Obama says FCC should reclassify internet as a utility

[RodeoX]

I think I'll take my chances with Obama.
He is the smartest president of my lifetime and i trust him on this.  

As I posited upthread, you want to be culled.

. . .

The fellow, as with any, desires a liberty he cannot know by his own limitation. You, having thus scoffed him, demonstrate equivalent failings.

No I am stating the facts. He wants to be culled and is actively fighting for that. This is evolution at work so he can get his wish.

Evolution makes no excuses for intent with ignorance.

Actually it's just that I am not afraid of people. I think they are mostly the same and I get along with everyone. I believe this helps me see people for who they are instead of who I thought they should be.
It may be comforting to see the world as black and white, good and evil, communists and 1776 patriots. Reality is never so simple, and you do yourself a disservice when you fail to take each person or event as a separate issue.

[1715361003]

1715361003

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

Click here to commit a crime.

I think I'll take my chances with Obama.
He is the smartest president of my lifetime and i trust him on this.  

As I posited upthread, you want to be culled.

. . .

No I am stating the facts. He wants to be culled and is actively fighting for that. This is evolution at work so he can get his wish.

Evolution makes no excuses for intent with ignorance.

Actually it's just that I am not afraid of people. I think they are mostly the same and I get along with everyone. I believe this helps me see people for who they are instead of who I thought they should be.
It may be comforting to see the world as black and white, good and evil, communists and 1776 patriots. Reality is never so simple, and you do yourself a disservice when you fail to take each person or event as a separate issue.

You seem to fit the profile described by the following two authors, as you seem to think personalities and getting along with other people has anything to do with the issue we are discussing:

http://blog.erratasec.com/2014/11/dont-mistake-masturbation-for-insight.html?showComment=1415915933934#c9120867661116148633

It is always the same story.

Moron: Some stuff is bad, we need rules !! (or some stuff is good, we want it!)

Intelligent person: Rules implies a ruler. Do you understand all the (bad) consequences of having a ruler ? And why would anyone claim the right to decide for other people ? We should keep the current system, eg negociate issues case by case. The winners & losers will emerge naturally. No need for violence.

Moron: No we want that stuff now !! Shut your mouth!

Eric S. Raymond's (the progenitor of the term "open source" in the infamous essay "The Cathedral and the Bazaar") past writings about "net neutrality":

Net neutrality: what’s a libertarian to do?
Posted on 2008-11-13 by Eric Raymond   

...

Your typical network-neutrality activist is a good-government left-liberal who is instinctively hostile to market-based approaches. These people think, rather, that if they can somehow come up with the right regulatory formula, they can jawbone the government into making the telcos play nice. They’re ideologically incapable of questioning the assumption that bandwidth is a scarce “public good” that has to be regulated. They don’t get it that complicated regulations favor the incumbent who can afford to darken the sky with lawyers, and they really don’t get it about outright regulatory capture, a game at which the telcos are past masters.

I’ve spent endless hours trying to point out to these people that their assumptions are fundamentally wrong, and that the only way to break the telco monopoly is to break the scarcity assumptions it’s based on. That the telecoms regulatorium, far from being what holds the telcos in check, is actually their instrument of control. And that the only battle that actually matters is the one to carve out enough unlicensed spectrum so we can use technologies like ad-hoc networking with UWB to end-run the whole mess until it collapses under its own weight.

They don’t get it. They refuse to get it. I’ve been on a mailing list for something called the “Open Infrastructure Alliance” that consisted of three network engineers and a couple dozen “organizers”; the engineers (even the non-libertarian engineers) all patiently trying to explain why the political attack is a non-starter, and the organizers endlessly rehashing political strategies anyway. Because, well, that’s all they know how to do.

In short, the “network neutrality” crowd is mainly composed of well-meaning fools blinded by their own statism, and consequently serving mainly as useful idiots for the telcos’ program of ever-more labyrinthine and manipulable regulation. If I were a telco executive, I’d be on my knees every night thanking my god(s) for this “opposition”. Mistake #2 for any libertarian to avoid is backing these clowns.

....

Why I won’t be signing the “Declaration of Internet Freedom” as it is
Posted on 2012-07-03 by Eric Raymond   

...

because libertarians – who understand why asymmetries of power and information are in general bad things – have very particular reasons to know better than this.

In the long run, open systems and networks are always better for consumers. Because, whatever other flaws they may have, they have one overriding virtue – they don’t create an asymmetrical power relationship in which the consumer is ever more controlled by the network provider. Statists, who accept and even love asymmetrical power relationships as long as the right sort of people are doing the oppressing, have some excuse within their terms of reference for failing to grasp the nasty second, third, and nth-order consequences of closed-system lock-in. Libertarians have no such excuse.

...

[RodeoX]

I trust my government a million times more than I trust my ISP. That is the bottom line for me. 

[username18444]

. . .

Eric S. Raymond's (the progenitor of the term "open source" in the infamous essay "The Cathedral and the Bazaar") past writings about "net neutrality":

Net neutrality: what’s a libertarian to do?
Posted on 2008-11-13 by Eric Raymond   

. . .

Your typical network-neutrality activist is a good-government left-liberal who is instinctively hostile to market-based approaches. These people think, rather, that if they can somehow come up with the right regulatory formula, they can jawbone the government into making the telcos play nice. They’re ideologically incapable of questioning the assumption that bandwidth is a scarce “public good” that has to be regulated. They don’t get it that complicated regulations favor the incumbent who can afford to darken the sky with lawyers, and they really don’t get it about outright regulatory capture, a game at which the telcos are past masters.

I’ve spent endless hours trying to point out to these people that their assumptions are fundamentally wrong, and that the only way to break the telco monopoly is to break the scarcity assumptions it’s based on. That the telecoms regulatorium, far from being what holds the telcos in check, is actually their instrument of control. And that the only battle that actually matters is the one to carve out enough unlicensed spectrum so we can use technologies like ad-hoc networking with UWB to end-run the whole mess until it collapses under its own weight.

They don’t get it. They refuse to get it. I’ve been on a mailing list for something called the “Open Infrastructure Alliance” that consisted of three network engineers and a couple dozen “organizers”; the engineers (even the non-libertarian engineers) all patiently trying to explain why the political attack is a non-starter, and the organizers endlessly rehashing political strategies anyway. Because, well, that’s all they know how to do.

In short, the “network neutrality” crowd is mainly composed of well-meaning fools blinded by their own statism, and consequently serving mainly as useful idiots for the telcos’ program of ever-more labyrinthine and manipulable regulation. If I were a telco executive, I’d be on my knees every night thanking my god(s) for this “opposition”. Mistake #2 for any libertarian to avoid is backing these clowns.

. . ..

Why I won’t be signing the “Declaration of Internet Freedom” as it is
Posted on 2012-07-03 by Eric Raymond   

. . .

because libertarians – who understand why asymmetries of power and information are in general bad things – have very particular reasons to know better than this.

In the long run, open systems and networks are always better for consumers. Because, whatever other flaws they may have, they have one overriding virtue – they don’t create an asymmetrical power relationship in which the consumer is ever more controlled by the network provider. Statists, who accept and even love asymmetrical power relationships as long as the right sort of people are doing the oppressing, have some excuse within their terms of reference for failing to grasp the nasty second, third, and nth-order consequences of closed-system lock-in. Libertarians have no such excuse.

. . .

democracy
1  b :  a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

plutocracy
1  :  government by the wealthy

You write as if plutocracy were republican democracy.

You write as if lobbyists paid very well for influencing politicians' votes do not exist...

Comcast loves 0bama's plan. Does that mean the people voted for Comcast?

More control from government will not make things easier for creatives minds now, especially the ones with ideas but no money. This has been proven over and over again.

. . .

You write as if plutocracy were republican democracy.

As well,

When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects the users' essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes. This is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of “free speech,” not “free beer.”

These freedoms are vitally important. They are essential, not just for the individual users' sake, but for society as a whole because they promote social solidarity—that is, sharing and cooperation. They become even more important as our culture and life activities are increasingly digitized. In a world of digital sounds, images, and words, free software becomes increasingly essential for freedom in general.

Tens of millions of people around the world now use free software; the public schools of some regions of India and Spain now teach all students to use the free GNU/Linux operating system. Most of these users, however, have never heard of the ethical reasons for which we developed this system and built the free software community, because nowadays this system and community are more often spoken of as “open source”, attributing them to a different philosophy in which these freedoms are hardly mentioned.

. . .

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

I trust my government a million times more than I trust my ISP. That is the bottom line for me.  

The point you are missing is that in a free market, you don’t need to trust your ISP as competition will provide you with options.

What you don’t believe or fail to understand is that regulatory capture of your government is precisely what stifles competition. This is what the quote from Eric S. Raymond about “asymmetric power” means.

So yes the monopolistic telcos are on their knees praying that you will trust the government more than the free market, because the more power you give to the government to regulate, the stronger their monopolies will become.

This has been proven over and over to always be the outcome in all of recorded human history. The mathematical reason was explained by Mancur Olson’s book, The Logic of Collective Action.

I don’t expect you to be able to wrap your mind around this, because the reason socialists are socialists is because they don’t have the IQ to reason rationally at this high level.

And evolution is at work (over and over throughout recorded human history since Mesopotamia) to cull the population of the low IQ fools (via the war, eugenics, genocide, rationing, and totalitarian megadeath that results from peaking socialism when it runs out of other people's resources to steal, ahem redistribute) so the human race can get smarter and advance knowledge. So sorry for you, you haven’t been able to grasp how to survive.

As well,

When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects the users' essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes. This is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of “free speech,” not “free beer.”

These freedoms are vitally important. They are essential, not just for the individual users' sake, but for society as a whole because they promote social solidarity—that is, sharing and cooperation. They become even more important as our culture and life activities are increasingly digitized. In a world of digital sounds, images, and words, free software becomes increasingly essential for freedom in general.

Tens of millions of people around the world now use free software; the public schools of some regions of India and Spain now teach all students to use the free GNU/Linux operating system. Most of these users, however, have never heard of the ethical reasons for which we developed this system and built the free software community, because nowadays this system and community are more often spoken of as “open source”, attributing them to a different philosophy in which these freedoms are hardly mentioned.

. . .

Eric S Raymond worked hard to move to the term “open source” instead of Richard Stallman’s “free software”, because the latter is communism which is an abject failure.

The key difference between that Stallman and the FSF advocate the oxymoronic use of coercion (force) to maintain freedom (specifically the FSF GPL standard license forces some actions and limits other actions), thus it exhibits the loss of liberty that is the hallmark of Communism.

You can listen to Eric S. Raymond on this topic at the following video of a Java Users Group presentation where “viral contamination” means coercion in the GPL license:

http://jobtipsforgeeks.com/2012/05/17/lessons-from-a-jug-talk-with-eric-esr-raymond/

...Nobody can take those freedoms away from us anymore; we have the internet. We have the way to migrate our software development out of the reach of any particular jurisdiction that goes idiotic. We have the code; they can’t take the code away from us...

Jump to the 9:15 min point in the video.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

user18444, we no longer live in a resource scarcity paradigm (its only the peaking socialism, misallocation of resources with $227 trillion global debt that gives the illusion of resource scarcity) rather now in a knowledge paradigm. Wealth of knowledge is not uniformly distributed.

[username18444]

user[name]18444, we no longer live in a resource scarcity paradigm (its only the peaking socialism, misallocation of resources with $227 trillion global debt that gives the illusion of resource scarcity) rather now in a knowledge paradigm. Wealth of knowledge is not uniformly distributed.

user[name]18444, we no longer live in a resource scarcity paradigm (its only the peaking socialism, misallocation of resources with $227 trillion global debt that gives the illusion of resource scarcity) rather now in a knowledge paradigm. Wealth of knowledge is not uniformly distributed.

I agree with your assessment, but I think the reason you don't see strong state socialism in a strong democracy is that the state is too corrupted in such a situation. Those with power are seldom (if ever) in the same boat with the people they make the rules for, but with state socialism this disparity is even less tolerable since the the point of the system is to share the means of production much more equitably than ever happens.

I sort of agree. If you look at the Soviet Union for example, it was pretty far from what a socialist society is supposed to be. Workers had no control over means of production, or much of anything else really. It was more of a totalitarian state. But you have to remember there are several ways to achieve socialism, not just through state socialism. Libertarian socialism for example, specifically rejects the idea of using existing state structures to achieve socialism, tries to avoid large concentrations of power, and instead focuses on more direct forms of democracy.

Democracy IS a large concentration of power. Democracy is where the 51% or more rule over the 49% or less. At least they think that they do. What happens is that there is a small group that promotes a so-called democracy vote in such a way that benefits the small group over everyone else.

Formal - big "L" - Libertarianism might promote anything. But TRUE libertarianism - small "l" - promotes the simple common law of the people. This common law is, "Complete freedom as long as you harm no-one or damage his property." The only exception is that there may be completely voluntary associations formed, and inside those associations there may be some form of " association government" that is not entirely libertarian, but it is always voluntary.

Romanticism about "harm" and "property" will not surmount those ills most often attributed thereto: there is no harm without tyranny, and only a despot may retain property.

It seems that most people have a difficult time in finding the basic, bottom-line ideas surrounding much of anything. The libertarian idea which is, bottom-line, the golden rule, is only the basis. It is the goal that should be looked at in all kinds of operations, personal or governmental. In complex situations, there will be complex governmental operations. The libertarian goal should remain the thing strived for.

For these, then, your “golden rule” is my “tyranny,” and your “libertarian” is my “despot.”

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

You entirely missed the point that knowledge can only be owned by the creator of the knowledge. It can't be transferred nor financed. I explained that the prior link I provided. Now please stop repeating you same nonsense illogic about the tyranny of property ownership, because it is entirely inapplicable as I have shown.

[RodeoX]

I trust my government a million times more than I trust my ISP. That is the bottom line for me.  

The point you are missing is that in a free market, you don’t need to trust your ISP as competition will provide you with options.

What you don’t believe or fail to understand is that regulatory capture of your government is precisely what stifles competition. This is what the quote from Eric S. Raymond about “asymmetric power” means.

So yes the monopolistic telcos are on their knees praying that you will trust the government more than the free market, because the more power you give to the government to regulate, the stronger their monopolies will become.

This has been proven over and over to always be the outcome in all of recorded human history. The mathematical reason was explained by Mancur Olson’s book, The Logic of Collective Action.

I don’t expect you to be able to wrap your mind around this, because the reason socialists are socialists is because they don’t have the IQ to reason rationally at this high level.

And evolution is at work (over and over throughout recorded human history since Mesopotamia) to cull the population of the low IQ fools (via the war, eugenics, genocide, rationing, and totalitarian megadeath that results from peaking socialism when it runs out of other people's resources to steal, ahem redistribute) so the human race can get smarter and advance knowledge. So sorry for you, you haven’t been able to grasp how to survive.

As well,

When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects the users' essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes. This is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of “free speech,” not “free beer.”

These freedoms are vitally important. They are essential, not just for the individual users' sake, but for society as a whole because they promote social solidarity—that is, sharing and cooperation. They become even more important as our culture and life activities are increasingly digitized. In a world of digital sounds, images, and words, free software becomes increasingly essential for freedom in general.

Tens of millions of people around the world now use free software; the public schools of some regions of India and Spain now teach all students to use the free GNU/Linux operating system. Most of these users, however, have never heard of the ethical reasons for which we developed this system and built the free software community, because nowadays this system and community are more often spoken of as “open source”, attributing them to a different philosophy in which these freedoms are hardly mentioned.

. . .

Eric S Raymond worked hard to move to the term “open source” instead of Richard Stallman’s “free software”, because the latter is communism which is an abject failure.

The key difference between that Stallman and the FSF advocate the oxymoronic use of coercion (force) to maintain freedom (specifically the FSF GPL standard license forces some actions and limits other actions), thus it exhibits the loss of liberty that is the hallmark of Communism.

You can listen to Eric S. Raymond on this topic at the following video of a Java Users Group presentation where “viral contamination” means coercion in the GPL license:

http://jobtipsforgeeks.com/2012/05/17/lessons-from-a-jug-talk-with-eric-esr-raymond/

...Nobody can take those freedoms away from us anymore; we have the internet. We have the way to migrate our software development out of the reach of any particular jurisdiction that goes idiotic. We have the code; they can’t take the code away from us...

Jump to the 9:15 min point in the video.

I do NOT trust my ISP or that the capitalist system we have in America will do anything except sell me out. What your saying about the free market sounds good, but communism also sounds good on paper. I have never in my life seen so called "competition" among media providers lead to anything but higher prices and shitty service.  That magic of the market stuff is BS unless you have a true free market. In which case you would need to have net-neutrality.

[jaysabi]

I do NOT trust my ISP or that the capitalist system we have in America will do anything except sell me out. What your saying about the free market sounds good, but communism also sounds good on paper. I have never in my life seen so called "competition" among media providers lead to anything but higher prices and shitty service.  That magic of the market stuff is BS unless you have a true free market. In which case you would need to have net-neutrality.

There isn't free competition in the media market, as you pointed out. But don't worry, as soon as Net Neutrality is defeated, the market will suddenly be FREE because it's the only thing stopping the market from being perfect! /s Being such a rage-saddled twit and ignoring the fact that there are technical limitations to competition in this case makes it easy to shout like a petulant child about how stupid everyone else is (like some, well, one poster in this thread). Unfortunately, although I block idiots, when people quote them, their dumb fuck ideas squeak through the block. Don't engage intellectually inferior posters who scream their ideas in rage when people disagree. Just let their rage-fueled posts die the undignified deaths they deserve.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

Kimosabe, get a clue of how the world really works.

The internet (i.e. the free market which is why you have it today) is the only free press remaining in the USA.

You are an young idealistic liberal idiot with a functioning vocabulary and extremely discombobulated illogic (you put the cart before the horse w.r.t. internet and free media) because your political religion does not allow you to understand the logic of the asymmetric power of political capture and why collectives always fail in a heap of vested interests corruption. The ONLY way to avoid that is do not form collectives and enable the free market to prosper.

Hey what happened to your threat to put me on ignore?  

[My Name Was Taken]

Kimosabe, get a clue of how the world really works.

The internet (i.e. the free market which is why you have it today) is the only free press remaining in the USA.

You are an young idealistic liberal idiot with a functioning vocabulary and extremely discombobulated illogic (you put the cart before the horse w.r.t. internet and free media) because your political religion does not allow you to understand the logic of the asymmetric power of political capture and why collectives always fail in a heap of vested interests corruption. The ONLY way to avoid that is do not form collectives and enable the free market to prosper.

Hey what happened to your threat to put me on ignore?  

Haha, idiot. He didn't respond to you. Hey, are you a programmer by chance? I don't think you mention it enough in your posts. Rather than let your "superior" logic skills do the talking for you, you have to keep pointing out to people you're a programmer to give your arguments artificial gravity. If you were really so damn smart, you wouldn't have to tell people how smart you are. You're really just rather sad.

[jaysabi]

Kimosabe, get a clue of how the world really works.

The internet (i.e. the free market which is why you have it today) is the only free press remaining in the USA.

You are an young idealistic liberal idiot with a functioning vocabulary and extremely discombobulated illogic (you put the cart before the horse w.r.t. internet and free media) because your political religion does not allow you to understand the logic of the asymmetric power of political capture and why collectives always fail in a heap of vested interests corruption. The ONLY way to avoid that is do not form collectives and enable the free market to prosper.

Hey what happened to your threat to put me on ignore?  

Haha, idiot. He didn't respond to you. Hey, are you a programmer by chance? I don't think you mention it enough in your posts. Rather than let your "superior" logic skills do the talking for you, you have to keep pointing out to people you're a programmer to give your arguments artificial gravity. If you were really so damn smart, you wouldn't have to tell people how smart you are. You're really just rather sad.

Ffs man, quit quoting him. If you're not going to do it because you're above such stupid arguments about arguments, then stop it so I don't have to see his pointless posts. If you have nothing constructive to say, why say anything?

[username18444]

Kimosabe, get a clue of how the world really works.

The internet (i.e. the free market which is why you have it today) is the only free press remaining in the USA.

You are an young idealistic liberal idiot with a functioning vocabulary and extremely discombobulated illogic (you put the cart before the horse w.r.t. internet and free media) because your political religion does not allow you to understand the logic of the asymmetric power of political capture and why collectives always fail in a heap of vested interests corruption. The ONLY way to avoid that is do not form collectives and enable the free market to prosper.

Hey what happened to your threat to put me on ignore?  

ANARCHIST COMMUNISM: ITS BASIS AND PRINCIPLES


I

     Anarchism, the no-government system of socialism, has a double origin. It is an outgrowth of the two great movements of thought in the economic and the political fields which characterize the nineteenth century, and especially its second part. In common with all socialists, the anarchists hold that the private ownership of land, capital, and machinery has had its time; that it is condemned to disappear; and that all requisites for production must, and will, become the common property of society, and be managed in common by the producers of wealth. And in common with the most advanced representatives of political radicalism, they maintain that the ideal of the political organization of society is a condition of things where the functions of government are reduced to a minimum, and the individual recovers his full liberty of initiative and action for satisfying, by means of free groups and federations--freely constituted--all the infinitely varied needs of the human being.

     As regards socialism, most of the anarchists arrive at its ultimate conclusion, that is, at a complete negation of the wage-system and at communism. And with reference to political organization, by giving a further development to the above-mentioned part of the radical program, they arrive at the conclusion that the ultimate aim of society is the reduction of the functions of government to nil--that is, to a society without government, to anarchy. The anarchists maintain, moreover, that such being the ideal of social and political organization, they must not remit it to future centuries. but that only those changes in our social organization which are in accordance with the above double ideal, and constitute an approach to it, will have a chance of life and be beneficial for the commonwealth.

. . .

[BitMos]

I hope that one day some one will have to courage to say to B.O. : speak to my ass, it's very interesting.