Net Neutrality... No, really it will be faster and cheaper... Says the government.

ginwilly said:
I'm accusing you of making the common mistake of thinking cronyism and corporatism IS capitalism. Those forms absolutely need a third party, the purest form does not.

What would the trade of capital be called
Click to expand...

cronyism is a form of capitalism, as is fascism, hence the privatization.

since you still don't know the definition of capitalism, I suggest you look it up.

privatization absolutely requires government, therefore capitalism in any form can not exist in the absence of gov't
 
abandonconflict said:
cronyism is a form of capitalism, as is fascism, hence the privatization.

since you still don't know the definition of capitalism, I suggest you look it up.

privatization absolutely requires government, therefore capitalism in any form can not exist in the absence of gov't
Click to expand...

Can you give an example of any economic systems that can be used without a governing body using your definitions?
 
abandonconflict said:
so you simply refuse to look up the word capitalism...
Click to expand...
I know what it is, I know the definition of it, what I don't know is what you consider property and what can be owned, you've avoided that like the plague, so it's hard to get a handle on what you "think" it is, since you won't share that answer with the rest of the class.
 
ginwilly said:
what you consider property and what can be owned, you've avoided that like the plague
Click to expand...

I have answered this question repeatedly on several threads.

to the first question, "what is property", my answer is get a fucking dictionary

to the second question, "who may own it", my answer is I don't have or want the power to dictate this
 
abandonconflict said:
I have answered this question repeatedly on several threads.

to the first question, "what is property", my answer is get a fucking dictionary

to the second question, "who may own it", my answer is I don't have or want the power to dictate this
Click to expand...

I want the power. I dictate that your property is really my property so hand it over...
 
abandonconflict said:
I have answered this question repeatedly on several threads.

to the first question, "what is property", my answer is get a fucking dictionary

to the second question, "who may own it", my answer is I don't have or want the power to dictate this
Click to expand...
I've used a dictionary, funny thing happened on my way to using it though, it's always different from what you claim.

I'd actually like YOUR definition of what can be owned as property. The definitions you get when looking it up fly in the face of nearly every claim you make. In other words, they never seem to match. Enlighten us please, or just call names because you can't, that works too.
 
ginwilly said:
I'd actually like YOUR definition of what can be owned as property.
Click to expand...

you mean my opinion

i have not fully formed one.

i can tell you what some of the things i think shouldn't be owned, but that would be a huge segue away from the topic at hand.

we're talking about real existing capitalism and for that, i need only follow dictionary definitions
 
abandonconflict said:
you mean my opinion

i have not fully formed one.

i can tell you what some of the things i think shouldn't be owned, but that would be a huge segue away from the topic at hand.

we're talking about real existing capitalism and for that, i need only follow dictionary definitions
Click to expand...

We go off topic here all the time, it's not a crime.

I'm truly interested in your thoughts about it and would love for you to expand on them.
 
Eleven principles for bipartisan rules in the Internet Age:

  • Prohibit blocking
  • Prohibit throttling
  • Prohibit paid prioritization
  • Require transparency
  • Apply rules to both wireline and wireless
  • Allow for reasonable network management
  • Allow for specialized services
  • Protect consumer choice
  • Classify broadband Internet access as an information service under the Communications Act
  • Clarify that Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act may not be used as a grant of regulatory authority
  • Direct the FCC to enforce and abide by these principles
http://www.commerce.senate.gov/publ...ecord_id=1d50eab7-9751-4adf-9914-cce155cba204

(RE: the bold, blue parts)
The first precludes the FCC from use of Title II, which isn’t surprising, given the GOP’s general view on the matter. The second is odd, as it seems to strip the other, generally cited source of regulatory authority that the FCC has considered using to underpin net neutrality regulations. The final point then essentially binds the FCC to the will of Congress.
http://techcrunch.com/2015/01/15/gop-net-neutrality-proposal-draws-ire-praise/

So...it would seem the GOP's version of legislation would be to make the FCC a complete servant of Congress. That would be a mistake. Isn't the FCC supposed to be non-partisan? Are members of Congress suddenly telecom experts (along with being economists, scientists, pop-stars and God's chosen ones)?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Padawanbater2
Democrat with financial ties to AT&T just gutted California's net neutrality law
Replies
17
Views
869
ttystikk
ttystikk
vostok
FCC Repeals U.S. Net Neutrality Rules
Replies
5
Views
383
curious2garden
curious2garden
G
How the Doug Ford government lost $42 million selling pot he always sucked as a small time dealer lo
Replies
1
Views
196
gb123
G
G
You can buy live pot plants when they’re legal — at least in theory
Replies
19
Views
1K
cannadan
cannadan
abandonconflict
say goodbye to net-neutrality
2 3
Replies
55
Views
2K
NoDrama
N
Back
Top