Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

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).


Comment: Re:#1 slashdot article submitters (Score 1) 257

by mjtaylor24601 (#49143691) Attached to: 5 White Collar Jobs Robots Already Have Taken

Because there is such a thing as reputation, and concealed carry.

Reputation only works as a behavior modifier if the people I have to do business with in some way give a crap about the people I'm screwing over. And concealed carry only works if your gun is bigger than mine.

Also, I didn't say get rid of governments, I said get them out of the markets. The only possible purpose of a government is to reduce aggression (ie murder, assault, theft, and their derivatives like rape and fraud).

You didn't say get rid of them but you did say they were "the root of the problems we have in the marketplace", which I took to mean you thought there would be no problems in the marketplace if we got rid of the government. IMHO you can't have a functioning marketplace without things like protection of property rights, protection against fraud and enforcement of contracts, and I've yet to hear of a credible proposal for how we maintain those things without some form of government.

Comment: Re:nice, now for the real fight (Score 1) 631

by mjtaylor24601 (#49143591) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

The scarcity of a natural resource does not cause a monopoly to naturally occur.

It's certainly not guaranteed to to happen but are seriously suggesting that it's impossible for it to happen?

The scarcity of radio spectrum would not result in a single radio broadcast corporation monopolizing the spectrum.

What are you basing that assertion on?

Now, if it wasn't regulated, there would be some chaos - but the steady state equilibrium result may not be all that bad.

Who's to say the "steady state equilibrium" wouldn't be the one guy with the most powerful transmitter drowning out every other signal?

The fact that many are unhappy with cable companies and desire more competition shows that granting them government monopolies has downsides. Do you think the US would be better off if Google Fiber efforts were banned because "natural monopoly" and "duplication" and it might not be cost effective?

Don't get me wrong. I am in no way saying that government granted monopolies are good or desirable. I was merely trying to point out it was possible for monopolies to form without a specific government mandate.

Comment: Re:nice, now for the real fight (Score 1) 631

by mjtaylor24601 (#49142919) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

Physics doesn't enforce monopolies

Depends what you mean by enforce I guess. eg there is a limited radio broadcast spectrum. That's not government enforced, that just physics. If everyone just broadcast indiscriminately on whatever spectrum they felt like signal interference would render it useless.

Take cable - natural monopoly? Except it relies on government enforcement to create the actual monopoly.

Not really. Even if you removed all government regulation from building cable networks (which would in practice be next to impossible to do, but for the sake of argument) you'd still never see 27 different cable providers running wires into your house because it's simply not cost effective to duplicate that infrastructure. You'd end up fragmenting the market to the point where it's impossible to recover the capital costs of building the network. You may not see a strict monopoly with only one player (although you might), but the natural barriers to entry can be sufficient that normal "free market" solutions don't necessarily apply.

Comment: Re: nice, now for the real fight (Score 1) 631

by mjtaylor24601 (#49142797) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

Currently these places are getting internet piggybacked on utility infrastructure. The costs are spread over the entire service area and traditionally, access to that service area was limited in exchange for servicing areas not profitable to serve.

Sure, but what I'm still not getting is how net neutrality rules change any of that?

[The unprofitable areas] will have to bear the costs of their connections when 5 different companies saturate the apartment complex

How does net neutrality magically give us 5 companies serving the profitable market when we've never had that before?

Comment: Re: nice, now for the real fight (Score 2) 631

by mjtaylor24601 (#49141379) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

He likely wouldn't have internet af all. These rules allow service providers to flood the profitable markets and ignore the unprofitable ones. Expect rate increases in those unprofitable markets like low income areas and places where yhe population density isn't high.

Forgive my ignorance, but what regulation has been requiring ISPs to provide cheap access in unprofitable market up until now? If the answer is "none" then what makes you think these new rules will cause unprofitable markets to be any more undeserved than they currently are?

Comment: Re:#1 slashdot article submitters (Score 1) 257

by mjtaylor24601 (#49140295) Attached to: 5 White Collar Jobs Robots Already Have Taken

People don't realize that literally all evils in the marketplace are due to initiation of aggression, and in government we have an agency that claims that it has the right and moral obligation to initiate aggression at any time and in any place. Is it really a surprise that they are at the root of the problems we have in the marketplace?

What makes you think that, in the absence of government, all other actors would magically refrain from the "initiation of aggression"? After all, why would I want to engage in trade with you if it's easier for me to just club you over the head and take your stuff? If there's no recognized legal authority what's to stop me from doing so?

Comment: Re:"Free Market" religion (Score 1) 182

by mjtaylor24601 (#48849545) Attached to: Republican Bill Aims To Thwart the FCC's Leaning Towards Title II

A truly free market by definition is responsive to the majority (will) of the people. If the people like "A" over "B" in a free market, that is what they invest/buy/suggest/endorse etc.

Not necessarily true. A free market solution might disproportionately benefit the very wealthy for example. That's not a priori bad, but it would certainly be a stretch to call it representing the will of the majority of the people.

"Who alone has reason to *lie himself out* of actuality? He who *suffers* from it." -- Friedrich Nietzsche