Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

RussK

Regulars
  • Posts

    458
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by RussK

  1. The idea of net neutrality is to ensure that Internet Service Providers don't favoritize access to certain websites.

    Let's say AynRand.net is an internet service provider

    AynRand.net makes it so that it takes much longer for your to access http://aynrandwasasluttybitch.net/shewasaw...shemustdie.html

    AynRand.net can't do that, according to net neutrality. Because it's naughty.

    Is it bad for ISPs to favoritise? Ethically, I would say so. I'm not knowledgeable about the issue, and I can't think of a good reason why an honest, productive, reasonable ISP provider would have to cut off access to another website. Which is why it usually doesn't happen. Net neutrality advocates are concerned about fixing something that was never broken in the first place. It's based mostly on "What if's". As far as I remember, AOL is the only ISP guilty of doing such a thing.

    Excuse me for not being very articulate, I'm tired

    That's a relatively narrow view of the topic. Net neutrality would affect more than the traditional internet, like websites; it would essentially regulate the whole spectrum of broadband services, whatever the data provider offers. For instance, Time Warner or Cox may want to increase or prioritize the bandwidth for downloading or streaming movies to their subscribers' set-top boxes; they may want to prioritize certain data for VoIP; or someone may want to offer a premium, prioritized service for gaming. The possibilities are truly endless, and that's why Mr. Niles labeled a 'neutral' internet, a "stupid internet": it is critical for future growth and technology for data providers to be able to prioritize their offerings.

    With net neutrality thought about in that larger context it becomes clear that Aol is not the only company guilty of showing favoritism. VoIP providers, in order to prevent dropped calls, must prioritize their packets for their service to be viable; Google (correct me if I'm wrong about the company and the details) just ended or reduced FTP service for their blogs; your ISP limits the amount of data you can download and upload. The fact of the matter is, providers have been prioritizing their services since before the commercial internet even existed. Without that capability, growth would have been retarded long ago.

  2. I know that Omaha Steaks is doing very well today. My wife keeps bugging me to start buying our meat from them. Apparently it's really top quality stuff.

    That company was what immediately popped into my mind when I read the title of this thread. I tried them a couple of years ago because they had a free offer, and I saw the street name on the box that came. They definitely have a good product, be I've not had their stuff in a long time now.

  3. "The Environmental Protection Agency intends to classify milk as a hazardous waste; in the same category as oil."

    http://www.ihatethemedia.com/epa-classifie...lk-as-pollutant

    Regular milk will be heavily restricted and monitored. Chocolate milk will be protected from such scrutiny by reams of legislation protecting it’s rights. Strawberry milk will be monitored but ultimately safe thanks to it’s inclusion on the endangered species list.

    Millions of cows will become unemployed and roam the streets, homeless, but thousands of jobs will be created when local Departments of Transportation realize they need vast amounts of manpower to keep the streets clean.

    Is there anything sadder than a thin, unkempt cow sitting on a highway median holding a poorly written cardboard sign reading, “Will lactate for hay”? If there is I would like to know about it.

    Well, at least their doing something at the EPA, instead of just sitting around collecting their wage. However, with regulations like this, I'd gladly see them all unemployed...

    OT, but I do consider milk to be a pollutant: one to my body anyway. The crap the some farms feed their cows, from sorted restaurant trash to candy--wrappers and all--I can't bring myself to buy it or drink it on a regular basis, even if a particular milk brand is safe from those practices. Then add all the drugs pumped into these things to keep them healthy and massproductive and I'm even more repulsed. So much so that I'd rather use fake, synthetic soy milk for my Wheaties. Yet, at the same time, I've got no problem consuming large amounts of cheese :(

  4. Stupid? No, he's just playing to his base. He's saying out loud what a lot of people on the left are thinking, what they want.

    I don't understand why people seem surprised to learn that the left is/can be brutal and violent in its quest for more power.

    Come to think of it I can't for the life of me name a single solitary violent uprising, war or revolution since the rise of communism in 1917 that wasn't leftist.

    Definitely not surprising. Just as I wasn't surprised when I heard Oliver Stone, on Bill Maher's show, say he wishes the United States had a south American dictator for a president.

  5. I hadn't even heard of net neutrality until I read that article a couple of years ago. I think the title of the movement is confusing because of the word neutrality. Who wouldn't want neutrality, right? That is, until one looks to see what it's all about: an internet neutral to property rights--a "stupid internet."

  6. Yeah I really don't understand why supposed "small government" conservatives are jumping all over Obama for his "slow response" to the oil spill, as if Barack is going to wade into the water and pop a cork into the pipe. If the government can stop the oil aggression onto private property with its resources available then it should do so (obviously it can't in this situation), otherwise the only place for the government is investigators, detectives, and courts, everything else from stopping the oil to the clean up should take place at private initiative, with BP under the obligation to pay for it.

    :lol: This reminds me of a drunken argument I had with one of those people a couple of weeks ago. As usual, the oil spill was being downplayed by him and his friends--and the news network that they love to defend--and they started complaining about how president Obama was handling the situation. I told them that they were funny people but they couldn't have it both ways: one can't constantly play down the situation while at the same time blame the president for a "Katrina."

  7. These comments worry me (as they are valid) as I am wondering if the government will try to take BP over after this is all over. They are already trying to pull some shit with the news industry:

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/...--95196309.html

    Well, I don't know if BP will actually go bankrupt or not, but they have definitely been damaged by the problem that they caused. Everything that is occurring to them is being caused by the accident that they are responsible for. What worries me are people worried about the survival of a corporation when it should be being held responsible--if they go bankrupt footing the bill that they are responsible for, so be it. Additionally, if they go bankrupt and have to be liquidated to pay for the damages, that is justice as well.

  8. I'm not an economist, so these opinions are somewhat barely educated generalizations. However, wouldn't the Fed simply create money the way they have been doing, by buying securities and creating new money, if they were worried about the low supply of dollars? If the money supply goes to hell, won't it be at the behest of the Fed anyway? In which you wouldn't have to worry about your IRA being raided because they're purposely withdrawing money from circulation.

    EDIT: I just realized this wasn't talking about the Federal Reserve. I saw "federal" seizure, and the Fed automatically came to mind. This post can be disregarded.

  9. I'm too frugal most of the time to go out and buy one of these phones. I don't like being so connected all the time, so I just stick with my $25 boost mobile phone that I bought two years ago. Has anyone here used both, one of these Motorola's and an iPhone? I keep hearing that the droids are an iPhone killer.

  10. The Tea Party movement is filled with religious and racist nutcases, not to mention libertarians, 9/11 truthers, pacifists, and America-apologists. The original Tea Party events organized by the Ron Paul people were scary enough - now it's a freakin' nightmare. It's no place for Objectivist ethics at the moment, and I think you'll find it extremely difficult to disengage these people from their very canned ideological views.

    To answer the original question: Yes, the Tea Party movement is very shallow.

    I've had this opinion since its inception. The few people who are involved that I can stomach--that are not objectivists--still piss me off and I can't bring myself to converse much with them. The main reason: where the hell were they before? Well, I know, they were constantly telling me how I was wrong, how laissez-faire won't work for anything, and condemning my contextually staunch support of individual rights as un-American. Now it's a reversal, and they are spouting off things, as if they are introducing me to liberty concepts for the first time, just because they are following charismatic television and radio personalities and hate president Obama.

    Populist movements never keep their principles. Just like the anti-new taxes, conservative populism that ushered in Reagan and ilk totally evaporated sometime in the mid-90s, so to will this new movement in due time. Then everything will start anew, and everyone will be surprised about the growth of government which will start some new movement. Since a black president can no longer be the startling factor maybe the surprise next time will be a black, woman socialist president. However, though they are unprincipled and don't last, populist movements in the past have brought significant change to the country and how it operates, both good and bad.

  11. Oh, the fun of extreme hypothetical questions... I'm going to approach this from the cut and dry "emergency" situation, in which immorality is taken out of the equation. First of all, not everyone is going to react the same and choose the same direction in such a situation. Furthermore, someone in the serious throws of dehydration is probably incapable of making rational choices. However, in the perfect hypothetical situation (of a horribly imperfect situation) it would be moral to obtain the water from another, by any means, if your immediate survival depended on it. Yes, this would be a violation of individual's rights; the other person's rights don't end because another is in an emergency. However, objectivism isn't libertarianism and all choices don't come down to individual rights.

  12. Israel has killed a number of so-called "peace activists" on ships bound for Gaza.

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defe...nch-us-1.293089

    Here is a video of the "peace activists" stabbing an IDF soldier in the back.

    http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2010/05/v...abbing-idf.html

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/201...y_aid_ship.html

    I wonder how this will be presented by Western media... I am not sure my blood pressure will be able to take it...

    Well, from what I've seen in the media, the response, as expected, hasn't been positive. From all of the reports I have seen, I give full support to the Israeli "raid". This ship had been trying to break the military blockade against Gaza. That blockade is there for a reason: to prevent the smuggling of weapons into the Hamas controlled area. I think ships have been "raided" in such a manner in the past, resulting in finding stockpiles of weapons headed for the terrorists. Any ship that wants through to that area can and should expect to be boarded, searched, and probably turned around. Hence the reason why the Israeli government has said such humanitarian missions are dangerous and other avenues should be tried.

  13. I'm not an environmentalist and I imagine that neither are any of you. But I'm having trouble accepting the conservative idea that the oil spill will just "clean itself up." Of course, I'm not implying that that's the way Objectivists feel. That's the reason I started this post, to see how others felt. But I can't help thinking that environmentalists have a point. Now, I'm not talking about global warming. I'm referring to protecting the environment we choose to use, especially certain ecosytems. As long as it doesn't interfere with anyone's rights, of course. The oil spill in the Gulf isn't a good thing. It's a terrible thing, not because it's destroying nature, but because it's destroying nature that people could potentially use. Yes we should use the earth as we see fit, but what if there's nothing for us to use because we've destroyed it? What about all the fish that could have been caught, bought, sold, and consumed for our pleasure, that have died from the spill? I'm not advocating regulation, or saying that BP should be legally liable for any of the potential profits that anyone is missing out on, but I do think that we should take care of what we have if we intend to keep it. Again, I don't believe that the government should have any say in what we can and can't do to the environment, but don't you think we should take care of it? For our sake?

    After rereading this post it seems a little silly. As long as the government isn't trying to interfere and say that you must help the environment, what Objectivist (or person for that matter) would be against maintaining it and keeping it for further use?

    You're not going to find a complete consensus here. For reference to some of the topics about the oil spill, here is another thread on the subject. I don't think you are too far from the truth when you identify conservatives as being a little slower to react to the situation. The only ones I know that are in a hurry and motivated to get this spill contained are those conservatives in the region affected by the spill itself. I'm not an environmentalist, yet I understand, or at least perceive much more of a threat from the oil than other non-environmentalists, maybe because I'm from the Gulf and still travel there every year. Additionally, I do think that the government does have the responsibility to force BP to clean up all those areas, like the barrier islands and marsh lands, that are not owned by anyone.

  14. Again, that seems to beg the question. I get that you are talking about a large mass of underground water, but surely, I can put my pipe in the ground over here, and you can put your pipe in the ground over there, and the courts can demarcate some objective rules for doing that. There is no cause for de facto nationalization by government.

    But I just want to correct your point about air waves, it isn't true that they can never be owned, in fact they were owned privately at the beginning of radio broadcasting, as broadcasters staked out certain airwaves, and took aggressors to court, which then worked out titles according to common law theory of the homestead principle.

    I support that. Anyone who drills a well for water has a right to that well. When it comes to using the water table, that's a different question. Until I see reason to think anything different, I'll support aquifers remaining part of the commons and wells being owned by individuals. Which, without management of that commons, means who ever can pump water gets the water. In the rural, it doesn't work much differently than that.

    One of the things that stood out in your initial post was your argument that laissez-fair could solve these problems. I took it as you saying that private companies would be able to regulate the water usage based on what they charge for water, and to me that could only come from actually owning the water table. As we've both agreed, anyone can build a well and have that property protected because no one--for the large sources of water--owns that source. I'm not sure what's going on with these hotels, but I just took it for granted that they were getting their water by drilling their own wells, like those citizens who no longer had water.

    As for the air waves, I'll have to look at some of your sources. Do you recommend any other reading that covers the subjects we've been talking about?

  15. Isn't that begging the question though? Why can't it?

    Edit: if that may be opening a seperate topic, there's some stray threads already that contain that subject:

    "THE ENVIRONMENT, Should waterways by privately owned?"

    http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=18028

    Ownership Of Waterways, Can it be done?

    http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=4385

    Property Ownership, water,airspace, and the moon

    http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=782

    They cannot be owned because the thing has a property of being shared by many. In some cases it would be technically possible to own such commons, but it would require great, unrealistic amount of assets. Other commons, like air waves, could never be owned because of their shared property. In certain cases, a whole oil reserve--if that's what underground oil is even called--and groundwater sources can be owned, but that's because they are small in comparison to the larger reserves and aquifers that are shared by thousands due to property rights.

  16. Property rights can be applied to anything where humans can make use of or harness previously unowned nature, which means it doesn't require someone owning an entire river or ocean. There is no basis for government licensing of groundwater, that would simply mean government claims to own the entire thing, (Do you think government can own a whole river or an ocean?) and the State Water Board grants permission to the well-connected merchants to make use of the resource or to apply the "public trust doctrine." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_trust_doctrine Why should I have to ask the State permission to dig a well or extract water from my land? So long as I do not aggress against someone else's property, what is the problem? The idea that in order to make use of ground water one has to own a bit of area, therefore the State should de facto nationalize all groundwater isn't really logical. Whatever the problems of such a thing, it is for an objective law and courts to demarcate property titles in accordance with rational principles so that one's staking out of such an area would not constitute destruction of another's property, and any invasions thereafter would be subject to prosecution.

    There are plenty of property rights applied to things under the ground, such as oil, minerals and metals (and water already.) There's no reason to make an exception for water.

    You're right, property rights can be applied to just about anything; however, as far as I understand it, it cannot be applied to commonly owned things like rivers, oceans, oil reserves, air space, and if it isn't considered one already, groundwater aquifers, except through licensing. That's why I asked what type of laissez-faire solution you were proposing for use of ground water. Note, I'm not talking about someone laying infrastructure to pump that water and charging other people to use that infrastructure if they are interested in using it. I've got no problem with that; I just would like to know how that is supposed to stop the use--and scarcity for some--of ground water in this case.

  17. But as far as the water goes, supply and demand must equilibrate, so if you have a compulsory monopoly on water, or favored interests having a monopoly on water, then whichever decisions are made about the water are not a result of rational economic calculation, but coercively imposed on the group. Under total laissez-faire conditions, the increased demand would not be a disaster for the group, but a gread benefit (as totally private firms would love to increase and expand their operations to fill the new demand), and private enterprise would simply price the water so as to clear the market (ie., it would have to price the water higher for the developers and lower for the poor.) But under governmental control, whether socialistic or quasi-mercantilistic etc., when those in control fail to supply enough water to everyone who is demanding it, then a scapegoat must be found, and of course it's easy to blame the evil rich developers, who would otherwise be competing customers, for "using too much" water. The "solution" being to increase control over development, to "use less," and ban the use of sprinklers, pools, etc.

    How can laissez-faire be applied to ground water? One would have to own, in most cases, quite a bit of area; in this country, from what I've come to understand, multiple counties in a state or states. Do you think one can own a whole river or ocean? I don't, and I think government licensing of such resources is the best option that I know about.

  18. Okay, so I've gotten into an argument with someone about whether or not this nation was based on Judeo-Christian legal tradtions. Our Constitution is secular.

    Although I tend to use the term some what often, there is no such thing as Judeo-Christian tradition. That is something that was created out of continued secularization and commercialization of American religious groups and life in general. During the cold war it was used as a term to create solidarity of religion (and America) against communism and what was its most evil component, atheism. The only "Judeo-Christian tradition" that existed, maybe one could say up until that point, was infighting amongst christian groups in America (protestant vs. catholic) and a solid hate against Jews.

  19. The media have started to pick up on Rand Paul's connection with Alex Jones, the 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Apparently he has gone on Jones' radio show several times. Paul should be a little more selective in choosing where and with whom he does interviews.

    http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/05/ra...theorist-friend

    http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_roo..._paul_interview

    heh. That's why I've been saying what I have. These people are not any different than they were 10+ years ago. What is different is the level of support libertarians are getting now. Even though the tea party movement is a populist one and a compartmentalized set of the population, it's still a little mainstream. The media will continue to pick apart Paul, and he can either choose to stay honest to his ideas--like protecting the right of property owners to do what they will, even discriminate--or he can try and run away and bastardize what he thinks, just to get elected.

  20. Exactly, and therein lies the political hurdle that the more libertarian types face: they fly in the face of "common sense". Since the bulk of what people hear is via commentators, it is a tough job to communicate that one is all for common-sense, but not for forcing common-sense on others. Even the "independent voter" with a streak of let-them-alone will think: "well that's fine when it comes to drugs and so on, but racism affects other people"! A candidate has to put his position into a couple of soundbites that are hard to misrepresent. That's a tough call.

    Yeah, and you know this is probably just one of the many things Rand Paul's enemies will target about him and his statements. The GOP has to be watching him closely to determine how people are reacting to him. His success or failure could determine how far the GOP is willing to go in maintaining the status quo or order of the party, which could affect the populist movement itself. It could be an interesting election though. And who knows, maybe the movement will create so many divisions in the GOP that they will split apart.

  21. This subject is far beyond "left-fascists." To many people the civil rights act and the abolition of Jim Crow laws is taken almost as common sense. Being against that, then and now, is going to land you a few weird looks and negative comments from just about anybody. Very few people are going to understand or even try to understand Rand Paul's position here, no matter how right he is. If droves of people understood property rights like Rand Paul does, then the country would be fundamentally different than it is now. There is a new populist movement in the country, and Rand Paul has used its support to win a GOP primary. Even if he is elected to office, I don't see some major opportunity for him to make substantial difference.

×
×
  • Create New...