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

I thanked Rand Paul for his Internet Rights efforts lately. He replied.

camtyler.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 84 posts

Re: I thanked Rand Paul for his Internet Rights efforts lately. He replied.

#51

Post by mikeash »

pvnick wrote: post #6
ck2 wrote: post #3

You know that channel selection concept for consumers where you get to pick and choose what you want and only pay for those parts? I'd like to be able to pick and chose the parts of each individual in Congress. There is little else of Rand Paul worth paying for.

>There is little else of Rand Paul worth paying for. Anytime either of the Paul's do something great that hits the news (many times a year), the armchair pundits on the internet make vague references to everything else they do which makes them not worth voting for. Some of the only people in congress who'll stand by their values and whom you know from what to expect. It's contrarian bullshit and I'm sick of it.

Rand Paul is a conspiracy nut who thinks the UN is going to take away our guns:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/11/r...

"You can bet the UN is working to FORCE the U.S. to implement every single one of these anti-gun policies...."

It frightens me mildly that someone like this has power, although he's certainly far from the worst in Congress.

Re: I thanked Rand Paul for his Internet Rights efforts lately. He replied.

#52

Post by jpadkins »

ebbv wrote: post #25
waffle_ss wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't, I was giving you examples of actual corporatists (particularly Obama as he's actually appointed lobbyists to positions of power in the federal government). corporatist: "A supporter of corporatism." corporatism: "The control of a state or organization by large interest groups." Using the definition of the word, how exactly are either of the Pauls corporatists?

Bush appointed lots of lobbyists too. It's unfortunately how our government works in an age of unfettered corporate donations. If you hate it as much as I do then you should be for publicly financed campaigns to remove corporate interest from elections. The Pauls are corporatists because they would eliminate basically all regulation and so many government services that corporations would be the government.

Do corporations regulate the internet? or consumer electronics?

The flaw in your logic is in the absence of government regulation the buyer, not the supplier is the primary regulator in the market. Consumers are more in control of cost/quality/safety trade-offs than corporations, because corporations that tailor their product to their preferences succeed.

Re: I thanked Rand Paul for his Internet Rights efforts lately. He replied.

#53

Post by dram »

ebbv wrote: post #20
waffle_ss wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because someone is against having a massive federal government doesn't make them a corporatist. I suggest you compare the donors that Ron Paul had in his campaign vs. Obama and Romney to find out who the real corporatists are. You could also count how many corporate lobbyists Obama has appointed to positions in the federal government.

Where did I say anything about Obama or Romney? They are both far too beholden to corporate interests as well. But Obama is right on more issues than the Pauls are, IMHO.

If Ron and Rand are corporatists, why do more corporations support Obama? The status quo is what the corporations support. Limiting military spending and restricting or eliminating Fed policies would disrupt the status quo more than anything else.

Re: I thanked Rand Paul for his Internet Rights efforts lately. He replied.

#54

Post by paddy_m »

ebbv wrote: post #22
jimzvz wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulation is exactly what enables corporatism.

Uhh, no. Regulation is what requires corporations to dispose of pollutants properly instead of just dumping them in rivers. Regulation is what requires corporations to give workers proper safety warnings, equipment and training rather than just putting them in harm's way. Regulation is what requires corporations to disclose their accounting to investors instead of telling them whatever they want. Regulation is what r…

Regulation is what requires corporations to disclose their accounting to investors instead of telling them whatever they want.

Actually, regulation prevents consumers from making choices with their investment decisions. By putting publicly traded companies in a special class, and only allowing individuals to invest in those companies, they vastly limit choice.

Regulation is what requires corporations to pay full time workers overtime, give breaks and sick time, and just generally treat them like human beings.

In America this is the case, however, over the whole world there is a relatively free market. For competitive job marekets/professions where is necessary to pay workers overtime and give them sick leave to continue employment, those benefits are given. Across the whole world, those benefits aren't necessary to hire some professions, jobs for those professions leave the US.

In theory regulation would protect us from predatory industries, in practice we often suffer from regulatory capture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture.

Re: I thanked Rand Paul for his Internet Rights efforts lately. He replied.

#56

Post by tocomment »

magnusj wrote: post #13
tocomment wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the parts you don't like? I don't follow him that closely but doesn't he have a lot of pro-freedom views?

He is first and foremost social conservative, leaning libertarian on a few issues, and a state rights man on most issues (which isn't really about freedom. It's born out of a realization by reactionary southern people, that they can't get enough national support to implement their desired anti-freedom policies on a federal level). For instance, he opposes women's right to abortion (except in certain cases), same-sex…

Most of those sound like wedge issues though, that are pumped up by the media to divide and distract citizens so they don't ask for better healthcare, more freedoms, etc.

Re: I thanked Rand Paul for his Internet Rights efforts lately. He replied.

#57

Post by threeseed »

rubikscube wrote: post #36
magnusj wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is first and foremost social conservative, leaning libertarian on a few issues, and a state rights man on most issues (which isn't really about freedom. It's born out of a realization by reactionary southern people, that they can't get enough national support to implement their desired anti-freedom policies on a federal level). For instance, he opposes women's right to abortion (except in certain cases), same-sex…

If you're so against things that can kill, let's see you call for the complete prohibition of alcohol. Many people die from alcohol-fueled murders, as well as drunk driving, and alcohol is still legal. Alcohol is not NEEDED BY ANYONE. I am making the devil's advocate case. At least with guns, the primary purpose by the majority is for self defense against criminals. It is reprehensible to see the inconsistency of you…

Any chance you can stop misrepresenting what people say ?

He didn't say he was against guns. Only against the lax regulation of them. And given that the overwhelming majority of the population support him it is hardly a controversial position. Not sure why you decided to derail the point with a criticism of alcohol.

Re: I thanked Rand Paul for his Internet Rights efforts lately. He replied.

#58

Post by dragonwriter »

Anechoic wrote: post #48
jimzvz wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe we have a different definition of corporatism because none of your points have anything to do with it. Regulation allows Company A to influence the government to implement regulation that favours Company A and hinders Company B or individuals X. Now perhaps regulation is required to a certain extent (especially with regards to the environment) but many of the potential issues are already covered by criminal law…

Regulation allows Company A to influence the government to implement regulation "Regulation" doesn't allow Company A to influence the government, the First Amendment allows Company A to influence the government. In your statement, regulation is the effect, not the cause.

> "Regulation" doesn't allow Company A to influence the government

Depends on the content of the regulation. Regulation that gives particular companies special voices on public policy does, in fact, give "Company A" a special ability to influence the government to implement policy in a way detrimental to competing "Company B" that is not granted a similar voice. There's quite a lot of regulation that does this in one form or another (usually, with safeguards that notionally serve to avoid abuse, but there is plenty of room for debate about how well those safeguards work.)

Re: I thanked Rand Paul for his Internet Rights efforts lately. He replied.

#59

Post by paddy_m »

magnusj wrote: post #13
tocomment wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the parts you don't like? I don't follow him that closely but doesn't he have a lot of pro-freedom views?

He is first and foremost social conservative, leaning libertarian on a few issues, and a state rights man on most issues (which isn't really about freedom. It's born out of a realization by reactionary southern people, that they can't get enough national support to implement their desired anti-freedom policies on a federal level). For instance, he opposes women's right to abortion (except in certain cases), same-sex…

States rights allows for smorgasbord of governmental choices that we should promote. Same sex marriage could very much be seen as a states rights issue. The problem with further and further removed, larger and larger governments is, where do you go to appeal?

Re: I thanked Rand Paul for his Internet Rights efforts lately. He replied.

#60

Post by mlader »

Well, whether or not you agree with Rand Paul as a politician, I think an actual discussion of the economics at hand would be more fruitful. And by the economics, I do not mean "regulation attacks our liberties and cripples the economy," but more specifically I'm interested in the following quote:

"Many of the calls for additional legislation depend on the false premise that there is a 'market failure' regarding cybersecurity, and that businesses cannot adequately protect themselves."

From what I understand, the Obama administration believes that cybersecurity is a public good, and that there is a free riding problem. One company finds a vulnerability or comes up with a new security solution, shares that information with other companies, and then everyone benefits. The idea is that many companies would assume that others will put in the resources to solve these problems, and that they can benefit from the resulting information.

Overall expenditure in cybersecurity may be increasing, however, I'm curious what the distribution of spending looks like across various industries. Are there a few players that make up the large portion of spending, or is it spread out among more companies. In the former, a free rider problem seems more likely, while in the latter I don't really see a problem.

Personally, I'd assume that many companies are very worried about cybersecurity and free riding is a minor issue. It's bad for a business' bottom line and reputation to have a security breach, especially if they deal with customer finances. Honestly though, I do not know enough about the industry and would love to hear from someone who is more familiar with the economics and incentives.

Post reply on HN