Net Neutrality and Why You Should Care

page: 3
29
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by MY2Commoncentsworth
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


Originally posted by NoHierarchy
When ISPs can say "Let's give this site more bandwidth because of a, b, and c..." then logically a, b, and c could mean profit, friendliness to the company, and/or a favored political stance. This is essentially like turning the internet into the way modern television functions- where it's NOT free, it's NOT democratic, and a handful of networks with a handful of boss-men get to more/less CONTROL WHAT WE WATCH/HEAR. If this happens to the internet... it'll be terrible, no matter the extent of it.



The Left already controls the Lions Share of the MSM. It is only when Conservative talk radio and Fox News appeared on the radar that Liberals started conspiring among themselves to hatch a scheme in order to silence these outposts of Conservative Ideology. Hence the term "Fairness Doctrine".......LOL.
......



The distinctions between "Left" and "Right" are largely illusion. ...Both represent the interests of multinational corporations, NOT the country.

...And while we're on it, can you explain the FCC's recent ruling?

M2Z's Free, Wireless Nationwide Broadband Plan Killed: Thank the FCC

Despite a seemingly stout business plan, and all the financial, social, and educational benefits it would bring, the FCC's just turned down M2Z's application for a coast-to-coast free wireless broadband system.



...The FCC is known to have heard complaints about M2Z's plan from existing wireless carriers. Though M2Z's network would've operated at under 1 mbs peak speeds--meaning it was very slow by today's standards, and probably snail-like by tomorrow's--its free pricing may well have tempted many folks away from spending cash with an established ISP.







posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


Originally posted by sosicrow

...And while we're on it, can you explain the FCC's recent ruling?

M2Z's Free, Wireless Nationwide Broadband Plan Killed: Thank the FCC

...The FCC is known to have heard complaints about M2Z's plan from existing wireless carriers. Though M2Z's network would've operated at under 1 mbs peak speeds--meaning it was very slow by today's standards, and probably snail-like by tomorrow's--its free pricing may well have tempted many folks away from spending cash with an established ISP.



Well it looks to me like M2Z came up with a brilliant idea by proposing to use the 2GHz "AWS-3" band to be able to offer free, yet slow, Internet access to the public by selling advertising and licensing out part of the spectrum.

The article is certainly lacking in specifics however. For example, which ISP's were opposed to this proposal? Who in the FCC was influenced by ISP lobbyists, What did the FCC get in return? And will this idea even be feasible in ten years?

At any rate, it just confirms what I have said in my previous post. The FCC should have never been in a position to be able to regulate the Internet. The Government should not be in the business of regulating ISP's, or shutting out potential ISP's like M2Z. Internet Service Providers are in the business of providing access, not the FCC. ISP's have made the huge investments, taken the enormous risks, and have laid the groundwork that is necessary to be able to compete in the Free Market and be able to charge a fair price for their services in order to make a profit. And if the public likes what they see in a particular ISP, they can buy stock in that Corporation, essentially making them an Owner in that Corporation.

Once again, I love the idea of all of the people being able to have the option of having Free Internet Access. The FCC Sucks!

Then again, in ten years Internet speeds will have evolved exponentially. I doubt if very many people would stop paying for their super slick access to revert back to what will essentially be an ancient technology. I know I wouldn't, not even if M2Z had their network set up today. But it is only natural for the ISP's to want to protect their investment.

Government is a necessary evil. Their power should always be limited and kept in check. The FCC should be reamed for this decision. I can't use the language that I want to use in order to further describe "FCC" and their decision.......I might get banned.

[edit on 4-9-2010 by MY2Commoncentsworth]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

NOBODY is saying the government should regulate the natural developments of the internet nor does it even come close to telling people how to live or what to do via the internet...

Net Neutrality is about internet service providers, these are not CONTENT providers (which means they don't provide us with specific news/games/media/opinion or other specific content) they provide BANDWIDTH and ACCESS to data. Bandwidth is essentially the flow or rate of flow of info/data on the internet. Now WITHOUT net neutrality... these ISP gatekeepers can essentially then BLOCK access to certain content based on what THEY deem is important. The scary part is that this could negatively effect the NATURAL DEVELOPMENT of the internet... it could affect our rights/free speech and free/unfettered access to content.


Thank you NoHierarchy. Well summarized.




Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe

And a hell of a lot of good the regulators did with the mortgage melt down: the bankers and powerful interests kept it all spiraling towards the drain. Those who could either turned a blind eye or were handcuffed from acting.


Wait a sec!

The financial crisis meltdown came after DE-regulation. The financial industry was responsible for "policing" itself.

...It was the banks policing themselves that didn't work - and agreed, government couldn't clean up the mess after it all fell apart...

Just like the oil industry isn't regulated, and government doesn't have a hope in Hades to clean up the BP oil "spill" after the fact ...




I don't know what teh answer is, but I think I'd rather take my chances with the free market than the centralized government market.


You did that already - and got a global financial crisis and the BP oil "spill" - just to name 2 of the biggest catastrophes.

NoHierarchy nailed it:



...Even Greenspan admitted after the collapse that perhaps the free market DOESN'T work that well... and coming from Greenspan that's like the pope admitting he's an atheist.

...Here's my take on free markets- they're all good and well but ONLY if we dismantle hierarchies/centralization within MARKETS at the exact same time we dismantle them in governments. If we shut off government but allow massive, centralized, top-down, hierarchical markets/businesses to exist... you're still going to have tyranny, except there won't even be the ILLUSION of Democracy, a public vote, or fair representation... you'll either be screwed or not and more/less have to live with it. That's not a world I want, nor one that MOST people would prosper in. We must avoid plutocracy and escape the one we're in now.









[edit on 5-9-2010 by soficrow]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 08:09 AM
link   


"Net Neutrality" is just another label for "Fairness Doctrine". The Government wants to be able to control what they define as acceptable political speech.


NO its not. Net neutrality is not about government control of the internet content, its precisely AGAINST it. Its about separation of the ISPs from the actual content of the bandwidth they provide - therefore ensuring that NOONE would be able to control the internet content - not the ISPs, but also not the government.

[edit on 5-9-2010 by Maslo]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo


"Net Neutrality" is just another label for "Fairness Doctrine". The Government wants to be able to control what they define as acceptable political speech.


NO its not. Net neutrality is not about government control of the internet content, its precisely AGAINST it. Its about separation of the ISPs from the actual content of the bandwidth they provide - therefore ensuring that NOONE would be able to control the internet content - not the ISPs, but also not the government.




Are we all on the same page here?

Net Neutrality to protect us from content control? ...Not by government, and not by private interests either.




ed for clarity



[edit on 5-9-2010 by soficrow]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   
The internet needs to be broken up into networks where subscribers can choose from those networks the kind of "free" content grouping that fits their personal interests.

Each network should work much like cable and television networks where subscribers are made to believe there is no control over the content they view and interact with.

Fees should be applied to any and all "premium content" such as breaking news and information and/or any copyrighted content. Search engines should apply methods which allow easy payment of such fees prior to clicking links to premium content.

The internet must be fully regulated and controlled by the FCC and forever remain a viable vehicle for corporate profit, economic growth, education and an "unbiased" source for news and information free of opinion and spin.

Blogging must be made fair and neutral, and strictly regulated and controlled so that no one, or group are able to change public opinion with misinformation and overt/covert political agenda driven content.

The future internet must be incrementally changed so that eventually it is entirely a one-way means of communications with strictly moderated and controlled interactive abilities for users.

These are the first steps toward a new progressive internet that will be far more beneficial to both users and especially premium content providers.

Please join us with leading members of the corporate elite, top members of congress and White House administration staff at our next scheduled closed door meetings for further discussion of these and other objectives which will ultimately be implemented through pending legislation and executive orders.




posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Seriously! you're one scary dude!

Are you drunk?

LOL! j/k


I think you really need to study up on possible implications for an alternative site like ATS - which could happen if the corporatocracy and their Corporations will end up with the total control of our Net Neutrality, and with the well known by now, modus operandi of these big Corporations.

To actually even propose or defend that some Fascist Junta of Big Corporations
(or God forbid! the Governments) should control everything on the Internet as Gatekeepers - is more than insane! - it's evil!

There must certainly be some form of misunderstading from your side regarding this??



telecom companies seek to impose a tiered service model in order to control the pipeline and thereby remove competition, create artificial scarcity, and oblige subscribers to buy their otherwise uncompetitive services. Many believe net neutrality to be primarily important as a preservation of current freedoms. Vinton Cerf, considered a "father of the Internet" and co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the Web, and many others have spoken out in favor of network neutrality.



Definitions of network neutrality

At its simplest, network neutrality is the principle that all Internet traffic should be treated equally. Net neutrality advocates have established different definitions of network neutrality:



Absolute non-discrimination

Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu: "Network neutrality is best defined as a network design principle. The idea is that a maximally useful public information network aspires to treat all content, sites, and platforms equally."



Control of data

Supporters of network neutrality want a legal mandate ensuring that cable companies allow Internet service providers (ISPs) free access to their cable lines, which is called a common carriage agreement, and the model used for dial-up Internet. They want to ensure that cable companies cannot screen, interrupt or filter Internet content without court order



SaveTheInternet.com accuses cable and telecommunications companies of wanting "to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all". According to SaveTheInternet.com these companies want to "tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data ... to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video — while slowing down or blocking their competitors."



Vinton Cerf, a co-inventor of the Internet Protocol (IP) and current Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist at Google, has supported efforts to introduce network neutrality legislation in the US, arguing that "the Internet was designed with no gatekeepers over new content or services." Cerf concluded that:

Allowing broadband carriers to control what people see and do online would fundamentally undermine the principles that have made the Internet such a success.



Digital rights and freedoms

Lawrence Lessig and Robert W. McChesney argue that net neutrality ensures that the Internet remains a free and open technology, fostering democratic communication.



Competition and innovation

Net neutrality advocates argue that allowing cable companies, or what is termed "content gatekeepers", to demand a toll to guarantee quality or premium delivery would create what Tim Wu calls unfair business model. Advocates warn that by charging "every Web site, from the smallest blogger to Google", network owners may be able to block competitor Web sites and services, as well as refuse access to those unable to pay. According to Tim Wu, cable companies plan to "carve off bandwidth" for their own television services and charge companies a toll for "priority" service.



Without net neutrality, the Internet would start to look like cable TV. A handful of massive companies would control access and distribution of content, deciding what you get to see and how much it costs. Major industries such as health care, finance, retailing and gambling would face huge tariffs for fast, secure Internet use ... Most of the great innovators in the history of the Internet started out in their garages with great ideas and little capital. This is no accident.

Network neutrality protections minimized control by the network owners, maximized competition and invited outsiders in to innovate. Net neutrality guaranteed a free and competitive market for Internet content.



End-to-end principle

Some advocates say network neutrality is needed in order to maintain the end-to-end principle. According to Lawrence Lessig and Robert W. McChesney:

Net neutrality means simply that all like Internet content must be treated alike and move at the same speed over the network. The owners of the Internet's wires cannot discriminate. This is the simple but brilliant "end-to-end" design of the Internet that has made it such a powerful force for economic and social good.

en.wikipedia.org...


Net Neutrality is not the same as Government regulations for Internet/Media/Content Corporations - to say that would be ignorant and show how little people know about Net Neutrality.

But of course! our Net Neutrality can be breached by ISP's who are following Governmental or Corporate directives.

Net Neutrality is about keeping both the Corporations/corporatocracy and the Governments away from a complete control of the Internet as Gatekeepers.

Supporters of Net Neutrality says to them both: keep your dirty corrupt hands where we can see them, and keep them off and away from the Internet.



How anyone, especially here on ATS can be against the principles of Net Neutrality is really beyond me, and is a mystery for me to comprehend!

But then again! I am not surprised to see the somewhat corny and ignorant description of calling proponents of Freedom of the Internet and Net Neutrality - COMMIES! - considering that similar ignorant remarks has been done here on ATS many times before from people who really don't know anything about Communism nor Socialism, except the misinformation which they are often spoon-fed with from the US far-right Media and Blogs.

A person who would make such an ignorant and silly remark with strong fascistoid overtones of calling the supporters of Internet freedom & network neutrality - Commies! - cannot be the sharpest crayon in the box IMHO - or must certainly be some poorly informed dude with serious problems of understanding what Net Neutrality is really about?

(In fact, since Net Neutrality and Freedom of the Internet in real life would actually be the totally opposite Antithesis of a strong authoritarian control under either Communism or Corporatism/Fascism - or any Goverment control at all)

That "Commie" statement alone has an IQ of room temperature IMO regarding the important discussion - and must be the ultimate proof that evolution can go in reverse!

IMHO! seriously, there must be something terribly & fundamentally wrong to even make such an ignorant and goofy remark from start lol! - therefore if this was not an honest mistake? I also suspect that such a person is beyond all repair and has such a twisted and ignorant view upon the world already - so a normal discussion about Net Neutrality and the Freedom of the Internet would probably even be a waste of time from the get-go!


Peace!


[edit on 5-9-2010 by Chevalerous]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chevalerous
Seriously! you're one hell of a scary dude!

Are you drunk?




Emotional headlines and ad-hominem attacks replace reason.



I think you really need to study up on possible implications for an alternative site like ATS - which could happen if the Corporations will end up with the total control of our Net Neutrality, and with the well known by now, modus operandi of these big Corporations.


Followed by raging paranoia on "total control" of an Internet that is more free and open than ever.




To actually even propose or defend that some Fascist Junta of some Big Corporations should control the Internet - is more than insane! - it's evil!


Followed by the false accusiation. I never said that Corporations should have complete control of the Internet.



How anyone, especially here on ATS can be against the principles of Net Neutrality is really beyond me, and is a mystery for me to comprehend!


Followed by the what is characteristic for Communism: The insistence that everyone most be of equal view.



misinformation and lies which they are spoon-fed with from FOX on daily basis.


Followed by a false association. I dont watch or even like Fox News.



A person who would make such a ignorant and silly remark with strong Fascistoid overtones of calling the supporters of Internet freedom & network neutrality - commies! - cannot be the sharpest crayon in the box in my opinion


Followed by another few ad hominem attacks and false association with Fascism.




what Net Neutrality really is about.


"Net Neutrality" is about telling people what they can and cant do.




That "Commie" statement alone has an IQ of room temperature in my opinion, regarding this discussion - and must be the ultimate proof that evolution can go in reverse!


Followed by another personal attack.



IMHO! seriously, there must be something so terribly & fundamentally wrong with that person to even make such a ignorant remark from start - therefore I also suspect that such a person is beyond all repair and has such a twisted and ignorant view upon the world already


Followed by more personal attacks.

Now, finally, the meat of your post:


Without net neutrality, the Internet would start to look like cable TV. A handful of massive companies would control access and distribution of content, deciding what you get to see and how much it costs.


Scare-Nonsense. The world is already accustomed to a free Internet and it is very unlikely that will be taken away from them. And if it is, they will just build another Internet. And another.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

... The world is already accustomed to a free Internet and it is very unlikely that will be taken away from them. And if it is, they will just build another Internet. And another.




Remember the frog in water boiling to death story?

...I've been on the Net for over 15 years - and I've watched it become more controlled and 'directed' and narrowed every year.

One particular experience stands out for me - around 7:00am of December 4, 2003, I was reading articles about "fibromuscular dysplasia" on the US national medical database, "Pubmed," which listed over 1.5 million articles on the subject. Suddenly, everything disappeared and a window came up saying, "This topic has been closed." ...I spent about 5 hours that day madly dashing from one database to the next, as they ALL closed on the topic. ...Pubmed re-opened the topic after about 3 months and a HUGE outcry - but the 1.5 million articles were censored down to about 16! In the intervening 7 years, the total is now 307.

The so-called "Free Internet" you glorify is little more than a social networking-opp - and you're right, that likely won't be taken away.

But the stuff of substance, the kind of info ATS relies on for its very existence, has been and will be 'removed' from our view.

The water is boiling.

...Net Neutrality is NOT about regulating access - it's about protecting access, and preventing government and corporations (government-corporate partners) from limiting our access.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 





"Net Neutrality" is about telling people what they can and cant do.


Net neutrality is about ISPs and governments not being allowed to tell people what they can and cant do.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 





Scare-Nonsense. The world is already accustomed to a free Internet and it is very unlikely that will be taken away from them. And if it is, they will just build another Internet. And another.


I want to believe that you are right. But I dont think so. Freedom is fragile, it has to be protected and cared for. Otherwise we may very quickly lose it.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
One particular experience stands out for me - around 7:00am of December 4, 2003, I was reading articles about "fibromuscular dysplasia" on the US national medical database, "Pubmed," which listed over 1.5 million articles on the subject. Suddenly, everything disappeared and a window came up saying, "This topic has been closed." ...I spent about 5 hours that day madly dashing from one database to the next, as they ALL closed on the topic. ...Pubmed re-opened the topic after about 3 months and a HUGE outcry - but the 1.5 million articles were censored down to about 16! In the intervening 7 years, the total is now 307.


Thats a very interesting account, to say the least.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Chevalerous
 


The real issues behind the recent ruling against the FCC were technical ones that most people do not understand.

Why are Progressives, Communists, and Marxists and organizations like Free Press leading the charge against this ruling?

If I am ignorant to point out Facts, then let me ramain ignorant!



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by MY2Commoncentsworth

Why are Progressives, Communists, and Marxists and organizations like Free Press leading the charge against this ruling?



I think it's because the "conservatives" and libertarians get sucked in by dogma that's been appropriated and mis-used.

As NoHierarchy says,

"Net Neutrality doesn't hinder freedom, it prevents corporate gate-keepers from hindering freedom themselves. ...

Net Neutrality would prevent corporate gate-keepers and government from controlling the Net.

...Maybe the "Progressives, Communists, and Marxists" want to take it further, and regulate more - but that's NOT Net Neutrality. And certainly not what I support.

But I DO look at the big picture...

Fact is, international laws that purport to define and protect "free trade" don't. What they do is establish a legal framework to protect global monopolies, and support global corporate government.

So on the flip side we have a bunch of very well-meaning libertarians fighting to support global corporate government by a few monopolies. Because they won't step back, look at the larger picture and realize that libertarianism only works in a legal vacuum.


NoHierarchy again:

"free markets- they're all good and well but ONLY if we dismantle hierarchies/centralization within MARKETS at the exact same time we dismantle them in governments. If we shut off government but allow massive, centralized, top-down, hierarchical markets/businesses to exist... you're still going to have tyranny, except there won't even be the ILLUSION of Democracy, a public vote, or fair representation... "



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 





Emotional headlines and ad-hominem attacks replace reason.


No sense of humour today? j/k





Followed by raging paranoia on "total control" of an Internet that is more free and open than ever.


Says a confused guy who thinks that Net Neutrality is some proposed Government regulation thingy against the Corporations


Yeah Sure, because Governments and Corporations/ISP's of the fascistoid corporatocracy would never try to do such a thing as to implement control of the Internet as Gatekeepers?


While we're at it about Internet freedom, just ask Google about Fascist China, if their Internet for 1.3 billions is freer than ever!

It's for an example only imaginations & lies that the Media mogul Silvio Berlusconi and other elite Corporations & the corporatocracy are now actually lobbying to censor forums, Blogs and digital news-papers to control what should/could be written on the net in Italy and in several other countries around the EU.


And the current Internet censorship and Internet surveillance in many parts of the world is just an illusion and a conspiracy from the Commies eh!




Followed by the false accusiation. I never said that Corporations should have complete control of the Internet.


But that is exactly what these Corporations/ISP's and the corporatocracy would have the power to do as Gatekeepers if our Internet Neutrality is breached.

And I was using a hypothetical rhetorical example describing of how such a person would be regarded as if he proposed such a stupid thing as calling the supporters of Net Neutrality: Commies!

But the logical evolution of having Corporations and the corporatocracy as Gatekeepers would exactly mean the same as their complete control of the Internet!

This is exactly what the Supporters of Net Neutrality are trying to prevent!

Both the Corporations and Governments/Politicians are already talking against Net Neutrality - behind our backs - planning propositions to advance the agenda for control of our Net Neutrality - both in the EU Parliment and US Congress - and both Corporations and the Governments corporatocracy would love to be the Gatekeepers.

They are seriously discussing this on the highest political levels right now both in the EU and the US - Have you totally missed this?


You must have misunderstood what exactly Net Neutrality is about?




Followed by a false association. I dont watch or even like Fox News.


"False association" LOL! I never said you were - I was talking more about people in general who only get their information/brainwashing regarding the Net Neutrality from the corporate lobby through far-right media outlets, blogs etc! And then are stupid enough to be supporting the same Corporate interests who actually want to take away their Net Neutrality.

(especially those who are delusional enough to think that the Commies are behind Net Neutrality! - and instead are buying the misinformation from the Corporate puppet politicians hook lie & sinker - and believe that the supporters of Net Neutrality are the bad guys in this example lol!)


Maybe you didn't understood my poor English or took my text out of context and used it incorrectly? - (my explanation and the reason why certain people have flawed understanding about both Communism and Socialism - especially those who thinks that supporters of Net Neutrality are Commies)




Followed by another few ad hominem attacks and false association with Fascism.


Another "false association" about an incorrect statement? lol!

The association of fascistoid overtones could very well be relevant in a hypothetical rhetorical example to remind the reader about the false and misleading statement that we the supporters & proponents of Net Neutrality were: Commies.

Because to accept that "Commie" statement as a true & correct fact, we would also have to accept the fact that since Fascism is the ANTITHESIS of Communism - hence it would be logical to draw the conclusion that the opponents of our Net Neutrality must actually be the Fascists.

And the lackies of the corporatocracy!




"Net Neutrality" is about telling people what they can and cant do.


NO!!

Do you really know what you're talking about right now?!


But no hard feelings for all this though I hope?

I'm really sorry if you felt offended in some way? my tone was unfortunate and harsh, I'm sorry for this - but you my friend were actually calling all of us supporters of Net Neutrality: Commies!

LOL!

[edit on 5-9-2010 by Chevalerous]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


Originally posted by soficrow
NoHierarchy again:

"free markets- they're all good and well but ONLY if we dismantle hierarchies/centralization within MARKETS at the exact same time we dismantle them in governments. If we shut off government but allow massive, centralized, top-down, hierarchical markets/businesses to exist... you're still going to have tyranny, except there won't even be the ILLUSION of Democracy, a public vote, or fair representation... "


Centralization in the Capitalist Free Market has already been dismantled by Anti-Trust Legislation which would have never been possible if the Centralized Constitutional Federal Government would have been dismantled.

I mean no disrespect but you Progressives are laughable. You must really think that us common folk are stupid or something. You want to dismantle the Capitalist Free Market, along with the Federal Government......... Let the Market correct itself. It's when politicians start tinkering with the market that problems soon develop.

Have sensible regulations that protect us from the likes of criminals who have gotten us into the mess we are in today. But don't try to tinker with the Market, and don't try to dismantle it. And don't try to abolish the Federal Government either. As loathsome as The Fed can be at times, it is necessary in order for the country to prosper. It is also Constitutional.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by MY2Commoncentsworth
...you Progressives are laughable.


Feel free to call me names, but know that I don't relate.




You must really think that us common folk are stupid or something.


Erm, I am "common folk." ...I do read though. Is that your problem?




You want to dismantle the Capitalist Free Market, along with the Federal Government.........



Nope. I just want to dismantle the corporatocracy, and the legal framework that makes corporatocracy unavoidable.




Let the Market correct itself.


Even Greenspan admitted after the collapse that perhaps the free market DOESN'T work that well...
...and coming from Greenspan that's like the pope admitting he's an atheist.

[Hate having to keep quoting NoHierarchy, but he does have such a way with words.]



Have sensible regulations that protect us from the likes of criminals who have gotten us into the mess we are in today.




Current corporate and trade law creates the criminal activity that got us into this mess. One might say it even mandates it.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


Originally posted by soficrow
I just want to dismantle the corporatocracy, and the legal framework that makes corporatocracy unavoidable.

And just how do you expect to do this without destroying Capitalism and Democracy itself?

If you don't like what a particular Corporation is doing, why don't you present the facts to the people and call for a boycott of the particular Corporations goods and services....If the Corporation in question is really screwing the little guy, the little guy will be more than happy to boycott the Corporation in question. Or do you really think that us little people are to stupid?

And if you don't like what a particular Lawmaker is doing, why don't you present the facts to the people and vote that particular politician out of office. If the Politician in question is really screwing the little guy, the voters will be more than happy to vote that Politician out. You will see a lot of this in November.


Originally posted by soficrow
Feel free to call me names, but know that I don't relate.

Simply stating facts is not necessarily name calling. Saying that Progressives are laughable is not name calling. And you took my quote out of context in typical Progressive fashion.

You know, whenever I am confused on an issue like "net neutrality" for instance, I will always take the Communist Progressive point of view into consideration, and after making my own observations and analyzation, the Communist Progressive strategy is brought to light and its viewpoints becomes mute. If you think I'm going to give you guys any power over my life, you're nuts!

Just because I laugh myself into a coma at you guys doesn't mean that I am calling you names. If you hold our Politicians and Corporations in such contempt, as to make up words like corporatocracy, why don't you exercise your right to vote, and speak out against these atrocities which you have conveniently failed to mention, and vote the responsible parties out of office, and boycott their goods and services.

"Net Neutrality" is supposed to protect us from those in Government and those in Corporate America who would seek to regulate Internet Activity.
It should also protect us from Communist Progressives who are trying to challenge the recent court ruling against the FCC, in order to have it overturned so they will be in a better position to exert their influence as to what content they think should be allowed on the Internet.

And as usual, ILMFAO.

[edit on 5-9-2010 by MY2Commoncentsworth]



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by MY2Commoncentsworth
 




Have sensible regulations that protect us from the likes of criminals who have gotten us into the mess we are in today. But don't try to tinker with the Market, and don't try to dismantle it.


I agree, so lets discuss what do we consider sensible regulations.
Do you consider banning toxic chemicals in industry products sensible regulation? I mean, why not leave it to free market? Do you think someone will buy toxic products on free market if they knew it is bad for their health? Then why do we have this regulation? Just to be sure. Consumer protection.
Thats exactly why I support internet neutrality. Considering recently increased instances of government with corporations trying to limit internet freedom (France, Australia..), I want to be sure that noone would have it easy to control or limit the internet freedom.
ISPs could still sell cheaper stripped and limited access connection products even with net neutrality, but they wont be allowed to call it "internet", because its not. That way, noone would buy cat in the bag. Consumer protection.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by MY2Commoncentsworth
 




You know, whenever I am confused on an issue like "net neutrality" for instance, I will always take the Communist Progressive point of view into consideration, and after making my own observations and analyzation, the Communist Progressive strategy is brought to light and its viewpoints becomes mute. If you think I'm going to give you guys any power over my life, you're nuts!

"Net Neutrality" is supposed to protect us from those in Government and those in Corporate America who would seek to regulate Internet Activity.
It should also protect us from Communist Progressives who are trying to challenge the recent court ruling against the FCC, in order to have it overturned so they will be in a better position to exert their influence as to what content they think should be allowed on the Internet.


Again, bringing in the communism card. My family has lived and suffered under communist dictatorship, you dont have to tell me to not be commie. But seems like especially americans have very distorted meaning of word "communism". Social democracy is not communism.
Anarcho-capitalism vs. communnism is mother of all false dilemmas. Both extremes are bad.

[edit on 6-9-2010 by Maslo]





new topics
top topics
 
29
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join