• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality [W:23]

Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

So you are against the free markets and competition ... not very libertarian is it?

So youre for govt dictatorship? Well, actually that is pretty Danish? of you.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

What does "abuse" mean in your post?

Stuff like local laws written on behalf of car dealerships to prevent competition... like online sales from Telsa or other cars.

Stuff like local laws written on behalf of cable companies that prevent new cable companies from entering the market.

And then there is the direct abuse that happened during the 2000s where former pizza delivery boys were selling mortgages on behalf of major banks and financial institutions to people who never have been able to repay the loan.

Abuses by the private sector happen daily and often and it should the job of government to stop such abuses.. that is why we have regulations. Government should not be there to promote such abuses.. which creating a defacto monopoly on behalf of a private company is.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Stuff like local laws written on behalf of car dealerships to prevent competition... like online sales from Telsa or other cars.

Stuff like local laws written on behalf of cable companies that prevent new cable companies from entering the market.

And then there is the direct abuse that happened during the 2000s where former pizza delivery boys were selling mortgages on behalf of major banks and financial institutions to people who never have been able to repay the loan.

Abuses by the private sector happen daily and often and it should the job of government to stop such abuses.. that is why we have regulations. Government should not be there to promote such abuses.. which creating a defacto monopoly on behalf of a private company is.

State abuse.

State abuse.

First off, the mentality that the state pushed was everyone has a "right" to own a home. State abuse. The state created entities of Fannie and Freddie, that lowered standards continuously, is state abuse. The companies rightly assuming the state would bail them out is a state abuse problem.

The state is abuse, it does not stop abuse.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Cable is only one way to get television or internet. It happens to be the BEST way, which is why it dominates. My speeds have skyrocketed, FYI. That's why Comcast dominates here.

Until google fiber comes to town and kills your cable company crush.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

So youre for govt dictatorship? Well, actually that is pretty Danish? of you.

How can it be a government dictatorship if the actions are done to protect the citizens from abuse? You have no problem with almost no competition in your cable/ISP market?
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

How can it be a government dictatorship if the actions are done to protect the citizens from abuse?

That is a very common claim of the dictator.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

State abuse.

State abuse.

So it is the fault of the state when the state acts on behalf of big business to squash competition? Seriously? That the politicians writing the laws and regulations are in the pockets of business and favour them over the common man, is suddenly the fault of the state and not the system that allows it and the entities that are committing the corruption?

First off, the mentality that the state pushed was everyone has a "right" to own a home. State abuse. The state created entities of Fannie and Freddie, that lowered standards continuously, is state abuse. The companies rightly assuming the state would bail them out is a state abuse problem.

The crisis had nothing to do with Fannie and Freddie.. get your facts right.

The state is abuse, it does not stop abuse.

Bull**** from start to end. So if a guy bribes a politician to pass a law that gives him a monopoly to sell water in an area, then it is the fault of the state... not the guy or the politician?

The only thing the state should do is protect the weak against the powerful or do you not agree with that?
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

So it is the fault of the state when the state acts on behalf of big business to squash competition? Seriously? That the politicians writing the laws and regulations are in the pockets of business and favour them over the common man, is suddenly the fault of the state and not the system that allows it and the entities that are committing the corruption?

The crisis had nothing to do with Fannie and Freddie.. get your facts right.

So if a guy bribes a politician to pass a law that gives him a monopoly to sell water in an area, then it is the fault of the state... not the guy or the politician?

The only thing the state should do is protect the weak against the powerful or do you not agree with that?

Yes, seriously. The system is the state, silly goose.

But it did... get your facts right.

Yes. The state is the entity that can do that, the fact that the state uses its power to abuse is a problem of the state, not of some alleged bribery. I am sorry to break it to you, the state is not some perfect entity that would just work if we got the right, non-biased, benevolent lawmakers. The state is a monopoly that has granted itself a legal monopoly on force, and it always filled with very biased people that got elected for ridiculous reasons, like their sex, or race, or how good they look, or if they stutter less than the last jackass in office, or that they think your life isn't faaaaaaair.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

How can it be a government dictatorship if the actions are done to protect the citizens from abuse? You have no problem with almost no competition in your cable/ISP market?

How can I be against free market competititon? You post rhetoric, I post rhetoric.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

That is a very common claim of the dictator.

Yes it is, but I damn well expect the government to be on the side of the people, not on the side of the few.. which is VERY different than a dictator.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Yes, seriously. The system is the state, silly goose.

But it did... get your facts right.

No it did not. In 2006 a huge majority of all mortgages was done in the private unregulated sub-prime market. They were loans that could not be bought by Fannie and Freddie, and it was THOSE types of loans that triggered the crisis. The reason that Fannie and Freddie got into trouble was outright miss-management coupled with a collapsing economy.. but it had nothing to do with triggering the crisis it self. That is the facts.

Yes. The state is the entity that can do that, the fact that the state uses its power to abuse is a problem of the state, not of some alleged bribery. I am sorry to break it to you, the state is not some perfect entity that would just work if we got the right, non-biased, benevolent lawmakers. The state is a monopoly that has granted itself a legal monopoly on force, and it always filled with very biased people that got elected for ridiculous reasons, like their sex, or race, or how good they look, or if they stutter less than the last jackass in office, or that they think your life isn't faaaaaaair.

Never claimed the state was perfect. In fact it is far from perfect depending on which country we are talking about. And yes democracy "sucks" as it can elect idiots, but hey rather have a democracy than not.. dont you agree?

Now you claim that the state is a monopoly granted by itself.. hogwash on so many levels. First off the state did not grant a monopoly by itself.. we elected people to create the state on our behalf. That in the US it has been warped into you elect people to run the state on behalf of big corporations and the wealthy, only shows that the basis rules you base your state on are flawed and corrupted. But do you really think it would be any better if there was no "state" to run things like police and military and other services? Do you really think that the private free market could do that better? And if so.. based on what evidence?

Like it or not, the basis of civilization is a state entity.. it can be the family, tribe, or parliamentary state and everything in between, but it has to exist in some format to even remotely have civilization.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

No it did not. In 2006 a huge majority of all mortgages was done in the private unregulated sub-prime market.

Never claimed the state was perfect. In fact it is far from perfect depending on which country we are talking about. And yes democracy "sucks" as it can elect idiots, but hey rather have a democracy than not.. dont you agree?

Now you claim that the state is a monopoly granted by itself.. hogwash on so many levels. First off the state did not grant a monopoly by itself.. we elected people to create the state on our behalf. That in the US it has been warped into you elect people to run the state on behalf of big corporations and the wealthy, only shows that the basis rules you base your state on are flawed and corrupted. But do you really think it would be any better if there was no "state" to run things like police and military and other services? Do you really think that the private free market could do that better? And if so.. based on what evidence?

Like it or not, the basis of civilization is a state entity.. it can be the family, tribe, or parliamentary state and everything in between, but it has to exist in some format to even remotely have civilization.

But it did. It was extremely regulated, and forced upon the companies through political pressure.

First off, there are zero democracies in the world, because the system is bogus on its face. Majority force rule is a joke. Period. There are zero countries that are democracies. And no, I do not agree that democracy is the best or even the best yet discovered.

I elected not one person. So take we, and keep it to yourself. The state granted itself a legal monopoly, and enforces it through its own granted powers, paid for through theft of labor. Corporations were created by the state, and are currently maintained, protected, and they were charted by the state, they are therefore a problem of the state and only the state. Based just on what you consider problems, we can determine that no state would be "better." Given of course that the state created those problems and continues them.

Yes it is, but I damn well expect the government to be on the side of the people, not on the side of the few.. which is VERY different than a dictator.

You hope the government is on the side of the people, and a dictator is usually on the side of the people up until they are put into office.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Has there been any talk of Google and/or Apple of developing their own ISPs? Complete with their own fiber optic and coax infrastructure?
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

How can I be against free market competititon? You post rhetoric, I post rhetoric.

You're against free market competition because you are for measures that are anti-competitive. It's not hard.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

You're against free market competition because you are for measures that are anti-competitive. It's not hard.

Regulation is by definition anti freedom. Its not hard.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

LOL yea right, in a country where you are lucky if you have more than one ISP available in your area, and the ability for new competition to get into the market is often blocked by local laws?

Don't know about Denmark but just in my area alone there are 5 different providers. :shrug:
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Regulation is by definition anti freedom. Its not hard.

No, it's not. That's one of several fundamental errors in libertarian thinking.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Don't know about Denmark but just in my area alone there are 5 different providers. :shrug:

Then you are one of the lucky ones. I have 10+ in Denmark and Spain.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

LOL yea right, in a country where you are lucky if you have more than one ISP available in your area, and the ability for new competition to get into the market is often blocked by local laws?

Europe is far superior to the US in terms of political freedoms, and censorship by ISPs is much harder to do in Europe. If there is only one ISP available, then it is likely tightly regulated in favor of consumers in Denmark, since Denmark is a democratic country.

Whereas in the US, which is a plutocracy, all ISPs are regulated in favor of the ISPs themselves.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

No, it's not. That's one of several fundamental errors in libertarian thinking.

Libertarianism is not necessary in countries where the govt. is accountable to its people (i. e. democracies), which is the case in most Northern European countries.

However, Libertarianism is needed in countries like the US, which are plutocracies, since without it, private firms simply order the govt. to tax individuals to dump money and resources into their own pockets.
 
Back
Top Bottom