Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
lines discontinued, government subsidizes the whole thing still.
So you switched from nationalisation of certain industries to taxpayer-funded cronyism? Thats a huge step backwards in the eyes of every libertarian, ancap, capitalist, anarchist everywhere, ever
You make good points. I agree with all of them. But I'm an ancap, and I could have told you that trying state-subsidized cronyism would be far worse than anything you had before. In fact, croyism is the biggest talking point for ancaps and libertarians. Not socialism and nationalization.
Given that all a lack of the FCC being involved has got you is a Comcast/Time Warner monopoly
Wow you do realize that last mile has been regulated for a long time? The only place that's not heavily regulated is backhaul and tier3, which surprise has a healthy, competetive market
You're right about London, Tokyo (you forgot Paris, Vancouver and a bunch of others).
Mr. AC is also right
I personally think that what both of you are missing is that as long as people allow the expansion of the state, people and corporations will always try to congregate around where they can pay their politicians off. Explain to me how London is the nicest place in the UK? It isn't. Same with Paris. The only reason people live in Paris, London, Tokyo etc and dream of being elsewhere is government
California is an exception (I know that Sacramento is actually the seat of government). There you have a problem with everyone wanting to be near Hollywood or SV or whatever. Which is a new, voluntary form of power. So perhaps people are just massively stupid, if we decentralized and capped density, people would just invent something new to worship and congregate there. My hope is that when anti-biotics stop working next year, all the congregates of $seats_of_power and $hollywood etc etc will just start dying from the over-concentration and be forced to go home and find some meaning in life.
Ok, I'm a libertarian, actually a quaker-style, pacifist, against-all-violence ancap.
Because of our beliefs, our next house will be in a gated community. Not because we particularly like it. No, we're taking a bit of a hit to live by our principles. But as a voluntaryist I fully support the concept of people voluntarily choosing a set of rules and regs etc etc
I know that in the US, HOA means something different (because basically everyone has to have one in some areas, and they are all the same, mandated by the state). Which is of course the opposite of what a HOA or other free-association community should be. But w/e you guys are just letting statists co-opt every word in the dictionary. Let me know when the GOP/democrats publish their official newspeak dictionary so the rest of us can try to keep up. All I'm trying to say is that gated communities are (at least in my situation) the obvious choice for for a step towards more freedom and more choice and less oppression for vulnerable people.
The major disagreement between political factions is how much to tax, who to tax and what to spend the money on, but never about taxation itself.
Oh so basically you've bounded the debate? Are you being paid for your time spend propagandizing? By the way, it is in the best interest of the state (undoubtedly the most powerful entity in the US) to make everyone think that the only options are different flavours of itself.
Regardless, you have to explain what "lawful" means. I don't care about legal this and changed-the-constitution-100-years-ago-now-its-lawful. Because morally, there's no difference between taxation and thieft-at-gunpoint-threatened-with-kidnapping. Other than 400 years ago, we did it with swords and gallows and dungeons and now we've made it a bit cleaner. Morally, the difference between a "noble" passing a law that he can rape your wife on the first night of your marriage and then take your money for the rest of your life, is exactly the same as changing the US constitution to allow the state to tax in like manner.
Please reply. With a MORAL argument. Not a legal one. Do you really think that I could take you back in time before The State (blessed be thy name) made stealing wrong (but not the legal kind) and killing wrong (but, again, not the legal kind) and the shoot you in the head, just because it was not legally wrong? Is there no room in this world for morals? Are you saying that if you took your family sailing, and happened to get blown to an island outside of the US EEC zone, that anyone who found you could just steal, rape, kill at will? Because, in your opinion, it's not "legally" wrong? The only problem I have with statists is that I've never met one with a moral compass, and that's sad
Stop using the water analogy. The technology is fundamentally different. Using QoS, we can control the priority of packets which are on a shared line. That is impossible with water droplets in pipes. If it were possible, I would support it. Because 1. I'd pay less money for "hard" water for rinsing, but a little more for "soft" water for the washing mashine 2. water utilities would be much better run, with better services, tiers, etc.
I don't see anyone complaining about socializing (through legislation) the grocery chains to ensure that they build stores in places which some social justice warriors deem to be necessary. We know how such central planning works out, and we as a globe have decided to leave grocery stores to the free market. Despite the fact that poor rural areas don't have hipster eco expensive grocery stores. Oh the humanity!!!
Taken to their logical conclusion, your arguments would have us forcing every style of every grocery store to build in the stupidest of locations. What I don't get, is if social justice warriors and socialist thieves (from the common good) think it's so important to have grocery stores in poor rural areas, why don't they get off their asses and actually do that (by commercial or co-operative or whatever means available). Why is it necessary to force OTHERS to do your bidding?? (through the genuine threat of violence through law). Oh, and btw I think my analogy is valid for purpose: if you think that the internet is more important than nutrition for the purpose of given everyone a fair start in life, get a grip on reality man. Get outside your comfort zone. If you spend time trying to help people who are mentally STUNTED for all aspects of human life, even the ones outside the intarwebs, then come back and try to repeat your arguments.