Proud? How can you be proud of a political institution that declares as a "right" that which must be produced by someone other than the recipient of that "right"?
This is a twisted conception of rights.
Southern Landholders did not have the "right" to slave labour, and Finns do not have the right to a material good produced by someone else.
I understand how you could look at it that way and I'd probably agree if high-speed internet wasn't so widely spread here already. I think it's a good thing that those few rural places left out finally gets the same kind of internet access that the rest of the country has already had for years.
It's not a matter of perspective, it's a matter of fact. Broadband internet is a produced value, not a naturally-occurring phenomenon, which means it came through the ideas and efforts of someone, or some group of people. No one has a "right" to the product of those efforts or ideas if the producers of them don't voluntarily trade it with them. It is the same reason why any other material good cannot a "right", because it turns the concept of rights, in essence, into a set of privileges to enslave the producers of value.
"It's not a matter of perspective, it's a matter of fact. Broadband internet is a produced value, not a naturally-occurring phenomenon, which means it came through the ideas and efforts of someone, or some group of people. No one has a "right" to the product of those efforts or ideas if the producers of them don't voluntarily trade it with them. It is the same reason why any other material good cannot a "right", because it turns the concept of rights, in essence, into a set of privileges to enslave the producers of value. "
Join some government and tell it to someone who cares.
But this is how things should be, we are one step closer to a more advanced future, with internet everywhere, the possibilities would be endless. Of course doing something like this in America or China, where there is alot more ground to cover, would be difficult.
@Mikemcn: Obviously you care if you acknowledge that getting internet access to as many people as possible is a good thing. But if that's something you believe (and in that we are in agreement), then you need to abandon the concept of material rights, that is the concept that there exists, such a thing as a "right" to acquire the effort of another person without their consent.
Now if you want to talk about codifying a right not to be denied the product of your own efforts and ideas, then you'll have my sympathies.
And godlessness, no. Who would want to be part of a government? That's like asking me if I would want to forego my humanity to become an ant in an ant colony.
" @Mikemcn: Don't EVER argue with Suicrat. If you do, this thread will jump to 100 posts in an instant and he'll destroy you. I know from experience. "
Don't listen to nate! I love it when people disagree! That's the only time I ever learn anything! When people say "yup, Suicrat's right" or some other variation, it's BORING AS HELL.
(By the way, Caps 1 - Sharks 1, thanks to Semin and Ferreiro respectively.)
Suicrat, while I understand the point of view you are giving, I think that it's no longer the popular opinion. I believe in people getting paid for what they do, but at this point in our society, we need to realize that we have made leaps and bounds and yet still live in times before us.
Phone access and internet are two things are basically something that every major developed nation already has. Making it a RIGHT for people to have that simply means that every person is entitled to keeping in contact with loved ones and people close to them...which I believe everyone DOES have that right. Then again, I ALSO believe that it should be a RIGHT for those graduating high school to get further education in some way, shape, or form. I personally had no chance of going to a major college. I grew up in a poor family that went paycheck to paycheck, and there wasn't a single scholarship that I applied for which came to me. My only option was a fat student loan for a degree that's pretty much worthless nowadays.
There are a lot of things that...honestly...SHOULD be rights in our modern day and age. Unfortunately, that would also mean that they would have to be government-regulated, which I'm NOT okay with. Then again, when we look at the fact that the government can drop in on our phone conversations whenever they want here in the U.S., it pretty much wouldn't matter if phone access was made a human right and provided to everyone anyways.
The big issue with offering these basic everyday amenities as human rights is that it leads to bigger questions: why isn't electricity and water automatically provided to every person, as they are even more essential than internet and phone access?
See, it all comes down to human greed. If government isn't regulating it, then it means that those running the electric/water/phone/internet companies can regulate the price however they want. However, if the government regulated it all, it means that those companies can't get ridiculously wealthy from it. They'll be on a set salary that probably doesn't come close to what they are currently making. Meanwhile, the downside is that government regulation over these amenities would mean our governments are closer to invading our privacy than they already are.
Despite being a conservative, I support the idea of making basic amenities like clean water, electricity, phone access, and high-speed internet a right to every human. I just don't want the government control that would go along with it.
Gotta gree with Jakob here. Growing up, I lived in a small hamlet of about 50 people, and we didn't have internet until I was around 13. Until just this summer, (I'm 20 now) could we get high speed internet. So far 7 years I used a 28.8kbps modem. Yep. It really does hinder a lot of things. I could barely even connect to MSN to talk to people. I couldn't play my games. I couldn't really do anything because I had to wait so long. If someone wanted to skype, send me a file, anyhting, I couldn't do it. I couldn't play games online, I couldn't download ANYTHING, and none of my programs could be updated because I would have to wait, literally, hours for 1 MB.
If you wanted to live in a rural area, it is impossible to have your own business or to keep up with a business that you're working at. My dad used to have to tell us to not pick up the phone, don't touch the computer, or ANYTHING for one hour because he had to download his email. Could you imagine trying to run a business like that?
I think that now, in this age, it is definitely a right and Finland's got it down!
@jakob187: The problem with the theoretical principles you are promoting, is that they don't correspond to realistic outcomes. Why does not every person have access to electricity and water automatically? Because they are GOODS, produced BY HUMANS, they are NOT NATURAL PHENOMENAE, you can't build a society where the government guarantees FOR SOME CITIZENS the right to goods produced by OTHER CITIZENS, that's what labour in America was like before the Civil War (the slave industries), and is like in a great number of other industries, including the education industry to this day, which you brought up. Where is broadband access the highest? In Korea, Japan, and the U.S., the countries which, with respect to the telecommunications industry, activities are relatively unregulated. If you want more people to have more goods and services, the last thing you want to do is regulate against the right to profit from those services, because all that does is drive the producers of those services toward other industries from which they ARE PERMITTED to profit.
What it comes down to is, if you want all people to have access to clean water, telecommunications, and education to be something to which all people entitled, you need to make those industries free for all people to profit from. It is not greed that denies goods to people, it's greed that provides goods for people. Without receiving just reward for an effort, people don't bother with that effort on a significant enough scale to make a dent in it. It is not the desire to profit that is evil, it is the desire to deny profit that is evil.
The hidden truth about the "right to internet" movement, it's being backed by governments around the world (and the UN) to make the provision of social services cheaper; now this is hardly a nefarious goal, but it's the wrong way to go about achieving it.
" Gotta gree with Jakob here. Growing up, I lived in a small hamlet of about 50 people, and we didn't have internet until I was around 13. Until just this summer, (I'm 20 now) could we get high speed internet. So far 7 years I used a 28.8kbps modem. Yep. It really does hinder a lot of things. I could barely even connect to MSN to talk to people. I couldn't play my games. I couldn't really do anything because I had to wait so long. If someone wanted to skype, send me a file, anyhting, I couldn't do it. I couldn't play games online, I couldn't download ANYTHING, and none of my programs could be updated because I would have to wait, literally, hours for 1 MB. If you wanted to live in a rural area, it is impossible to have your own business or to keep up with a business that you're working at. My dad used to have to tell us to not pick up the phone, don't touch the computer, or ANYTHING for one hour because he had to download his email. Could you imagine trying to run a business like that? I think that now, in this age, it is definitely a right and Finland's got it down! "
Guess what brought high-speed internet to your small hamlet though? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't declarations made by politicians and law-makers, it was workers laying fibre-optic or broadband cables, engineers planning that process, and accountants making sure the company's shareholders could afford it, not a political statement that your hamlet has "the right" to internet access.
You're not really making the connection between the declaration of a material right, and the provision of the service implicit in that material right.
So the basis of your argument is that if internet access becomes a right, the people who provide it will lose the profits they have worked for because it becomes a governmental service rather than a privatised thing? As far as I can tell, the only thing that will change here is that there will be a standardised speed - TV access is essentially a mandated right, but the amount of people who pay for a major extension of the basic setup is enough to fuel development so I don't see why this is any different.
In fact, I think if anything this will boost the company's drive to increase the speed of their paid connections because they actually want to make some money.
@Myrmidon: It depends on how the Finnish government institutes it. Many different subsidy structures would probably contravene EU competition guidelines, so the provision of this service probably won't be directly subsidized.
My argument is not "turn it into a right and people can't profit from it", because if that were the case, we'd never have newspapers, publishers, academics, authors, and video game designers profiting from the right to freedom of expression. My argument was "be weary of what is implied by a government guaranteeing access to a service. Is it a guarantee that you will be forced to pay for a one-size-fits-all model (such as the UK License Fee?) is it a guarantee that non-telecom industries will be subsidizing the cost of doing business for Finnish telecom companies? Or will it simply be "now we have a law that happens to coincide with industries doing what they were going to do eventually and so the expense of the ink, paper, and lawmakers' salaries that produced this law are going to waste?"
The only conception of rights that produces justice are rights to thought and action, not rights of reception.
(Looks like the Sharks are gonna lose tonight. 4-1 Caps.)
@Suicrat: Well, technically, it was a government-owned organization that got a grant to put wireless towers across one half the land mass in the province I live in... The other half was given to companies like Bell.
I don't really get what you're complaining against - people are getting PAID to maintain and create these high speed connections. You have a right to eat, correct? I'm going out on a limb here, but is all the food you eat grown from your own hand, with no help from ANY outside or boughten sources? I.E., fertilizers, pesticides, spades, etc? I don't see how this is any different. Sure, food is a human need for survival, but internet connection is important culturally and socially, which is what a government would want to promote.
Why not make this a right? If you can do something, why not do it? As long as it's not hurting anyone. It's certainly not hurting the workers because they're getting paid and the government is providing jobs.
" @Suicrat: Well, technically, it was a government-owned organization that got a grant to put wireless towers across one half the land mass in the province I live in... The other half was given to companies like Bell. I don't really get what you're complaining against - people are getting PAID to maintain and create these high speed connections. You have a right to eat, correct? I'm going out on a limb here, but is all the food you eat grown from your own hand, with no help from ANY outside or boughten sources? I.E., fertilizers, pesticides, spades, etc? I don't see how this is any different. Sure, food is a human need for survival, but internet connection is important culturally and socially, which is what a government would want to promote. Why not make this a right? If you can do something, why not do it? As long as it's not hurting anyone. It's certainly not hurting the workers because they're getting paid and the government is providing jobs. "
Yes, I need food, but I don't have the right to steal food from the farmers who grow and raise it, and they do not have the right to steal the fertilizer, pesticides, and farm equipment from the producers of those goods. My point is that politics does not solve economic problems, industry does. And when you begin on the path of subsidizing specific industries (at the expense of others, that is a given) under the notion that the product that industry provides is a "right", what you end up with is a further-entrenched slave society. You're right, it doesn't change much about how society already operates, but anyone worth half their weight in ideas knows that the status quo is far from ideal.
When the government "provides jobs" the wealth used to pay for those jobs is taken from other people who could also have hired people and "provided jobs".
Although they did not directly mention a taxation or licensing scheme the only way I can see this working out is relatively similar to the digital switchover here in the UK - the companies are legally bound to provide the infrastructure only, and then consumers will be given the option of purchasing a 'starter kit' of sorts - probably from a 'non profit' organisation.
Although this is only speculation, the two do seem very similar.
@Suicrat: I think you misunderstand a bit of what I'm saying. Let me explain more clearly.
Just because broadcast TV exists, that doesn't mean you can't pay for cable television, satellite, or other options.
Just because broadcast radio exists, that doesn't mean you can't pay for XM Satellite or Sirius.
In essence, the same needs to be done for phone and internet.
I'm talking about BASIC access: phones would be limited to home phone, no caller ID functions, no long distance. Just because basic phone would exist, that doesn't mean companies won't make money on cell phone operations as well as additional features for telephones.
I'm talking about BASIC high-speed internet access: 1Mbps. Just because basic internet would exist, that doesn't mean companies won't make money on premium packages.
So, hopefully you'll understand that your cries of "slavery" are unjustified and unnecessary. I'm not proposing that ALL forms of phone and internet need to be available to everyone. I'm just saying that basic access to those amenities should be RIGHTS for people to have, just the same way that broadcast radio and network television are basic rights. The FCC merely regulates a number of the content that is allowed to be shown on those, and that's it. Other than that, those companies are all still allowed to make a profit.
As for education past high-school, that's a tricky situation, but if we can offer public schools based on taxes and government funding, then why can't we offer higher education limited to a set of trades, such as...lo and behold...business management, one of the most BASIC courses in private colleges?
I understand all the ideas you are trying to throw out, but they are outdated ideals that need to change for the betterment of the future.
" When the government "provides jobs" the wealth used to pay for those jobs is taken from other people who could also have hired people and "provided jobs".
Naive capitalism. A government provided job guarantees a 40 hour work week, the private sector promises not to chance overtime so they overstaff and everyone ends up with 25-30 hour work weeks. Also, government jobs can't be outsourced. Also, healthcare, dental, etc. Think of the government as a large company that can afford to pay their employees fairly because they're not primarily for profit. You're afraid they'll run the other guys out of business? If the other guys can't compete and fold, and people like this government option so much because its a better deal, where's the loss here? They will only dissapear is the government option is the best one, and the government option can't be some sinister indoctrination tool and the option people most prefer at the same time. If it were, the private sector would have no problem keeping their prescience. This is merely a 'slippery slope' to people getting what they want as consumers. Perish the thought, if it shuts out businesses competition (as well as coercion, as in, no more "all companies agree to offer a speed /bandwidth cap so nobody is perceived to be out of the norm"). Also, education is a right, but private schools still make a living, etc. etc.
" @Suicrat: I think you misunderstand a bit of what I'm saying. Let me explain more clearly. Just because broadcast TV exists, that doesn't mean you can't pay for cable television, satellite, or other options. Just because broadcast radio exists, that doesn't mean you can't pay for XM Satellite or Sirius. In essence, the same needs to be done for phone and internet. I'm talking about BASIC access: phones would be limited to home phone, no caller ID functions, no long distance. Just because basic phone would exist, that doesn't mean companies won't make money on cell phone operations as well as additional features for telephones. I'm talking about BASIC high-speed internet access: 1Mbps. Just because basic internet would exist, that doesn't mean companies won't make money on premium packages. So, hopefully you'll understand that your cries of "slavery" are unjustified and unnecessary. I'm not proposing that ALL forms of phone and internet need to be available to everyone. I'm just saying that basic access to those amenities should be RIGHTS for people to have, just the same way that broadcast radio and network television are basic rights. The FCC merely regulates a number of the content that is allowed to be shown on those, and that's it. Other than that, those companies are all still allowed to make a profit. As for education past high-school, that's a tricky situation, but if we can offer public schools based on taxes and government funding, then why can't we offer higher education limited to a set of trades, such as...lo and behold...business management, one of the most BASIC courses in private colleges? I understand all the ideas you are trying to throw out, but they are outdated ideals that need to change for the betterment of the future. "
I think if any of the things I said were untrue and if all of the things you said were true, then the United States' Federal Deficit would not be counted in the trillions of dollars.
@
Ryanwho
Naive capitalism. A government provided job guarantees a 40 hour work week, the private sector promises not to chance overtime so they overstaff and everyone ends up with 25-30 hour work weeks. Also, government jobs can't be outsourced. Also, healthcare, dental, etc. Think of the government as a large company that can afford to pay their employees fairly because they're not primarily for profit. You're afraid they'll run the other guys out of business? If the other guys can't compete and fold, and people like this government option so much because its a better deal, where's the loss here? Its a 'slippery slope' to people getting what they want as consumers. Perish the thought, if it shuts out businesses competition (as well as coercion, as in, no more "all companies agree to offer a speed /bandwidth cap so nobody is perceived to be out of the norm"). Also, education is a right, but private schools still make a living, etc. etc.
I don't know what happened to this post but I got a PM of it, so I'm adding it here. I can't think of the government as a company who "can afford to pay their employees fairly because they're not primarily for profit". Because that simply is not true. The reason why they can afford to pay their employees excessively (which would be a more accurate description, if you looked at salary and wage trends in the U.S.) is not because they don't have to worry about profit. They too have to make sure the amount of money they spend adds up to the amount of money they receive, the only difference is governments receive their funds through systematic theft, and indebting future generations for the sake of the present. Outsourcing would be uneconomical if there was a free market in labour, because the only reason why it's cheaper to get it made across the Pacific and then ship it back across the largest ocean on the planet, is because wages are deflated in the East (i.e., they're too low) and they're inflated in the West (i.e., they're too high), this imbalance is not a result of greed, but of politics. There would be no reason a Chinese worker is worth less than an American worker of the same skillset in a free market, it is only in a politically-distorted market where that imbalance occurs. And in this case, you can blame Occidental Labour Brokers (i.e., the trade unions). Again, if what I was saying was false and what you people were saying was true, the United States Federal Deficit would not have your grandchildren born into bondage.
Like I said, the Sharks lost, people! Can't you give me a respite? I want to play IceWind Dale II! In the meantime, don't nationalize any industries if you think they're important, PRIVATIZE them!
@xyzygy: lol that sounds crazy. i remember back in the day it took me like 45mins to play flash games. i would read harry potter book when i felt like playing something on the computer. i use to have a slow internet connection it is still kind of slow.
nice to hear that they are going getting faster internet. it helps the world i think if they make it a law for everyone to have internet. it helps some people who have low technology.
"It's not a matter of perspective, it's a matter of fact. Broadband internet is a produced value, not a naturally-occurring phenomenon, which means it came through the ideas and efforts of someone, or some group of people. No one has a "right" to the product of those efforts or ideas if the producers of them don't voluntarily trade it with them. It is the same reason why any other material good cannot a "right", because it turns the concept of rights, in essence, into a set of privileges to enslave the producers of value. "
Join some government and tell it to someone who cares. But this is how things should be, we are one step closer to a more advanced future, with internet everywhere, the possibilities would be endless. Of course doing something like this in America or China, where there is alot more ground to cover, would be difficult. "
Answer this, why was it that everyone did not have it before?
Here in the UK the British Government's plan for 'Digital Britain' outlined methods to make sure EVERY house in the UK gets a 2mb ADSL connection as standard in their area. To make sure everyone gets the actual 2mb connection speed as well. And this is all planned to be done by around 2011-2012. By which point we'll have some ridiculously new faster internet technology. Not to mention this is just a plan, I'm not even sure it has been legalised or finalised fully yet.
And here is Finland already making progress by legalising this and making it a standard of living for everyone like clean, usable, drinkable running water. God damn my country fails at times.
" When the government "provides jobs" the wealth used to pay for those jobs is taken from other people who could also have hired people and "provided jobs".
Naive capitalism. A government provided job guarantees a 40 hour work week, the private sector promises not to chance overtime so they overstaff and everyone ends up with 25-30 hour work weeks. Also, government jobs can't be outsourced. Also, healthcare, dental, etc. Think of the government as a large company that can afford to pay their employees fairly because they're not primarily for profit. You're afraid they'll run the other guys out of business? If the other guys can't compete and fold, and people like this government option so much because its a better deal, where's the loss here? They will only dissapear is the government option is the best one, and the government option can't be some sinister indoctrination tool and the option people most prefer at the same time. If it were, the private sector would have no problem keeping their prescience. This is merely a 'slippery slope' to people getting what they want as consumers. Perish the thought, if it shuts out businesses competition (as well as coercion, as in, no more "all companies agree to offer a speed /bandwidth cap so nobody is perceived to be out of the norm"). Also, education is a right, but private schools still make a living, etc. etc. "
Wow....just wow....
There are so many things wrong with what you just said. I'll be nice since it's so obvious that you are just "misinformed".
1) Comparing government goods produced or jobs given with private sector goods produced or jobs given, is an outright fallacy. It assumes all production, investment, and consumption are equal between the private sector and government. It says they are homogeneous affairs.
That is not the case. Where does value come from? I'll give you a hint, Karl Marx was wrong, it doesn't come from the labor put into it. Instead, value is derived from demand. It is purely subjective.
What can we conclude from this? We can conclude that spending $50,000 on paving a field is different than spending $50,000 on production of Wii's.
Government spending is not equal to private spending. Projects in the private sector are created because of demand, and their continued production depends on this demand. If the product is continually produced and ignores a fall in demand, it will have to liquidate at a lower price. This is different than the government's system of operations. Think of every transaction as a vote. Think of the market as the largest democracy in existence. People vote by buying things, and the things in demand change every day, even every second. The market has to adjust, and it does.
Government spending on the other hand, is a different game entirely. They create jobs with the ends being the same as the means. Many times, a government will create a job for the sake of creating a job. That is how it works, give jobs and get votes. It runs on a system of taxation, not profits derived from producing things in demand. Unlike the market, government projects thrive on a system of taxation, and when demand drops, it does not adjust. It is impossible for the government to even know what is in demand, and lacks a structure of pricing in most of its services because it has a monopoly on most of its goods. Lastly, government transactions are not dynamic. It takes years to pass legislation, and takes years to end projects with more legislation. They set projects to be a certain amount of time. It does not adjust on a hourly basis like the market does. When it failes to meet the change in demand, it does not adjust because it does not need to since it doesn't really on producing things in demand.
As for investment in future projects, that's where it gets really bad. Interest rates in the market place act as signals, just as prices are signals. When interest rates are low, that means savings are high. When savings are high, it's a good time to decrease current production and spend more on future projects or investment. On the other hand, if interest rates are high, it means that savings are low because people are spending money now. It is a good time to spend on current production rather than invest in future production.
How does this work for the government? It doesn't. The government does not guide it's projects based on interest rates. It operates at a deficit and spends money relative to the amount of taxation. It has no system of current vs future production.
Now, I'm going to leave you with a quote that you should pay very close attention to:
“It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.” -Murray Rothbard
Oh, and you say that education is a "right". Tell me, do you use that word in the same sense when you speak of the "right" to bear arms? One sense of the word states that something will be taken from one and given to another, while the other sense of the word says that there is no systematic barrier to you obtaining it. How can you use the same word for saying two completely different things?
In the United States the government bent over backwards to stay out of the cable companies way so that "innovation" could lead the way in getting the entire nation wired. So now we have giant monopolies providing shitty service at ridiculous prices, with only 17% of the rural areas wired with broadband. You preach all this stuff about capitalism, while ignoring the fact that all these monolithic corporations are colluding together to keep the pie that they already have. Fuck them. I say take take it all. Make it a municipality like water/sewage, and be done with these asshats.
Oh, and I think sex should be a legal right as well.
The government should take someone else's woman and give her to me so that I can have sex with her. It's only fair, and I do believe I have that right.
In the United States the government bent over backwards to stay out of the cable companies way so that "innovation" could lead the way in getting the entire nation wired. So now we have giant monopolies providing shitty service at ridiculous prices, with only 17% of the rural areas wired with broadband. You preach all this stuff about capitalism, while ignoring the fact that all these monolithic corporations are colluding together to keep the pie that they already have. Fuck them. I say take take it all. Make it a municipality like water/sewage, and be done with these asshats. "
Explain to me how municipal governments are going to provide broadband cable to rural areas. Are you fucking kidding me? Are you even reading what you post before you post it?
By the way, the way the FCC operates its licensing system is hardly an example of free market capitalism. Staying out of cable companies' way? They subsidize them! The FCC essentially bankrolled the digital signal shift! That's not free market capitalism either, that's corporatism, AKA fascism.
@lilburtonboy7489:
By the way, Burt, market values aren't subjective. While they are in fact subject to the preferences and desires of the people who compose the marketplace, they are objective. For example, the combustion of oil produces heat and light objectively, it is not subject to difference of opinion, it is a fact of reality. How important that fact is to people in the marketplace will be different depending on their circumstances, and so the market price will fluctuate depending on the relative merits of supply and demand, but that is not the same as saying that "the value of goods is subjective." Subjectivity is not a helpful way to conceptualize value, because it's the opposite side of the instrinsicist (Marxist labour theory is a bizarre form of material intrinscism) coin, and the fact that the combustion of heat and light matters only to living beings, capable of extracting, refining, and burning oil. (Sorry to spend so much time on what seems to be a small point, but you can't get anywhere against labour theory with the argument from subjectivity.)
In the United States the government bent over backwards to stay out of the cable companies way so that "innovation" could lead the way in getting the entire nation wired. So now we have giant monopolies providing shitty service at ridiculous prices, with only 17% of the rural areas wired with broadband. You preach all this stuff about capitalism, while ignoring the fact that all these monolithic corporations are colluding together to keep the pie that they already have. Fuck them. I say take take it all. Make it a municipality like water/sewage, and be done with these asshats. "
Explain to me how municipal governments are going to provide broadband cable to rural areas. Are you fucking kidding me? Are you even reading what you post before you post it?
By the way, the way the FCC operates its licensing system is hardly an example of free market capitalism. Staying out of cable companies' way? They subsidize them! The FCC essentially bankrolled the digital signal shift! That's not free market capitalism either, that's corporatism, AKA fascism.
@lilburtonboy7489:
By the way, Burt, market values aren't subjective. While they are in fact subject to the preferences and desires of the people who compose the marketplace, they are objective. For example, the combustion of oil produces heat and light objectively, it is not subject to difference of opinion, it is a fact of reality. How important that fact is to people in the marketplace will be different depending on their circumstances, and so the market price will fluctuate depending on the relative merits of supply and demand, but that is not the same as saying that "the value of goods is subjective." Subjectivity is not a helpful way to conceptualize value, because it's the opposite side of the instrinsicist (Marxist labour theory is a bizarre form of material intrinscism) coin, and the fact that the combustion of heat and light matters only to living beings, capable of extracting, refining, and burning oil. (Sorry to spend so much time on what seems to be a small point, but you can't get anywhere against labour theory with the argument from subjectivity.) "
Obviously only in cities municipalities would control it, in rural areas cable tv/broadband something like co-ops would have to be established. It was how rural America became electrified, and the only way broadband will reach them.
Log in to comment