Sunday, September 20, 2009

Neutrality/Fairness - They SOUND Good, eh?

Reuters likes it.

Ergo, it must be VERY BAD.

U.S. Regulator to Unveil Open Internet Plan

Call it a gut-feeling. You can't find a single reason not to like this "democratic", for "the people" proposal in this story. From Reuters. Communist Reuters.

That means they're totally hiding the other side of the story.

The IMPORTANT side of the story.

The TRUE side of the story.

And read this from the Washington Post, in which NOBODY questions whether the fucking government should be involved at all in REGULATING the internet, cell phones, networks, providers...

Where, WHERE does the Constitution give this power to the Imperial State? Why is nobody asking that question? Is there NOTHING the Federal Government can't/won't regulate.

Why does Comcast or At&T have to explain itself to the Imperial State? Why does anyone have the "right" to force Apple to put/allow their applications on iPhones?

If iPhone customers want their services/applications badly enough, Apple will provide them or lose customers. Alternatively...if another phone company uses it and customers opt for their phones and services, Apple will either go broke or change.

It's called the Goddamned Free Market.

What the fuck is going on? I can't take it. I just can. not. take. it.

The Gunslinger
Enemy of the Imperial State


  1. Gunslinger, Gunslinger, have you ever read any work of Political Economy? From Smith to Keyenes, to Marx?

    Your notions of the Free Market are suitable to eight year olds. Markets and Goverments have throughout History been entertwined and simultaneous in thier evolution (you have heard of the Acropolis, right?)

    The only Free Market Place is the Jungle of Absolute, Ruling Might, which in Economic terms, is Soft Facism, the rule of the Corporations for their, not the citizenry's benefit.

    How is it you are so certain, and yet so ignorant of all of the underlying science?

    Gut feeling? Sure it warn't (like Scrooge suspeceted upon first seeing Marley) a bit of Gravy badly Digested?

    Seriously, you want to talk, learn first.


  2. And seriously, silly girl, who wants to regulate a modern electronic, global network according to the notions of Eighteenth Century white men?

    Who not in la-la land of make believe, ancient Freedoms, wants to regulate a modern industrial or post industrial society according to the non-existent notions of centuries old men about realities not even imaginable in their time?

    Interstate Commerce? The regulation of such is called for in the founding Documents, and that gives Congress the right to regulate a nationwide network used for commerce, like the Internet. But I'm sure you write and read articles accepted by Universities for publication regarding the applications of Constitutional provisions to modern law all the time... Why don't you favor us with some researched, logically sound arguments?

    Maybe you should go to College.

    The Detective In The Mirror.

  3. Ulysses, honey, I suggest Hazlitt on Keyenes...and Von Mises on Socialism. When you've read them, get back to me.

    No corrective education necessary for Smith.

  4. They've been pushing this one for quite awhile. This is from Don Luskin, in 2006,

    " Yet a group of today's biggest providers of online content have banded together with consumer groups, lobbyists, and political-influence organizations to strip the telcos and cable operators of the ability to control how their own networks will be managed and priced. They want the network operators to spend billions to create a regulated public utility that they can't control and may not profit from.

    The interests pushing for this regulation have given it the Orwellian name "net neutrality." They say that if the telcos and cable operators control their own next-generation networks, they'll "discriminate" against certain users of the network. They say that the network operators need to make their next-generation network available to everyone on the same basis and at the same price, no matter how the network is to be used.

    Sad to say, business people are usually the least likely to understand and practice free market capitalism, and the biggest promoters of Govt intervention and regulatory control - they see it as a way of getting and/or keeping a 'competitive' advantage.

    Unfortunately, the majority of them have gone to college to get ahead in business, and come out every bit as stupid as krul here, who seems to think that Individual Rights are something which change over time, that they are somehow less true if understood and written about, and fought for, by people in the 18th century.

  5. No doubt krul'd feel comfortable with some proregressive thought such as The Author and Signers of the Declaration- by Woodrow Wilson - uh-oh krul, that was over one hundred years ago... doesn't that push your nifty new so up to date notions past the expiration date of fashionability? Anyway, Wilson said such quaint old fashioned notions as,

    " No doubt we are meant to have liberty, but each generation must form its own conception of what liberty is. No doubt we shall always wish to be given leave to pursue happiness as we will, but we are not yet sure where or by what method we shall find it. "

    , which is nothing other than saying 'liberty' is changeable with the 'needs' of the moment. It also made it very convenient for him to imprison thousands of Americans for their political beliefs... something krul would support no doubt, probably goes well with notions of keeping handguns only in the hands of xspurts.

    Personally, I'll try and stay clear of the 'modernist' sophistry of the likes of Woodrow Wilson, and stick with the last president who actually understood the Constitution and the ideas it was developed from, Calvin Coolidge (who had the unenviable task of cleaning up after Wilson), he said,

    "About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers. "

    Yep, ol' 'Silent Cal' had a way with words. Something some blowhard wanna be 'tough guy' writers would do well to learn from.

  6. Larsen,
    Yes, we can appreciate enlightenment from the Ivory Tower of Verbosity made possible by College. Ordinary people are not capable of abstract thought and we need socialist bellwethers to lead us through the gate.

  7. Ulysses, your reading of the "interstate commerce" clause is a Progressive one, i.e. a Statist one. I'm sure you believe it, but that doesn't make it true. It is a complete misreading in my opinion.

    The Commerce Clause was meant to make commerce "regular", i.e. no tariffs between States, etc. because at the time the Constitution was being written there were some rather hotly contested issues among States not yet "United". It was not meant to give the Federal Government total control over everything that crosses state lines. (If it had, the States would never have agreed to it!) As you define it, and as it is used today, It is an unconstitutional usurpation of power expressly NOT given to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

    I don't understand your attraction to an Imperial State, which invariably leads to serfdom for individuals. (Which reminds me, you might want to pick up a copy of "The Road To Serfdom" by Hayek.)

    And...I don't mind you disagreeing with us... but your pretension of superior knowledge is not only tiresome, but risible.

    And finally, you know what they say about higher education, don't you? "Only someone who's been to college could believe something that stupid."

    I'm happy to say I have rid myself of the socialist/collectivist/Progressive/Statist/Marxist influences of my university education.

    And I highly recommend it.

  8. I withdraw the education comments.

    I'm acquainted with Hazlitt and Von Mises and find neither at all convincing.

    Take it from another angle, what good does it do anyone to let Gates accumulate unheard of fortunes while ruining the competitive market with monopolistic practices?


  9. Why does it always come down to someone being jealous of someone else's "fortunes"? All things said and understood,does it come down to "genius envy"? Or just an urge to be the Big Wittle Man to call the shots? I think so...I know the sort.."Question Authority" bumper-stickers...unless it's an "Authority" in power who makes one feel 'good' and 'superior' to the "regular folks". There's an old-fashioned British term for such pedants..."Twit".

  10. Larsen said "Take it from another angle, what good does it do anyone to let Gates accumulate unheard of fortunes while ruining the competitive market with monopolistic practices?"

    Ok, that was a straight forward comment & question - I'll treat it as such.

    Being successful, even dominating a market (without the aid of govt power, favors or enforcement), ruins no competitive market place, and cannot be a monopoly - even if they do it so well that no competitor feels they have a chance of getting any share of the market, and leaves it all to them. The reason why, in a free market, is that they can get that success ONLY through the uncoerced choices of the consumer's they serve.

    But if Hazlitt and Von Mises didn't make a dent in your thinking, it's not likely I will either - but being a flogger, I'll give it a shot with a non-essential and an essential.

    The non-essential, is that I and most of the people I work with owe our livelihoods to Gates pursuing and accumulating his fortune through the success of Microsoft. I don't work for Microsoft, never have, likely never will, but none of the work I've been making a fairly decent living at for the last 15 years would have existed without his intense pursuit of success and profit.

    I work as a software developer, by your reasoning, I should try and have the govt force the end of 'outsourcing' of jobs to India, or limit the travel visa's of programmers from India, Pakistan, etc, the govt should force 'greedy corps' to 'preserve American jobs' in order to keep my job secure.

    Balls to that. If they can beat me, I deserve to be beaten.

    And the plain practical fact is, that by their providing valuable services for lower costs, wealth is created, more wealth than would have been, or could have been, if they were barred from entry. This wealth isn't limited to only my field, it results and reverberates throughout the economy in lower prices for this, better services for that, more wealth is CREATED because of them, than could have been, without them.

    It may cost me a job, it may cause my bill rate to be reduced, or to grow slower, in the short run... but I, and my children and neighbors, will be better off in the long run. And all our rights, freedoms and liberty, are more secure by those of the employer and the employed not being infringed upon.

    The essential is, that if anyone person's right to their property, to pursue their happiness as they see fit is infringed, then no ones right their property & chosen lives are secure - not in principle. It may be convenient for the govt to allow most people, or particular people to behave as if they had a right to their lives, but if it should ever find someone's rights inconvenient to its purposes... something most Dr's should be pondering right now... then that person, and anyone else, could have it all taken without notice and without recourse.

    Prosperity and comfort is not the same as liberty and happiness. The life of a well cared for house slave, adored and pampered by their owners... is not one that has any interest for me. You?

    If the brainy guys didn't convince you about freedom, maybe try the common sense of the last worthwhile Frenchman, Frederic Bastiat, particularly What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen and The Law.

  11. find Von Mises and Hazlitt unconvincing, but Keynes convincing??

    My God man, he can't make up his mind from one chapter to the next what he thinks. His "masterpiece" was a hot illogical mess of inconsistency.

    He insisted on "full employment" no matter what the cost (which he didn't understand would result in "unemployment")

    He didn't grasp the concept that interest rates are the "price" of money determined by the market, but rather considered them arbitrarily set to make bankers a lot of money!

    He thought that government spending fixed recessions and was almost always a good thing.

    He never understood how Unions (which he supported for "full employment") who demand more than their labor is worth depressed an economy and resulted in high unemployment, or that interest rates kept artificially low encouraged irresponsible borrowing, spending and failure, or that government does not "produce" but only "consumes" and the more it consumes, the less prosperity is left for everyone else.

    He's an ignorant ninny of monumental proportions (and would that all his books had been burned!) Unfortunately they appeal very much to politicians greedy for union votes and money; who delight in making "rich bankers" into political scape-goats to cover their own economic malfeasance and ineptitude (witness recent events); and who LOVE taxing and spending other people's money.

    In other words, the perfect Progressive economics expert. And they love him.

  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

  13. Gunslinger said "...but rather considered them arbitrarily set to make bankers a lot of money!"

    And that is the key to the mess of modern thinkers, from Descartes on, they rationalize the arbitrary because they, in Descartes words, " a general rule, the principle, that all the things which we very clearly and distinctly conceive are true." - IOW, if you think it sounds to good to be true, it IS true!

    There isn't one name-brand thinker, from Descartes on (with the general exception of Locke) who states clearly and without equivocation, that reality is real, and that we can know it, and that Truth is discovered through our knowledge and understanding of what is real. For the moderns, Reality isn't knowable and 'truth' is negotiable (Kant gave this respectability... nothing true in his tomes, but he gave explanations so long and convoluted that everyone agreed to agree on what he said they meant, so that other people wouldn't think they were too stupid to understand it).

    Any pressing argument with a leftist (democrat or republican) must end in assertions and insults on their part, because they have no way to tie their arguments back to reality - it wasn't their starting point!

    Their starting point is what they thought sounded pretty, and your challenging them on it sounds no different to them than calling them ugly (which their thoughts are, but that's beside the point).

    It is the source of our modern plague of xspurts, people who think their conclusions are so purty, they must be true, and true everywhere, regardless of silly considerations such as the reality of a situation. Rather than discover and apply principles, which enable each person to consistently determine the best course of action in each situation, and choose it, they prefer to force everyone to apply their prefabricated conclusions to every situation.

    "Guns are dangerous? Well... then... only experts and professionals should be allowed to have or use them! Yep, I 'very clearly and distinctly conceive that must be true, so it MUST be! ", and another proregressive platform is born.

    Conclusions over Principles - enforced stupidity, it's the leftist way.

    How little did Keynes understand the source of wealth? Through his advice to FDR, FDR actually, literally, created a program to pay groups of men to dig ditches, and others to fill the ditches back in, so that more of their witch doctor level understanding of that magic talisman called 'money' would get into circulation - the fact that in reality it represented NOTHING being produced... never troubled their minds.

    Keynes was one of the stupidest smart people, not to mention destructive, of the last century.

    Coolidge's financial crisis was over and done with in a matter of months, because he kept the govt out of the way and let the market heal itself. Hoover (Coolidge said of Hoover: "That man has offered me unsolicited advice for six years, all of it bad!") & FDR ensured that their crisis would last a decade.

  14. The "Unicorn Theory of Economics" (and everything else.)

    Emotion and wishful thinking trumps intellect. SOP for Progressives.

    (Love "xpurts". May I steal it?)

  15. "...your challenging them on it sounds no different to them than calling them ugly..."

    That's thought-provoking. Perhaps it's why they think we're "mean-spirited"!

    They certainly take any political criticism personally. It may explain their otherwise inexplicably deep and perpetual anger.

  16. "(Love "xpurts". May I steal it?)"

    Heh... I like that too, and since I thought of it here, you betcha!

  17. Maybe the first discussion with a leftist should be about the entire notion of principles. I asked a nearly "perfect leftist" the other day what the principles were behind what he was saying, and he did a combination stutter/jaw-drop/wide eyes while looking off into space to the lower right, his eyes narrowed as if to approximate some meaning in his mind. I asked again to shake him from his stupor. After a few minutes of discussion, it seemed that he had no idea what I was talking about. So when debating a leftist maybe the debate should *begin* with the notion of principles.

    This is a great blog btw. I'm a new visitor as of today and am enjoying it. I found it courtesy of Van's latest blog entry, linked to in comments from another blog. Suffice it to say that I'm gleeful at the suggested reading list for classical economics. Von Mises, Say, th'etcetera. Never mind that Keynes, Marx, and Woodrow Wilson.

  18. "...linked to in comments from another blog"

    ...linked to in a comment by Van. I should have specified.

  19. Apparently it is a good day to first encounter Von Mises - it is his birthday.

  20. Welcome Anna.

    Good idea! Drag Liberals off their talking points and make them identify the underlying principle that must apply in all cases!

    An elegantly set trap. I like it!

  21. Anna said "Maybe the first discussion with a leftist should be about the entire notion of principles. I asked a nearly "perfect leftist" the other day what the principles were behind what he was saying, and he did a combination stutter/jaw-drop/wide eyes while looking off into space to the lower right, his eyes narrowed as if to approximate some meaning in his mind."

    Absolutely! Always bring the argument to principles - they have none. Don't ever allow the argument to go to policies, remedies, etc, that allows them to introduce whatever arbitrary position they desire, and being the liars turf, they will run rings around you - keep them to principles and reality, and they are hosed. Leftists come to an intellectual battle armed with a list of assertions, a MAD Magazine booklet of putdowns and insults, and a slew of random facts - that's it!

    The course of their 'argument' is predictable,

    "...They will first attempt to equivocate on terms such as ‘freedom’, ‘equality’, ‘a hungry man is not free’ and the like. As you call them on that, they will come back by with further attempts at conflating ‘Needs’ with ‘Rights’, as FDR attempted to overshadow our Bill of Rights, with his warm bowl of crap ‘economic bill of rights’ - nothing but slavery all dolled up in a pretence of manners. And that is just about the end of their possible zigs and zags, because when you ask them to define what Rights are, they are fully self disarmed - they have nothing, no Reasoning whatsoever with which they can answer. "

    , they will first say that You know nothing. If you explain your principles and again ask them to define theirs, that is when they will call you a meanie, a hater of the poor and minorities - They. Have. No. Arguments. Whatsoever. What is even worse than that, is that WE allow them to get away with it with their redefinition of reality with the figments they'd prefer to be real.

    We are for Liberty, they are for Tyranny - It. Is. That. Simple. And when you keep the argument to those terms, every onlooker will see that is true as well.