Government to Takeover the Internet

[deadeye]

I am not anti - government. I've never even had this mistrust problem until the last 6 years. Wonder why now? Maybe being looked down on and being constantly lied to time after time after time. Lies are hard to get away with while the internet is watching every move they make. You don't think this internet takeover relates to this do you? Nah. Surely not. Let's pass it and then we can see what is in it?

[JohnR]

We have Comcast internet. There's not one single URL in the world I don't have access to. I don't understand the problem.

Whichever company among us is without sin, cast the first stone.

And I still see no concrete arguments that use facts and figures, only "hate the big mean rich people."

[ScottM]

And I still see no concrete arguments that use facts and figures, only "hate the big mean rich people."

That's just because you haven't read that article yet.

[ScottM]

Scott, mistrust of the G here? really? Where did you ever get that idea?

Glad the pistola ran good for ya.

However, the big question we keep posing here to you so we can bring you into the fold and baptize you into the flock is this, "please with a cherry on top, cite 5 examples where the G got involved in something and it ultimately got better and stayed that way"

Thanks - the CM45 is everything I hoped it would be. And I highly recommend post-CHL training - it's so darned fun on top of being useful.

We got a bunch of snow last night so I'm headed out to snowblow the neighborhood. I'll try to make some time later to reply in pieces-parts since that's how my free time comes.

Note that I'll be running a CE certified snowblower that probably won't explode on me while using a federally-mandated quality of gasoline that reliably burns when I ask it. I'll be clearing suburban paths that were established by city code for pedestrian safety, particularly elementary kids who walk to the school at the end of my street. It's unlikely I'll be electrocuted from overhead and underground wires, unlike less regulated countries such as India's code. If an accident does happen, tax-funded, government-run Fire, EMS and Police services will respond, and those individuals will speak a national language and have a basic education level established by state and national standards and delivered by tax-funded, government-run schools. They'll also have a base level of biological immunity enhanced by federal immunization policy.

I could go on and on of course, and you could find plenty of stickiness in every one of those examples and I could cite cases where private industry plays a vital part in each one as well.

We SHOULD agree that a fair partnership between collective government and industry is ideal for everyone involved, but it's en vogue on the conservative side to rip apart anything collective, as if fending for ourselves is universally better in all cases, that market mechanics will sort everything out, and that the abuses of the industrial era were just a blip.

[knkali]

Thanks - the CM45 is everything I hoped it would be. And I highly recommend post-CHL training - it's so darned fun on top of being useful.

We got a bunch of snow last night so I'm headed out to snowblow the neighborhood. I'll try to make some time later to reply in pieces-parts since that's how my free time comes.

Note that I'll be running a CE certified snowblower that probably won't explode on me while using a federally-mandated quality of gasoline that reliably burns when I ask it. I'll be clearing suburban paths that were established by city code for pedestrian safety, particularly elementary kids who walk to the school at the end of my street. It's unlikely I'll be electrocuted from overhead and underground wires, unlike less regulated countries such as India's code. If an accident does happen, tax-funded, government-run Fire, EMS and Police services will respond, and those individuals will speak a national language and have a basic education level established by state and national standards and delivered by tax-funded, government-run schools. They'll also have a base level of biological immunity enhanced by federal immunization policy.

I could go on and on of course, and you could find plenty of stickiness in every one of those examples and I could cite cases where private industry plays a vital part in each one as well.

We SHOULD agree that a fair partnership between collective government and industry is ideal for everyone involved, but it's en vogue on the conservative side to rip apart anything collective, as if fending for ourselves is universally better in all cases, that market mechanics will sort everything out, and that the abuses of the industrial era were just a blip.

Your examples are reaching but you already know that. However, when you cited the "abuses of the industrial era" and the G was needed to protect workers who would otherwise be ground into mush by the big corporation boots is just a continuation of a myth based on an over exaggeration of the facts. Yes there was some abuses as you say BUT if conditions were so bad, why did millions of people flock to this country in the 19th century to better their position in life? If it was so bad, why did they continue to come for years and years? Wouldn't the people that came here initially and found themselves in abusive conditions and being slaves to the corporate financiers not send for their friends and relatives if they were not better off? Clearly, you have bought into the agenda that wants you to believe that the G is so necessary in your life.

[b4uqzme]

Scott, thanks for being the poster child / pin cushion for your POV.

b4 out.

[ScottM]

Nah my examples are just abbreviated and you need to crack open your history books again, especially covering Appalachia, mining, railroad and industrial production times. You might find it fun actually, because tales of the gun are woven throughout, both with roles in oppressor hands and by those defending their individual and collective rights. It's good stuff and should be part of a unifying story to anti-gunners who may be brought to our side once they understand how readily private industry can use government and the lack of law against unarmed citizens.

But if my examples still seem reaching to you, then how about YOU put out more than just derision, and outline 5 examples where G stayed out of the way, things ultimately got better and stayed that way without public involvement. We'll revel in perfect Friedmanean glory with justification of anarchy once and for all at KahrTalk. And I'll go my merry way looking for centric consensus elsewhere. Deal?

Or, as in your tone, "clearly" you have bought into the agenda that collective public interest is corrosive, falling in that trap of selectively ignoring stabilizing roles played by government throughout civilized history.

[knkali]

.... It's good stuff and should be part of a unifying story to anti-gunners who may be brought to our side once they understand how readily private industry can use government and the lack of law against unarmed citizens.

You just supported B4UQZME's argument in an earlier post. You do realize that right? That if G is not involved, there cannot be that kind of corruption.

[JohnR]

More Marxist claptrap.

[knkali]

But if my examples still seem reaching to you, then how about YOU put out more than just derision, and outline 5 examples where G stayed out of the way, things ultimately got better and stayed that way without public involvement. We'll revel in perfect Friedmanean glory with justification of anarchy once and for all at KahrTalk. And I'll go my merry way looking for centric consensus elsewhere. Deal?

First, I don't want you to go anywhere, I find your arguments to be well thought out and your posts to be provocative.

With that said...touché mon ami. I cannot cite them because I find the G so entwined in everything we do at some level. There is literally nothing left that is not untouched in some aspect to some degree by the G

[deadeye]

Would it be safe to say then, that in your POV we need more government intervention in our personal and private lives? The welfare state that they have so successfully engineered into our society is a good thing? What they are doing to our medical system is good? The way they are trying to kill free speech and make a politically correct society is good? The fact they are even telling us what light bulbs we can use and what food we can eat? The constitution is antiquated which has been stated by so many members of academia is right? Where in your POV is the line between assistance and intrusion drawn. Our founders clearly stated that a small federal government is crucial for our survival. This worked for a little over 200 years making us the greatest country on earth. It is no secret we are now floundering badly domestically and in our foreign policy. Just thought I'd ask.

[b4uqzme]

Nah my examples are just abbreviated and you need to crack open your history books again, especially covering Appalachia, mining, railroad and industrial production times. You might find it fun actually, because tales of the gun are woven throughout, both with roles in oppressor hands and by those defending their individual and collective rights. It's good stuff and should be part of a unifying story to anti-gunners who may be brought to our side once they understand how readily private industry can use government and the lack of law against unarmed citizens.

But if my examples still seem reaching to you, then how about YOU put out more than just derision, and outline 5 examples where G stayed out of the way, things ultimately got better and stayed that way without public involvement. We'll revel in perfect Friedmanean glory with justification of anarchy once and for all at KahrTalk. And I'll go my merry way looking for centric consensus elsewhere. Deal?

Or, as in your tone, "clearly" you have bought into the agenda that collective public interest is corrosive, falling in that trap of selectively ignoring stabilizing roles played by government throughout civilized history.

Why oh why do you need to be so demeaning, condescending and arrogant in your arguments? If you find fault in the debate, have you tried looking in the mirror?

Now I'm really out this time.

[knkali]

Or, as in your tone, "clearly" you have bought into the agenda that collective public interest is corrosive, falling in that trap of selectively ignoring stabilizing roles played by government throughout civilized history.

Collective public interest is a good thing--it would be the driving force of a free market(if that could ever exist given the way things are today) My rub that the G's role in stabilization is temporary at best and usually, if not always, comes at a price that no one either anticipated or did not bargain for. Since I cannot cite a position that you asked of me earlier, my question to you is no less legitimate--- is it? Do you really believe that if you did not have CE cert on a snow blower, that people would be more risking life and limb? If you truly believe that, then we will have to move on to other topics bc we are at an insurmountable impasse between our viewpoints.

[ScottM]

You just supported B4UQZME's argument in an earlier post. You do realize that right? That if G is not involved, there cannot be that kind of corruption.

Human nature shows us that corruption exists across all forms of organization, no? So while your semantic logic is ontologically true (that government corruption cannot occur without government), it is NOT true that non-government corruption and exploitation goes away along with it! In fact, it tends to expand to best serve the interests of whoever' positions are the strongest.

A primary function of any governance thus is to apply constraints around possible extremes.

This is all basic civics guys.

More Marxist claptrap.

More laziness.

[knkali]

Human nature shows us that corruption exists across all forms of organization, no? So while your semantic logic is ontologically true (that government corruption cannot occur without government), it is NOT true that non-government corruption and exploitation goes away along with it! In fact, it tends to expand to best serve the interests of whoever' positions are the strongest.

A primary function of any governance thus is to apply constraints around possible extremes.

This is all basic civics guys.

More a sociological observation. I am glad that we agreed on that point. I am not sure what you were driving at in the latter part of your post. What is "it" that you refer to? Corruption? if so, there is no argument that corruption is a real force to be reckoned with. However, if you think the Gs role is to protect us from same, you and I are at that aforementioned impasse yet again. The G can only take by force something and give it to another. Somewhere in that transaction, someone is left short handed. Don't get me wrong, when it comes to the equal share to natural resources, the G is necessary. After all, I don't want ScottXYZ to pee in the river upstream from me that I bathe in. I need a 3rd party to reconcile such problems. The protectionism you purport that the G gives us regarding extremes can, and usually does, come at a price.