Nationalize the internet

[Pelle Svanslös]

Last Tuesday, the Federal Communications Commission, led by deregulation
zealot Ajit Pai, presented a plan to dismantle net neutrality in
America. Not only must we fight to prevent that from happening, we must
ensure it can never happen again.

Net neutrality is the principle that all internet data delivered to
customers must be treated equally.

While telecom companies insist that government regulation hinders their
business, opponents of ending net neutrality view these rules as a
bulwark against an internet that would be built solely for the profit of
large corporations at the expense of its users.

In the healthcare battle, we have seen how rallying people behind a
vision of the future can be more effective than simply fighting to
maintain the status quo. While lawmakers have been slow to come around,
the majority of Democratic voters now support single-payer healthcare.
“Medicare for all” provides a vision for a better future. This makes it
easier for healthcare activists to knock on doors and win converts. It
gives people something to fight for rather than simply stand against.

The same could be true for net neutrality. Instead of just standing
against Pai’s proposals, let’s stand for nationalizing the internet.

Let’s nationalize the internet.

https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/nationalize-internet-net-neutrality/

[kaennorsing]

Op zondag 26 november 2017 12:49:55 UTC+1 schreef Pelle Svanslös:

Let's not. Net neutrality is a scam, just like every government program/regulation. They're all given fancy names of course, to convince the masses they're for their best interest while destroying free entrance and competition in order to benefit the big special interests who can lobby and afford the costs of conforming to these regulations. At the expense of the consumer, as always. So you've been fooled... once again.

[Pelle Svanslös]

Not sure if you know what NN means. Nixing NN is exactly what is needed
to destroy free entrance and squash competition. Here's a tutorial:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=16&v=92vuuZt7wak

Then gofccyourself.com if it still works.

[Carey]

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/11/trumps-fcc-goes-war-net-neutrality.html

[Whisper]

Well said. Overall I think people aren't as stupid as they used to be,
thanks largely to the internet.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[The Iceberg]

Yeah it just means you pay more for a better service, won't make any difference to the net, the geeks were all up in arms when the net went public.

[Pelle Svanslös]

Not really. The "at the expense of the consumer" part should be
reversed. Net neutrality is what keeps the consumer costs down. Nixing
NN would add another mouth to feed in between.

Iceberg, in his followup to your post, got it.

> Overall I think people aren't as stupid as they used to be,
> thanks largely to the internet.

Stupidity is only part of it. If you're a contrarian, you'll step on
poop time and time again just because it's what most don't do.

--
“Donald Trump is the weak man’s vision of a strong man.”
-- Charles Cooke

[kaennorsing]

Op maandag 27 november 2017 00:04:35 UTC+1 schreef Pelle Svanslös:

https://reason.com/blog/2017/11/26/why-net-neutrality-was-mistaken-from-the

[kaennorsing]

Op maandag 27 november 2017 00:04:35 UTC+1 schreef Pelle Svanslös:

Competition has been squashed when NN began in 2005. There was absolutely no problem before that.

[kaennorsing]

Op maandag 27 november 2017 09:14:26 UTC+1 schreef Whisper:

Leftists always want to protect us from the evils of free choice and 'market failure' so force government schemes upon us that can't fail - regardless of how badly it stifles competition, what it really costs or how much innovation it truly prevents. They sure need the almighty government to protect us from this evil freedom, preferably run by other leftists as they always have our best interests at heart, operating completely selflessly - although they can't seem to think objectively or look at evidence independently.

[The Iceberg]

Thanks Kaen, good article, good to be able to understand it better!

[Pelle Svanslös]

Not much here.

The "decline in investment" claim? Debunked by John Oliver already.
Elsewhere as well.

" ... net neutrality rules gave the federal government the right to
punish business practices ..." claim?

Bollocks of course. What it really means is that an ISP guy is saying "
... net neutrality rules gave the federal government the right to punish
*my* business practices ..."

Indeed, and by design. To keep enterprise in general free, not just the
ISP enterprise. Content providers, among others, see things differently.

As should consumers. The ISPs already get their profits from the pipes
and other services. Making them gatekeepers of content means you'll be
spending on crap you don't want to spend on. Not unlike cable TV.

It's communism but on ISP terms.

[Pelle Svanslös]

Leftists like Google, Apple, Microsoft, ...

> what it really
> costs or how much innovation it truly prevents. They sure need the
> almighty government to protect us from this evil freedom, preferably
> run by other leftists as they always have our best interests at
> heart, operating completely selflessly - although they can't seem to
> think objectively or look at evidence independently.

Commies see further. The regulation is there to make sure the ISPs
aren't regulating free enterprise.

[Carey]

[applause]

[The Iceberg]

Since when have commies agreed with free enterprise. You can bet when Obama brought this in it was prob about getting someone rich, prob lawyer friends.

Net neutrality is finished! Time for a new era!

[Carey]

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 8:53:11 AM UTC-8, The Iceberg wrote:
> Since when have commies agreed with free enterprise. You can bet when Obama brought this in it was prob about getting someone rich, prob lawyer friends.
>
> Net neutrality is finished! Time for a new era!

If there is a power differential between buyer and seller, there is no 'free market'.

[The Iceberg]

Pelle are you contrarian cos you supported Hillary and Remoan?

[TT]

It began in 2015, and it was designed to combat problems.

[kaennorsing]

Op maandag 27 november 2017 15:56:30 UTC+1 schreef Pelle Svanslös:

> Leftists like Google, Apple, Microsoft, ...

Big business turns to government for protection of potential new innovators... Wow, what else is new? See banking, medicine and everything else the state gets its hands on. Very tough to get started for any new business after all the 'consumer protection' by government. Very bad for the consumer, needless to say.

> > what it really
> > costs or how much innovation it truly prevents. They sure need the
> > almighty government to protect us from this evil freedom, preferably
> > run by other leftists as they always have our best interests at
> > heart, operating completely selflessly - although they can't seem to
> > think objectively or look at evidence independently.
>
> Commies see further. The regulation is there to make sure the ISPs
> aren't regulating free enterprise.

If there is a market failure all the government can do is make it worse, before the market comes up with better solutions. It always does, without exception.

[jdeluise]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 10:57:24 -0800, kaennorsing wrote:

> Big business turns to government for protection of potential new
> innovators

Which innovators are you talking about? The ones who will be shut down
by the monopolies your textbooks fail to address (because they no basis
in reality)?

[TT]

Government regulation is not always a bad thing.

Trump administration wants to, for example, get rid of environmental
regulations, so that big corporations can rape the land and pollute the
environment without having to care about rules...

I understand Net Neutrality is actually protecting free internet... it
provides rules AGAINST REGULATING internet by big corporations.

The Indian guy who wants to get rid of net neutrality used to be a
lawyer for Verizon. Sounds no different from other Trump nominees who
want to get rid of all restrictions (& taxes) for big corporations.

[TT]

kaennorsing kirjoitti 27.11.2017 klo 20:57:
> Big business turns to government for protection of potential new innovators...

Well... Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is currently a hot
topic. Trump wants to get rid of it, to get rid of consumer protection...

[kaennorsing]

Op maandag 27 november 2017 20:07:32 UTC+1 schreef jdeluise:

The innovation, investments and competition that didn't happen because of government... I thought that was pretty obvious?

[kaennorsing]

Op maandag 27 november 2017 20:19:50 UTC+1 schreef TT:

Government agencies can't protect consumers, only screw them over.

Unhappy consumers can always file charges, which is quite popular in the states I believe. Or just don't buy the stuff. They can even write a bad review (thanks to the free internet). Works well to keep those nasty businesses in check. Scares the hell out of them.

[TT]

That's bs. Taking corporations to court might bankrupt consumer and you
must be joking on internet reviews.

Of course consumer protection is a good thing... otherwise corporations
can sell any crap and screw you over and not be responsible. You bought
our crap? Tough luck buddy...

[kaennorsing]

Op maandag 27 november 2017 21:32:03 UTC+1 schreef TT:

Don't be naive. Those agencies only prevent stuff from happening and rise up costs of doing business, which always hurt the little ones. Not the big corporations that lobby to make the rules favor them. They (the agencies) do nothing when you buy a rotten fish though. That's just tough luck. Good business though will allow returns, refunds etc. They do it to preserve their image. As a consumer you should be responsible where, how and what you buy from who. Don't look to daddy government to come save you if you make a bad choice. Live and learn.

[TT]

So your argument is that since making good products is more expensive
corporations should be allowed to cheat the consumer. Brilliant logic.

As for CFBP not doing anything as you claim...

"has been responsible for returning roughly $11.8 billion to some 29
million consumers since its inception in 2011, according to data from
the bureau. That’s an average of $407 returned to each affected
consumer, affecting roughly 9% of the U.S. population (assuming no
single consumer was a victim in more than one case)."

http://fortune.com/2017/01/27/donald-trump-cfpb-consumer-protection-financial-bureau-elizabeth-warren/

Read the article.

[Carey]

It looks like those on the Right are unhappy about the elimination
of Net Neutrality:

https://theintercept.com/2017/11/27/net-neutrality-trump-breitbart-julian-assange-kim-dotcom/

[The Iceberg]

If Assange and Brietbart are pro-net-neutrality
then will go back to supporting it as well. Good arguments from kaen though, first have seen from the other side. Doubt will make much difference though.

[kaennorsing]

Op dinsdag 28 november 2017 00:02:28 UTC+1 schreef TT:

> kaennorsing kirjoitti 27.11.2017 klo 23:03:
> > Op maandag 27 november 2017 21:32:03 UTC+1 schreef TT:
> >> kaennorsing kirjoitti 27.11.2017 klo 22:14:
> >>> Op maandag 27 november 2017 20:19:50 UTC+1 schreef TT:
> >>>> kaennorsing kirjoitti 27.11.2017 klo 20:57:
> >>>>> Big business turns to government for protection of potential new innovators...
> >>>>
> >>>> Well... Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is currently a hot
> >>>> topic. Trump wants to get rid of it, to get rid of consumer protection...
> >>>
> >>> Government agencies can't protect consumers, only screw them over.
> >>>
> >>> Unhappy consumers can always file charges, which is quite popular in the states I believe. Or just don't buy the stuff. They can even write a bad review (thanks to the free internet). Works well to keep those nasty businesses in check. Scares the hell out of them.
> >>>
> >>
> >> That's bs. Taking corporations to court might bankrupt consumer and you
> >> must be joking on internet reviews.
> >>
> >> Of course consumer protection is a good thing... otherwise corporations
> >> can sell any crap and screw you over and not be responsible. You bought
> >> our crap? Tough luck buddy...
> >
> > Don't be naive. Those agencies only prevent stuff from happening and rise up costs of doing business, which always hurt the little ones. Not the big corporations that lobby to make the rules favor them. They (the agencies) do nothing when you buy a rotten fish though. That's just tough luck. Good business though will allow returns, refunds etc. They do it to preserve their image. As a consumer you should be responsible where, how and what you buy from who. Don't look to daddy government to come save you if you make a bad choice. Live and learn.
> >
>
> So your argument is that since making good products is more expensive
> corporations should be allowed to cheat the consumer. Brilliant logic.

Dumb response. Cheating consumers is already illegal. No agency required for that.

> As for CFBP not doing anything as you claim...
>
> "has been responsible for returning roughly $11.8 billion to some 29
> million consumers since its inception in 2011, according to data from
> the bureau. That’s an average of $407 returned to each affected
> consumer, affecting roughly 9% of the U.S. population (assuming no
> single consumer was a victim in more than one case)."

Most companies already have return and refund policies. Does the report say how much companies refund themselves, without the help of this agency? Or could they be selling their own shit here? I would imagine it's a whole lot more. Then there's the moral hazard of having this watchdog. Consumers buy more irresponsibly, since they have this agency to fall back on. Typical case of repositioning the risk to where it leads to worse/riskier behavior all around, which is a burden on society.

> http://fortune.com/2017/01/27/donald-trump-cfpb-consumer-protection-financial-bureau-elizabeth-warren/
>
> Read the article.

Typical partisan outlet, devoid of any balance. Only summing up what great stuff the agency supposedly did. Not looking further for the economic consequences or honestly assessing its negatives. No possible piece of criticism for the agency. Horrible journalism.

[Carey]

Net Neutrality is just the beginning:

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/11/net-neutrality-fcc-ajit-pai-monopoly

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 28/11/2017 16.02, The Iceberg wrote:
> If Assange and Brietbart are pro-net-neutrality then will go back to
> supporting it as well.

Lolol. Trump is against it. Or doesn't know what it is:

"Obama’s attack on the internet is another top down power grab. Net
neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target conservative media."

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 28/11/2017 17.43, Carey wrote:
> Net Neutrality is just the beginning:
>
> https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/11/net-neutrality-fcc-ajit-pai-monopoly
>

"If we were to lose net neutrality protections, which by all appearances
we will, that would suddenly create all kinds of vulnerabilities for
independent media."

Yes. And Trump sees it that way, tweeting:

[The Iceberg]

Who cares it won't make any difference either way. You only claim to be bothered cos Trump is mentioned in relation to it.

[The Iceberg]

Just the beginning of what? Oh are we all going to be oppressed by the government oh please still going to be able to look at Facebook that's all that matters.

[The Iceberg]

Good!

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 28/11/2017 17.58, The Iceberg wrote:
> Good!
>

When you hear the geese stepping, you'll be blaming commies for it!

[jdeluise]

Sounds like a non-sequitor. You didn't address the Achilles heel of
unbridled and unregulated capitalism.... monopoly, and all the bad that
comes from it. Now I'm not for big government or extreme socialism
either, but some balance needs to be achieved... Naked capitalism is not
the answer you think it is.

[TT]

kaennorsing kirjoitti 28.11.2017 klo 17:32:
> Op dinsdag 28 november 2017 00:02:28 UTC+1 schreef TT:
>> kaennorsing kirjoitti 27.11.2017 klo 23:03:
>>> Op maandag 27 november 2017 21:32:03 UTC+1 schreef TT:
>>>> kaennorsing kirjoitti 27.11.2017 klo 22:14:
>>>>> Op maandag 27 november 2017 20:19:50 UTC+1 schreef TT:
>>>>>> kaennorsing kirjoitti 27.11.2017 klo 20:57:
>>>>>>> Big business turns to government for protection of potential new innovators...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well... Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is currently a hot
>>>>>> topic. Trump wants to get rid of it, to get rid of consumer protection...
>>>>>
>>>>> Government agencies can't protect consumers, only screw them over.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unhappy consumers can always file charges, which is quite popular in the states I believe. Or just don't buy the stuff. They can even write a bad review (thanks to the free internet). Works well to keep those nasty businesses in check. Scares the hell out of them.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's bs. Taking corporations to court might bankrupt consumer and you
>>>> must be joking on internet reviews.
>>>>
>>>> Of course consumer protection is a good thing... otherwise corporations
>>>> can sell any crap and screw you over and not be responsible. You bought
>>>> our crap? Tough luck buddy...
>>>
>>> Don't be naive. Those agencies only prevent stuff from happening and rise up costs of doing business, which always hurt the little ones. Not the big corporations that lobby to make the rules favor them. They (the agencies) do nothing when you buy a rotten fish though. That's just tough luck. Good business though will allow returns, refunds etc. They do it to preserve their image. As a consumer you should be responsible where, how and what you buy from who. Don't look to daddy government to come save you if you make a bad choice. Live and learn.
>>>
>>
>> So your argument is that since making good products is more expensive
>> corporations should be allowed to cheat the consumer. Brilliant logic.
>
> Dumb response. Cheating consumers is already illegal. No agency required for that.
>

Of course there's a need for such agency... I already pointed out that
going to court is expensive and time consuming... many people don't have
resources or will to do that.

>> As for CFBP not doing anything as you claim...
>>
>> "has been responsible for returning roughly $11.8 billion to some 29
>> million consumers since its inception in 2011, according to data from
>> the bureau. That’s an average of $407 returned to each affected
>> consumer, affecting roughly 9% of the U.S. population (assuming no
>> single consumer was a victim in more than one case)."
>
> Most companies already have return and refund policies. Does the report say how much companies refund themselves, without the help of this agency? Or could they be selling their own shit here? I would imagine it's a whole lot more. Then there's the moral hazard of having this watchdog. Consumers buy more irresponsibly, since they have this agency to fall back on. Typical case of repositioning the risk to where it leads to worse/riskier behavior all around, which is a burden on society.
>

You don't obviously understand what the agency does, and what
'financial' stands for.

It's not about vacuum cleaners you damn moron.

"The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is an agency of the
United States government responsible for consumer protection in the
financial sector. CFPB jurisdiction includes banks, credit unions,
securities firms, payday lenders, mortgage-servicing operations,
foreclosure relief services, debt collectors and other financial
companies operating in the United States.

The CFPB's creation was authorized by the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform
and Consumer Protection Act, whose passage in 2010 was a legislative
response to the financial crisis of 2007–08 and the subsequent Great
Recession"

>> http://fortune.com/2017/01/27/donald-trump-cfpb-consumer-protection-financial-bureau-elizabeth-warren/
>>
>> Read the article.
>
> Typical partisan outlet, devoid of any balance. Only summing up what great stuff the agency supposedly did. Not looking further for the economic consequences or honestly assessing its negatives. No possible piece of criticism for the agency. Horrible journalism.
>

Whatever outlet I found googling doesn't change the fact that the agency
returned around 12 billion to consumers etc. So your claim that this
agency is useless was refuted.

[kaennorsing]

Op dinsdag 28 november 2017 17:17:29 UTC+1 schreef jdeluise:

Monopolies are almost always the creation of government policies, throwing up barriers to entrance like licensing, administrative or financial requirements to prevent competitors from stepping in/up. Even copyright laws provide too much protection. However, crucially, monopolies are not necessarily bad and monopolies CAN exist in a perfect free market... for a while. After a while though, competition almost always catches up (in a perfect free market) but if it doesn't then the monopoly is not such a bad thing, given it can provide services or products in a way - or for a price - that no other competitor can match.

Think of how Federer is a sort of monopolist (in terms of grace and popularity if not pure class and skill). Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily, since he's had no protection from the governing bodies and simply serves his audiences better than anyone else can. Will it last forever though. Hell no.

The problem with monopoly is when it's a RESULT of government protectionist policies (such as through barriers to entry or pure fraudulent practices) since then the consumers/public is robbed of a better deal that WOULD HAVE definitely existed, if not for the government policies/actions.

[*skriptis]

kaennorsing <ljub...@hotmail.com> Wrote in message:

Aren't you forgetting something?
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[kaennorsing]

Op dinsdag 28 november 2017 20:41:34 UTC+1 schreef TT:

Ever heard of moral hazard? It's quite a thing, especially in the financial market. It's the thing that created the financial disaster and crisis that followed. Thanks to government polices, precisely like the Dodd-Frank bill. In fact, that exact bill was a big part of the entire disaster. A major culprit.

> >> http://fortune.com/2017/01/27/donald-trump-cfpb-consumer-protection-financial-bureau-elizabeth-warren/
> >>
> >> Read the article.
> >
> > Typical partisan outlet, devoid of any balance. Only summing up what great stuff the agency supposedly did. Not looking further for the economic consequences or honestly assessing its negatives. No possible piece of criticism for the agency. Horrible journalism.
> >
>
> Whatever outlet I found googling doesn't change the fact that the agency
> returned around 12 billion to consumers etc. So your claim that this
> agency is useless was refuted.

It's not useless. It's destructive. Plus (part of) the 12 billion may have been recovered without the agency for far less overhead and without obstructing and distro the market. Plus some of the 12 billion may have been unjustly refunded. I'm sure they won't acknowledge that though if it was the case now, would they? Also, they didn't provide numbers of how much is recovered without the intervention, through the businesses themselves.

[kaennorsing]

Op dinsdag 28 november 2017 23:47:59 UTC+1 schreef *skriptis:

You mean Rafa at the FO?

[*skriptis]

No, but the fact that when/if monopolies (which are natural) are
left unprotected in a free system and then eventually collapse,
sometimes abruptly, the entire structure is ruined and even
though in theory it's all part of the normal process, and
eventually it will all sort itself out, it still causes huge harm
to actual people and their actual lives at that particular time.
A suffering that is insurmountable.

Humans are not lab rats. Capitalism exists because of us and for
us, not the vice versa. We don't exist for it, and we definitely
don't exist to prove how the laissez faire capitalism is perfect
in theory.

It actually is, but that's not the point.

So is the e.g. survival of the fittest perfect as an evolutionary
theory, but we still treat sick children, e.g. we disobey it.


That is the whole point of being a human. Determining when and in
what way to bypass and oppose natural, mathematical and physical
laws to benefit human civilisation.


People who truly believe in invisible hand and advocate it for
real, are not serious or are potentially dangerous as I think
most of them are psychopaths?

Otoh, I get those who are sick of excessive regulations and push
in the opposite direction, knowing the goal is unrealistic,
unachievable and would be bad in practice if ever achieved, but
being pragmatic and believing the sweat spot of sustainable life
is closer to that side, they pretend to be more extreme free
market capitalists that they really are in order to push the
Overton window.

It's ok then.

[TT]

kaennorsing kirjoitti 29.11.2017 klo 0:52:
> precisely like the Dodd-Frank bill. In fact, that exact bill was a big part of the entire disaster. A major culprit.

You seem rather ill-informed on this topic...

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 29/11/2017 0.52, kaennorsing wrote:
>
> Ever heard of moral hazard? It's quite a thing, especially in the
> financial market.

You mean the "we're too big to fail and will make the suckers pay for
our excessive risk taking" moral hazard?

This is one of the things Dodd-Frank targets.

> It's the thing that created the financial disaster
> and crisis that followed. Thanks to government polices, precisely
> like the Dodd-Frank bill. In fact, that exact bill was a big part of
> the entire disaster. A major culprit.

You sound confused. Dodd-Frank was signed in 2010 after WS had blown up.
Regulation/supervision of banks was tightened in Europe as well after 2008.

[Carey]

NYRB- Big Money Rules:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/12/07/big-money-rules/

[kaennorsing]

Op woensdag 29 november 2017 00:22:53 UTC+1 schreef *skriptis:

Granted, there is no perfect system. But the system with a government limited to protecting the rights of the ultimate minority (the individual) through a judicial system and diplomacy is ideal. The rest is taken care of by people interacting freely, voluntarily with each other - unhindered by the coercive force of a government or other organized (criminal) entity to suppress the individual.

The idea of libertarianism (or classic liberalism) is to respect other people's freedom as long as they don't violate others in their freedom. Those are the people that will advocate for the free market (capitalist) system. To think those are psychopaths is so wrong it's silly. Could there be psychos among them? Sure, they run around everywhere but I'm inclined to think there are less psychos among libertarians, given how much they respect the individual; much more so than any other group, given they reject the idea of controlling other people. That is the opposite of what you would expect from a psychopath.

[kaennorsing]

Op woensdag 29 november 2017 11:52:06 UTC+1 schreef Pelle Svanslös:

Alright, so it was another bill out of the Barney Frank hat that caused the crisis (in part). Forgot the name and can't be bothered to look it up.

[*skriptis]

I joke occasionally. I hope you got my point, I'm saying true
libertarians would as a rule oppose to bailouts on the is
ideological basis, always, disregarding potential human
suffering. That would be psychopathic wouldn't it?

[kaennorsing]

Op donderdag 30 november 2017 00:19:55 UTC+1 schreef *skriptis:

Not at all, as libertarians believe the suffering would be far less without the bailouts.

[*skriptis]

That's exactly what I'm saying. :)
But ok.

[reilloc]

You're very confused and show it. You want government but don't want
governing. You advocate dispute resolution but disdain the well-tested
and reliable standards that courts need to use. You characterize the
banding together of people for mutual aid, protection and orderliness as
criminal. You sling about words like "freedom" and "psychopath,"
pretending they're sufficiently universal in definition to adopt for the
formal ordering of human affairs.

You would be better served and less embarrassed by sticking to something
you might know better, "chicks' boobs," but don't let my remarking
hinder your juvenile display of how you quaintly view political science.

LNC

[reilloc]

Shitpiss, you have neither the intellectual horsepower nor the English
ability to talk about anything beyond the price of your next shot of
cheap vodka--specifically, who's going to buy it for you.

Putin's watching and times are getting tighter in the trolling industry.

LNC

[reilloc]

You're known by the company you keep. Here, you're seeming to engage the
drunken Croat, shitpiss, in repeated off-topic typing of incoherent
text. Would that the Unseen Hand sort you both out.

LNC

[*skriptis]

reilloc <rei...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

You really are a bitter boomer.

Do you realize how big the world is?
Russia is e.g. 1.95% of the world in terms of population. So much
else is happening out there.

How can someone be so full of hatred and obsessed with less than
2% of the world is beyond explanation. And so much obsessed that
he links everyone else he disagrees with that entity?

It's pathological.

You're not just a bigot, but an outdated one. That's what's truly sad.


I bet you're still thinking whether to buy VCR?

[kaennorsing]

Op donderdag 30 november 2017 01:28:58 UTC+1 schreef reilloc:

You misunderstand and grossly mischaracterize everything I suggest since I don't advocate abolishing the justice system or diplomatic purpose of government to establish a peaceful and orderly society. To say I "characterize the banding together of people for mutual aid, protection and orderliness as criminal" is opposite of my argument as I believe people SHOULD be free to organize and work together as they please without some governing body telling them how or under what conditions they may or may not do something. When they are hindered in that purpose THAT is what's criminal. The fact that you can't seem to (want to) distinguish between the concepts of voluntary interaction and total anarchy is your loss... and a shame.

[The Iceberg]

Reilloc voted for Hillary lol and always has an always will vote Demorat, like is rich parents, he loves big government, lots of free money for him! Lol

[The Iceberg]

They should've let the banks and bankers totally
Crash, the market would've sorted itself out and it would've been fun flipping max a pound in the street!

[The Iceberg]

Agree with Pelle on this one, the too big to fail is a joke, the guy who does the fries here couldn't have done any worse than those dumb incompetent corrupt bankers did in 2007.

[reilloc]

If I had to guess I'd say you'd had a couple of run-ins with the
government and they didn't go the way you wanted. That's really common
and sometimes it's a shame because hard feelings result over things that
ought to have been handled as business matters but couldn't be because
on the one hand (your side) the government action seemed personally
directed at you and on the other, government is often ill-equipped to
deal with people as individuals.

If I had to guess I'd also say that just like all of us you don't have
as much time as you'd like. Here, you typed out a reply that you'd put
in your mind but got a couple of important things wrong. I didn't say
you favored abolishing courts; I said you wanted wanted them but don't
want the jurisprudence they've developed and (somewhat) refined over the
centuries. I didn't mischaracterize your statement about organized
society; you call it a "...coercive force of a government or other

organized (criminal) entity to suppress the individual."

I don't think that these things are mere misunderstandings between you
and me. I mean no offense when I say that you're blithely idealistic and
wrongheaded to place your faith in some imagined spirit of cooperation
in the furtherance of maximum individual liberty. After all, the
arguments you muster in favor of structuring the social landscape in
that manner almost all use as examples of how bad things are the way
things are now, with formal government in place.

If you can't trust people to run things right when there at least some
written rules in place how are you going to trust them to abide by some
"honor system?" To expect some "unseen hand" to sort it out is resigning
to wholesale bloodshed, sooner or later.

LNC

[kaennorsing]

Op donderdag 30 november 2017 23:16:09 UTC+1 schreef reilloc:

Again, I'm not against the rule of law to put my faith in some 'honor system', as you put it. There are libertarians who wish to abolish any form of government but that's asking for trouble imo. I believe in the rule of law and think (enough) people should be kept in check through it (or there will be anarchy followed by tyranny). Instead, where I'm an idealist, is where I want to separate the government from the economy as far as possible. The invisible hand is the idea in which people depending on each other's service and wealth creation through voluntarism in society leads to most responsible and prudent behavior WITHIN a system of law... There is a difference between 'the law' and 'intervention' by government, which is where the rubber meets the road.

[reilloc]

This reminds me of the old Guess Who song, "Share the Land."

Maybe I'll be there to take your hand,
Maybe I'll be there to share the land,
That they'll be givin' away,
When we all live together.

Who are "they" and where do they get off "giving away" something that's
not theirs to somebody who already owns it? After they give it to you is
it yours or are you sharing?

Law is only intervehtion if you break the agreed rules.

LNC

[The Iceberg]

This is reilloc, couple of years ago he actually posted saying he thought journalists were amongst he most honest people he knew Hahahahahah! Lol