, if anyone advocates more test coverage, we should automatically assume they want 100% quickcheck-like coverage testing all possible occurrences including power outages, network cables being unplugged, etc. What nonsense! How could anyone get work done in a place like that?

Or, to use a political example, if anyone advocates more regulation of X, it's incumbent on them to explicitly explain they aren't actually advocating Stalism.

This gives us an easy way to dismiss all views we disagree with without even having to consider the actual proposal.

Re: Stop the E-Parasite Act

#55

Post by afterburner » Tue, Nov 01, 2011, 4:10 PM UTC

_delirium wrote: post #26

jterce wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. It's the same as the "occupy" movement saying that corporations shouldn't influence government. It's true, but it's the politicians who are the problem. Everyone, the content providers included, should be representing their best interests to politicians. The burden is on the politicians to remain uncorrupted and to represent the best interests of their constituents to the fullest degree possible under law.

If, after several hundred years of trying, we haven't yet found the mythical race of "uncorruptible politician", it might be time for a plan B, like systemic changes to reduce the effects of corruption on the very-human politicians we do have (and are likely to continue having). That's essentially the campaign-finance-reform argument, that the problem isn't going to be solved by hoping that the next crop of politicia…

One solution is term limits on Congress. Unfortunately, Congress votes on the bills and amendments, so it's not happening.

Re: Stop the E-Parasite Act

#56

Post by SkyMarshal » Tue, Nov 01, 2011, 4:19 PM UTC

>This bill is a direct assault on a free internet and a shameful attempt by copyright lobbyists to destroy net neutrality.

Shouldn't have used that term here. This petition just lost any Republican/Tea Party support it might have had. And though there may be some overlap, this isn't really about Net Neutrality vs. the telecoms anyway.

Re: Stop the E-Parasite Act

#57

Post by DanielBMarkham » Tue, Nov 01, 2011, 4:23 PM UTC

InclinedPlane wrote: post #28

nroach wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I think it's a bit more than: "pretty please take away people's freedom to protect our profits". That's the only thing they have the power to do." More along the lines of: "Pretty please take away people's freedom and here's a huge bucket of cash set up as an anonymous corporate shell donor. If you don't support us we'll give this huge bucket of cash to your opponent. kthxbye." But I agree that a lack of term l…

In reality it's more like this: Step 1: Use bucket of cash to gain access to and develop a rapport with a politician, increase the rapport and dependency with campaign contributions Step 2: Convince said politician of your perspective, namely that the works of art your company has struggled to create are threatened by people who want to "steal" them without paying. Step 3: Convince said politician that it's necessary…

Agreed.

It amazes me when people see a bad result and insist that there must be a bad person behind it all somewhere. Do people not realize that more evil will come from a bad system full of good people than will ever come from a few bad people in a good system? Germany wasn't bad in WWII because of Hitler -- there are a million little Hitlers running around the world at any given moment. Germany went bad because the Weimar republic was in such a state of disarray [insert long discussion here] that armed political gangs thrived.

People see the problems with the patent laws and content industry and they insist on "attack!" when the only thing that will do is make the system less stable and open to more of the same exact kinds of things they're upset with in the first place.

Why do we insist that every story have a villain?

Re: Stop the E-Parasite Act

#58

Post by anigbrowl » Tue, Nov 01, 2011, 4:25 PM UTC

CWuestefeld wrote: post #52

_delirium wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If, after several hundred years of trying, we haven't yet found the mythical race of "uncorruptible politician", it might be time for a plan B, like systemic changes to reduce the effects of corruption on the very-human politicians we do have (and are likely to continue having). That's essentially the campaign-finance-reform argument, that the problem isn't going to be solved by hoping that the next crop of politicia…

it might be time for a plan B, like systemic changes to reduce the effects of corruption ... That's essentially the campaign-finance-reform argument No, your response doesn't address your goal at all. CFR doesn't do a darned thing to "reduce the effects of corruption". It seeks to decrease the possible vectors of corruption (both in quantity and magnitude), but it does absolutely nothing to address the effects of cor…

That so-called solution also ties the hands of honest reformers. Obstruction of regulatory function is just as subject to corruption as an excess thereof. The notion that the payor is morally pure is absurd; public choice theory shows that large entities like corporations and unions have every incentive to rig the process by exploiting the rational ignorance of the median voter.

Re: Stop the E-Parasite Act

#59

Post by anigbrowl » Tue, Nov 01, 2011, 4:29 PM UTC

afterburner wrote: post #55

_delirium wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If, after several hundred years of trying, we haven't yet found the mythical race of "uncorruptible politician", it might be time for a plan B, like systemic changes to reduce the effects of corruption on the very-human politicians we do have (and are likely to continue having). That's essentially the campaign-finance-reform argument, that the problem isn't going to be solved by hoping that the next crop of politicia…

One solution is term limits on Congress. Unfortunately, Congress votes on the bills and amendments, so it's not happening.

We have term limits in California and there is absolutely no sign that it has led to better legislation.

Re: Stop the E-Parasite Act

#60

Post by _delirium » Tue, Nov 01, 2011, 4:31 PM UTC

Gormo wrote: post #34

_delirium wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If, after several hundred years of trying, we haven't yet found the mythical race of "uncorruptible politician", it might be time for a plan B, like systemic changes to reduce the effects of corruption on the very-human politicians we do have (and are likely to continue having). That's essentially the campaign-finance-reform argument, that the problem isn't going to be solved by hoping that the next crop of politicia…

What makes it any more reasonable to suggest that it's possible to change the incentives than to suggest we can find uncorruptible politicians? I don't think that this systemic view aligns with the campaign-finance-reform argument argument at all; the people who want money out of politics regard money itself as the root cause of the problem, but neglects to address the real underlying incentives that money - merely a…

It's a good question; perhaps we can't. I think it's worth thinking about and considering if we really can't do anything to reduce likelihood or magnitude of corruption, though. The founding fathers spent a decent amount of time thinking about it in their own historical context, rather than leaving it purely to a trust that voters will punish politicians who behave badly. For example, the U.S. Constitution has written into it a prohibition on federal officeholders accepting titles of nobility, no matter how much voters like or dislike the politician in question; they just decided not to leave that question for the voters, but thought it would lead to less corruptible politics if politicians were completely banned from accepting noble titles. That at least doesn't seem to have had any particularly bad effects, though there is debate over whether it had good effects or was just symbolic anti-monarchism. It does seem vaguely analogous to some of the no-gifts clauses that have been proposed and/or implemented more recently, though the analogy isn't perfect.