Libertarians shouldn't be angry. People who risk their money in Bitcoins are making a choice. They are assuming a risk and acknowledge that it is a risk. Why do they take the risk, because there is a chance of a reward. That is how things should work. You take a risk, you don't get bailed out if it goes south.
If the lawsuit is successful, and the tower is blocked, it can be, and likely will, be constructed elsewhere. The lawsuit will not stop the fracking, at best it might delay it a little.
Now, it a competitor is trying tap into a big resource... would it be in his best interest to be as much of a headache as possible... Delay the development so his competitor has to spent much more to get things done. Hmmm... just a thought.
I'll buy that for a dollar!
No, they are confused by an unclear description of "net neutrality".
I've seen some places (non-fox news) describe "net neutrality" as "Enforcing traffic to be at equal speeds"... which is not the case. People using that description would be against it because they believe it would mean all web traffic would be slower, to match the speed of the slowest server... That reeks of "All must be fair, so we must race to the bottom" and "Everybody gets a trophy" that many people disapprove of.
If you inform them that Net Neutrality is against throttling speeds, and having customers get what they paid for... then most of those against, turn sides.
I see it as we either need to enforce Net Neutrality, or enable a free market, where we have more than one or two choices for broadband (or any other utility).... If we had 10+ ISP's to choose from, this wouldn't be an issue, one would not throttle, and that would force the others to compete. But we don't have a free market... and too many of those in power (both in government, and the big TelComs) would lose money to allow a free market.
A summer or two ago I saw a kid holding a sign that said "Speed trap ahead!". Over the next hill was a cop, mostly hidden by some bushes. The next stop light had another kid with a sign: "Speed Trap tips" and had a jar full of cash. Good show kids, good show...
Like Chernobyl? Run by the government for the public good... then it exploded in 1986. Then it was brought back online and ran until the end 2000 because the public good needed cheap power.
The problem is the lack of free markets. In most cities you don't have the option of 5 different gas companies. You get one. That is because the city leaders in their infinite wisdom on what is good for the people decided that ABC Company will handle all the hardware and maintenance.
I worked at an ISP as a Tech support manager years back, and our DSL lines had to use the local TelCom's lines. We had to pay a rental fee for those lines (to pay for maintenance) and at the end of the day, we made very little on DSL. You see they had the government contract. All phone lines in the area were controlled by them. Any other TelCom had to use their lines (with the rental fee). They had a monopoly, where the competition had to buy from them. And the TelCom had crappy lines and had no interest in fixing them. One section of town was wired with 'Paper lines'... copper wire wrapped in wax paper. These lines were meant to be used as a temporary fix while real line can be ordered and laid... but they used it as normal line. When ever it rained we had calls in and you can year popping on the line. If you can hear noise... think on what the computer picks up. The only resort they had was call the TelCom to fix it... and a few days later, when things dried out... "Everything is fine'. We got sick of it and we started to put up wireless routers all over town. We offered wireless internet, and started to move all our DSL customers to wireless... only then did the TelCom started to replace those paper lines with real lines. Funny how competition forces improvements heh?
With the utilities we don't have a free market. We have a strongly regulated, heavily controlled, government backed monopoly... and then we blame the free market when it becomes corrupt. I have one choice for a gas company. I have one choice for an electric company. I have one choice for a TelCom. That is not the Free Market.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
Actually, it would.
The problem comes from bankruptcy laws. Banks were having a fit because students would get loans, and when they graduate, declare bankruptcy and have the loans forgiven. The showboat case for this was people graduating as medical doctors, declaring bankruptcy, then getting a high paying job. Banks went to the government to 'fix' this problem and the fix was: Student loans are immune to bankruptcy. If you get a student loan, you will pay it back, even if that means you will have your McPaycheck garnished.
This now means that banks have little to no risk to their loans. Why would they refuse any loan? If the student is successful or not, either way, they get paid. A kid that gets straight D's in school and wants to major in "Classical Nintendo" Sure! Here's money with a nice interest rate.
Now we have banks giving money anybody who wants it, demand for higher education goes up. When demand goes up and supply stays the same... prices go up. Prices go up? Get a loan!
It's a self-feeding model that all started with crony-capitalism. Banks and Government got in bed together. Now I don't blame the banks for complaining... it is a problem. If I lent off a ton of money for students to become doctors, and they kept stiffing me, I'd be pissed. But the Government gave the Banks too sweet of a deal. They gave them a win-win.
What if the banks had a 10 year probation window on student loan bankruptcies instead? If a student declares bankruptcy, the loan is put on hold for 10 years with no interest. If during that 10 year time, the student finds a job that could may payments, the loan sticks. If they can't after 10 years, the loan is forgiven. Banks are protected from those "evil doctors" getting hefty loans then dumping them... Students are protected from not being able to find a job afterwards. The loan (and cost of the education) must reflect the job that is received in the end. Students with poor grades, and majors that aren't in demand are less likely to get loans, as they are now risky to the bank. All of this should lower costs of education.
The problem with the "US vs [other country]" is the US has other issues the other countries don't have.
First, the US is HUGE compared to most of those countries.
Second, we have a huge drug problem.
Third we have massive traffic related deaths (10+ million per year). The only country that has a higher percentage of citizens owning cars is Morocco, and they don't have nearly the population we do.
When you count the huge drug and traffic accidents to our life expectancies and infant death, the US isn't nearly as bad as people make it sound. When we have birth issues because the parents are junkies, or millions DOA from a car accident, it really doesn't matter if the hospital is top notch or not.
The market has been fine since the beginning of human history. Leave it alone
The Free Market saves! The Free Market has no flaws! Trust in the Free Market, and you will be able to buy Paradise(tm) some day!
Market failure is both a hard fact of reality and, apparently, anathema to the dumbest religion in history.
The Free Market is about profit and loss. Risk and reward. There is no such thing as "Too big to fail" in the Free Market. GM should have failed. Let it be refactored to be profitable without a big bailout, or even sell off it's assets.
Bailing out companies that make poor decisions because they are "Too big to fail" is crony-capitalism. It allows companies to make poor decisions and get away with them, and promotes brib^H^H^H^HPolitical Contributions.
Sears Catalog Operated in the 20th century as well. As did many other mail-order catalogs.
Vast majority of the country is like this. Heck I the town I did live before only had a Radio Shack. About 5 years after I left a Best Buy opened and people freaked. If you wanted to find a computer shop, you had to drive about 30 mins.
I shopped around. No local computer shops. Only 2 places carried SATA cables. Best Buy, and Radio Shack. Both were $25.
I could also go to other online stores that offers free shipping. $4 + nada + nada + $4. Still cheaper.
That is *IF* somebody brings in an ad, then they verify it... So with a hassle, they will price match. Or I can just buy it from Amazon with no hassle.
And I did compare products that are exactly the same The cables were both in a bag, no mention of "Gold plated Connectors!!!!" or other such gimmick. But just for fun I did find an item to compare at 2 locations. Monsters University Pre-Order (Blueray + DVD) at Walmart and Amazon. Using 7.25% sales tax: Walmart (29.96 + 2.17 = $32.13) and Amazon (23.39 + 3.98 = 27.27). Amazon's total is cheaper than Walmart pre-tax price. Even with tax, it would still be cheaper. Plus I get to order it from my home, and have it on my door step on day of release.
Still: It's not Sales tax. It's the price.