Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
General Discussion / Re: Net neutrality
« Last post by phaed on July 24, 2017, 06:48:17 pm »
the root of the net neutrality issue is actually the concept of natural monopolies (i.e. water, gas, power, roads, etc.).  they are all network engineering problems, which i have some experience at.  the government wants us to believe that these things cannot be managed on an individual level, and therefore must be regulated.  the truth is that all of them can be handled by individuals, voluntarily. 

individuals can own their own water and gas wells, or if they choose, they can voluntarily pool their resources in groups to a scale of their own choosing.  people could easily do their own power generation in the same way.  the only thing keeping them from doing it is government regulation.  statists love to talk about their road networks, but few anarchists even have the imagination to retort by asking what technological developments might have surfaced if we weren't forced to use roads.  the same thing applies to the internet.  where asphalt was their natural monopoly, Ma Bell's telephone and now cable television's roadways are considered the sacred managed ground.

Net neutrality's enemy is actually the FCC, dictating to us what parts of physics we can't use to solve our problems.  without these regulations, technologies would develop to offer individuals freedom of choice in the market.  their dictating that we must use a certain pathway is what allows them to create this side issue of people arguing how to use that pathway...it's all bullshit.
2
General Discussion / Re: Net neutrality
« Last post by Bill on July 23, 2017, 08:33:40 am »
Rawles-land in the Inland NW, my former home, is a government supremacist mess now. The "minarchist" conceit is strong in most humans who subscribe.

There are ways to resolve such things:



Jim and I are friends but he's knows my feelings on religionists...
3
General Discussion / Re: Net neutrality
« Last post by DiabolusDementis on July 22, 2017, 02:58:49 pm »
lulz, one could ask James Wesley Rawles about it, but we already have his stance from his "I'm gonna take over Africa and God I can't stand those fucking New Hampshire Libertarians so I'm going to censor their internet access and block VPNs" book.
HA! Rawles gets numerous things dead wrong. Although he INSISTS that he's not, it's blatantly obvious that he's against anything or anyone "non-christian". When I was first introduced to prepping, I stomached reading those views to get some info. That's no longer the case though. SB is "prepper lite" to me now, so I no longer go there, nor put up with that atheophobic, fundamentalistic, xenophobic diatribe any longer.
4
General Discussion / Re: Net neutrality
« Last post by AZRedhawk44 on July 22, 2017, 02:38:45 pm »
lulz, one could ask James Wesley Rawles about it, but we already have his stance from his "I'm gonna take over Africa and God I can't stand those fucking New Hampshire Libertarians so I'm going to censor their internet access and block VPNs" book.
5
General Discussion / Re: Net neutrality
« Last post by DiabolusDementis on July 22, 2017, 02:28:46 pm »
If people lived by ZAP, net neutrality would be a non-issue. The name itself is an oxymoron anyways. Kinda like "health care" or "public education".

Asking any government to force your views/opinions on others is wrong, no matter which way you want to look at it. There is always a better solution found in the free market, if one wishes it so.
6
General Discussion / Net neutrality
« Last post by Paul Bonneau on July 22, 2017, 11:05:50 am »
A good discussion on this subject (I think!)

http://www.zerothposition.com/2017/07/22/curious-case-net-neutrality/

I have wondered in the past how libertarians can support it. Must be those minarchists.   ;)
7
Well folks, it's been an interesting discussion. All I know is that "non-aggressive" isn't just something I do - with or too other people. It's not a coat I pull on when dealing with other folks. Non-aggressive is something I AM. It is part of my core being and personality all the time, everywhere. Make of it what you will. :)
8
A word means whatever it references. In 'NAP' the word 'aggression' implies the presence of at least one other person against whom it is possible to aggress. IOW it references a social context, without which both it and 'NAP' are meaningless.
I wonder if we are talking about the same thing...

Apparently we're not. I was making a similar point to Pelletfarmer: 

Quote
Mama, we must be talking past each other.  All I was saying is that for "non-aggression" to have any meaning, at least among people, there have to be at least two there.  It's like "trade."  That's all.
9
Mama, we must be talking past each other.  All I was saying is that for "non-aggression" to have any meaning, at least among people, there have to be at least two there.  It's like "trade."  That's all.

Still not getting through here, it seems. Yes, a "trade" indicates two or more parties. Each individual involved, however, must have ALREADY come to numerous conclusions, convictions, decisions on what trade means to them. They must have this in place before they can engage in trade. And that has nothing to do with whether or not they agree on any of it to start with. The negotiations to make that trade may - or may not - resolve any differences. One or the other may be a thief, a murderer, or whatever.

Non- aggression, love, hate, trade, integrity, etc. are not THINGS. They are principles and values, subjective and individual. They exist first in the separate and isolated mind of the human beings involved. The expression of these may be internal or external, and very often both.
10
And just so there's no further confusion, Mama is making the correct point morally.  All decisions and choices are made by a single individual and the presence or absence of others--let alone their agreement--is irrelevant to this.  So yes, she does make the choice alone.  My pointing out the "social context" was just to note that if no others were ever present, it would be a meaningless choice.  But as she correctly notes, they are and so it's not a meaningless choice.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10