FCC kills Net Neutrality

[purist]

Now that the FCC has killed Net Neutrality, (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703581204576033513990668654.html?m od=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories) will us peasants be forced to hobble together our own decentralized "mesh network" ISPs out of living room routers and roof-mounted antennas?

Because sooner or later, it's going to be either that, or an Internet that's divided up into fast and slow lanes. The FCC’s proposed internet rules present two gaping obstacles to neutrality:

#1 - They would allow the telecom companies to block any apps and services they want from the mobile internet (except ones that compete with their services, because that would qualify as anti-trust behavior).

#2 - For the non-mobile web, it would allow telecoms to charge sites a fee for decent load times, relegating non-paying sites to ‘slow lanes’ which would make it harder for readers to access them.

Both are serious blows to the whole idea of “neutrality.” So, get ready for a future of pay-per-service, pay-per-page internet fees. The new, "freer" internet will look something like paying $0.02 per MB to use Facebook, $6.00 a month to use Skype and $0.50 monthly for a speed-limited version of Youtube.

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/5702/newinternet.jpg

The above image is taken directly from a PowerPoint presentation (http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/epicenter/2010/12/final_slide_deck.pdf) by Allot Communications and Openet - suppliers to large wireless companies including AT&T and Verizon - that was sent to Wired by a source from within the industry. It's all in there, making it possible for your wireless provider to monitor everything you do online and charge you extra for using Facebook, Skype of Netflix. Check the seventh slide.

Of course, Obama championed true net neutrality in his campaign, promising to “take a back seat to no one in [his] commitment to Net Neutrality.” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-karr/obama-fcc-caves-on-net-ne_b_799435.html) but his administration is now praising the FCC’s new proposal.

Hmm, could that be because of WikiLeaks?

[Swishahouse]

This is total bullshit. I've been so pist at this administration bowing out on a fuck load of issues but this one really takes the cake for me. Net neutrality should not be an option and shit like this goes against the very premise of the open internet.

[Harrison]

Hmm, could that be because of WikiLeaks?

I would say it has more to do with the inordinate amounts of lobbying the RIAA, MPAA, etc. are doing.

No one has enough money to compete with that shit.

Buh bye torrents, video streaming, VOIP competition, etc.

[Harrison]

P.S. Welcome to fascism, too.

Don't like a political party's site? Cause it to load slow as a crawl.

[Itchybottom]

Luckily for you, it'll likely be challenged.

[Ihealyou]

I'm unhappy with this too, but I want to play devil's advocate for a minute.

Whats wrong with paying for the amount of bandwidth you use? Right now, people who use less bandwidth are subsidizing the people who use more. I realize it would suck for me and most people here who use the internet a lot, but I'm having trouble seeing how it isn't fair to charge for what you use.

[Rogean]

We're not the only government that uses the internet, either. That's got to present some sort of problems.

Rules and Regulations for the internet and providers should be handled by something like the UN, not individual countries' governments.

[Harrison]

I'm unhappy with this too, but I want to play devil's advocate for a minute.

Whats wrong with paying for the amount of bandwidth you use? Right now, people who use less bandwidth are subsidizing the people who use more. I realize it would suck for me and most people here who use the internet a lot, but I'm having trouble seeing how it isn't fair to charge for what you use.

That is already in place as a BUSINESS plan.

Comcast for instance has the right to charge you more for higher data usage per month, and only 10% of the users are even coming close to that "amount".

That comes nowhere near as dangerous as, "We're going to control data flow when and where we wish to, because we can. You're free to pay us extra to remove these artificially created blocks on bandwidth."

[boboo]

Shit im agreeing with Harrison on 2 posts on the same page, somebody pinch me

[nosebleed]

I'll quit the internet and go back to doing things outside and socializing with socialists.

[OngorDrakan]

"The new FCC rules, for example, would prevent a broadband provider, such as Comcast Corp., AT&T, Inc. or Verizon Communications Inc., from hobbling access to an online video service, such as Netflix, that competes with its own video services.

The rules would also require Internet providers to give subscribers more information on Internet speeds and service. Broadly, the rules would prohibit Internet providers from "unreasonably discriminating" against rivals' Internet traffic or services on wired or wireless networks."

And this is bad because?

Also this is just the start! We need the government to step in and protect us. I doubt any of you could stop Comcast from blocking or slowing selective traffic(porn) from getting to you. They need to go further with this information though making it so the internet stays open and nobody can rule it. I think you've got it wrong.

[Rogean]

I doubt any of you could stop Comcast from blocking or slowing selective traffic(porn) from getting to you.

OH LAWDZ NOT THE PR4N

[Timzilla]

"The new FCC rules, for example, would prevent a broadband provider, such as Comcast Corp., AT&T, Inc. or Verizon Communications Inc., from hobbling access to an online video service, such as Netflix, that competes with its own video services.

The rules would also require Internet providers to give subscribers more information on Internet speeds and service. Broadly, the rules would prohibit Internet providers from "unreasonably discriminating" against rivals' Internet traffic or services on wired or wireless networks."

And this is bad because?

Also this is just the start! We need the government to step in and protect us. I doubt any of you could stop Comcast from blocking or slowing selective traffic(porn) from getting to you. They need to go further with this information though making it so the internet stays open and nobody can rule it. I think you've got it wrong.

It's bad because you have non-elected officials imposing rules on something that is not within their jurisdiction. Now we have to grind out yet another senseless battle in the courts to stay off this dictatorship.

[Rahnza]

This will never happen.

[OngorDrakan]

It's bad because you have non-elected officials imposing rules on something that is not within their jurisdiction. Now we have to grind out yet another senseless battle in the courts to stay off this dictatorship.

Better something than nothing right now. Rather than comcast screwing you in the butthole. :D

[Evilmog]

I think we should all file a class action law suit on Blizzard. It's clearly their fault this is happening.

[Zephys]

Better something than nothing right now. Rather than comcast screwing you in the butthole. :D

You're an idiot.

[Swishahouse]

You're an idiot.

Is not!

[Greyhands]

We're not the only government that uses the internet, either. That's got to present some sort of problems.

Rules and Regulations for the internet and providers should be handled by something like the UN, not individual countries' governments.

Thats basically what ICANN is

http://icann.org/

[Daywolf]

Now that the FCC...
Well yeah, not a surprise, they have been getting ready to target it for some time. Our government has destroyed construction, manufacturing, research and development, small business, in the process of destroying our hospitals, then it's time to turn the focus in on driving business off of the internet and into communist and third-world nations. Eventually the government will run out of money (well... no one will accept our fiat money any longer), and start paying back all these insane international loans with land (primarily to China). Been grabbing land for decades like a mad hatter for some reason, ya'know? One step at a time.

[xnolanx]

Rules and Regulations for the internet and providers should be handled by something like the UN, not individual countries' governments.

amen.... how can the us ran and regulated FCC monitor something that is universal, and a public domain open to every country and person

[Auchae]

I'm unhappy with this too, but I want to play devil's advocate for a minute.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:iTY4Bax-HcUBiM:http://www.notvandnobeermakehomersomethingsomething.com/simpsons/devils_advocate.png&t=1

[Daywolf]

Rules and Regulations for the internet and providers should be handled by something like the UN, not individual countries' governments.Even worse. I don't want my government messing with it let alone the UN for crying out loud.

We are already way over regulated, to a crippling point. It only gives power to governments and/or to organization such as the UN that imo only looks out for their own selfish interests. As long as it remains as it is now, it gives people the ability to impact their practices with how we spend our money.

Has nothing to do with global warming, world population crisis, 2012 doomsday or space aliens making cook books of us. But you know, like everything else they touch, such controlling entities get their claws into it, it will be about everything else so to manipulate it into this intrusive and controlling entity that lacks any sense of the word freedom.

[Henini]

USA will be annexed by china probably with in the next century. they already own all of the industries and 90% of the goods + the country it's self has how many gazillions of debt to china?

for the internet topic.... they are going at this the wrong way

analogy:

truck drives on the roads in the us to bring package to destination.
roads belong to the government.
truck gets caught with illegal merchandise.
Hey government should have prevented that, lets see what we can do, I know, lets limit who can drive on the roads.

like seriously... wake up.
before internet, people pirated shit on cd's, before cd's it was floppies, before floppies it was tapes, before tapes well there wasn't anything before tapes.

now it's easy to distribute a product because of the modern technologies, so yes, there is more pirating going on, there is also a lot more legit distribution happening then there use to 20-30 years ago.

as for "but some people use more bandwith the others" argument. it's moot!
we all pay for our service's bandwith and so do every site or services you hit when you brows or download on the internet.
guess what, torrents... ISPS make a lot of money off those. all the stuff I download, I get charged for bandwith every month in my service plan, if I go over, I get charged out of the ass. so they make even more money.
face book, youtube etc... they have to pay just like everyone else, granted with self generated revenue, but some telco is pocketing loads of cash cuz of those sites.

the problem comes from greedy telco that want to "sell" you a big pipe and then turn around and complain when you use it.
like wtf...
you expect me to pay loads of cash for the internet service that does Xmb/s but when I use it you gonna bitch at me?
then what are you selling me exactly?

and yeah... like some people said. US is just 1 country, internet isn't the US, it's the world now.

host your servers in off-shore and this whole thing will be moot again. all that will do is drive the economy down some more. and make isps from other countries try to avoid routing trough the US.
which will cause seclusion which is a bad thing.

really guys, more isn't always better. stop with all the rules and the controlling what everyone does. you are making Russia sound like a nice place to live.

[KilyenaMage]

I'm unhappy with this too, but I want to play devil's advocate for a minute.

Whats wrong with paying for the amount of bandwidth you use? Right now, people who use less bandwidth are subsidizing the people who use more. I realize it would suck for me and most people here who use the internet a lot, but I'm having trouble seeing how it isn't fair to charge for what you use.

Don't kid yourself. These per-site charges are gonna be ADDED to what you're already paying.

If you think you're gonna be able to pay per-usage fees, you're sadly mistaken.

[Estolcles]

I think it's really nothing to worry about, honestly.

Shit, issues #1 and #2... anyone remember the days of dialup, when EQ was grand spankin' new, for a minute here? Hello the original Yahoo and AOL and local ISP shit.

It's just the next step of evolution of the net, just reusing the past.

*shrugs*

[Orruar]

Net neutrality warriors, quit your whining. We haven't had net neutrality rules for the past 10 years and have we seen all of these terrible things you claim will happen because they aren't implementing it now? ISPs are in the job of making money. To do that, they must have customers. If they implement draconian rules that people hate, they will not have customers. So will they implement these rules? Doubtful. People who don't understand remedial economics bore me.

We didn't create a Martian Missile Defense System this year, therefore we're going to be invaded my Martians!

[Humerox]

I think it's really nothing to worry about, honestly.

Shit, issues #1 and #2... anyone remember the days of dialup, when EQ was grand spankin' new, for a minute here? Hello the original Yahoo and AOL and local ISP shit.

It's just the next step of evolution of the net, just reusing the past.

*shrugs*

Yah...I remember my first Compuserve bill too...

$600.00. For one month. Yay.

[Duie]

We're not the only government that uses the internet, either. That's got to present some sort of problems.

Rules and Regulations for the internet and providers should be handled by something like the UN, not individual countries' governments.


The UN couldnt deside a way to get out of a wet paper bag and thats giving you have already punched a hole for them.


Pfft, the next thing you'll be saying is socailized medicine is a good thing

[Starklen]

The UN couldnt deside a way to get out of a wet paper bag and thats giving you have already punched a hole for them.


Pfft, the next thing you'll be saying is socailized medicine is a good thing

...

[Estolcles]

Yah...I remember my first Compuserve bill too...

$600.00. For one month. Yay.

Thus why I made sure to look into unlimited useage accounts instead of based on time. They were a little more expensive, but worth it if you left your comp on and online 24/7.

Luckilly, I was in an area with it's own local ISP. (When you're in the backwoods, a company called "Three Bubbas' Innanet" shouldn't surprise ya.)

Lot cheaper than the big companies of back then.

[optic]

netzero ftw.

[Daywolf]

Yah...I remember my first Compuserve bill too...

$600.00. For one month. Yay.It's far more than that. That is what they want you to think, that it's only extra few bucks down the road. Meanwhile the government begins it's regulations, this current step at least, one of the many as they have already made progress. Same general principle that applied to our auto makers, of which the end result is the government managing what GM produces now etc. ie expensive electric cars that no one wants. Politicians, most anyway, have no damn skill-set for running business, only pandering to special interest. Watch, the eventual buzzword will be "too big to fail" and you'll see trillions (with an s) out the door to gawd knows where (again). Then we will see that last gasp of privately held/owned telecommunications. The only question remains is how much longer until it happens, as they have had their plans in motion for some time. Not just this, but the whole plan; this is just a fragment of the greater picture.

[Daywolf]

netzero ftw.
btw (got that post in while I was proofing mine) netzero sux. I had that a few years back, a regular sub, and they kept screwing up the billing. If you want to clear it up, you pretty much need to learn to speak Indian, because they sure as hell cant speak discernible English. Then they tried to ding my credit. They are bastards, one and all. /rant
I'll stick with Verizon on this, as well as side with them on the general topic. I don't think it takes much life experience to figure out where this is headed. A little business sense is good to have too, as those of us who have/do start/maintain small businesses.

[lauremore]

Net neutrality warriors, quit your whining. We haven't had net neutrality rules for the past 10 years and have we seen all of these terrible things you claim will happen because they aren't implementing it now? ISPs are in the job of making money. To do that, they must have customers. If they implement draconian rules that people hate, they will not have customers. So will they implement these rules? Doubtful. People who don't understand remedial economics bore me.

We didn't create a Martian Missile Defense System this year, therefore we're going to be invaded my Martians!

You have to be the dumbest piece of shit I have met. Money and greed drives our country you tool, and the entire ISP model from the start was set up to ultimately control the internet in a way that brings about more money. Also, ISPs have monopolies you ass hat. You can't walk down the street to buy a new ISP contract or find a service provider, and no 2 or 3 in an area is not competition. Learn some fucking economics before you speak asshole. Fucking American idiocies...

[Orruar]

You have to be the dumbest piece of shit I have met. Money and greed drives our country you tool, and the entire ISP model from the start was set up to ultimately control the internet in a way that brings about more money. Also, ISPs have monopolies you ass hat. You can't walk down the street to buy a new ISP contract or find a service provider, and no 2 or 3 in an area is not competition. Learn some fucking economics before you speak asshole. Fucking American idiocies...

Maybe it's different in your area, but I can think of a half dozen different ways to get high speed internet where I live. And if you don't mind using a phone line, you can use any one of dozens of ISPs. I'm really excited about the expansion of smart phones, as they increase the need for fast wifi. As fast wifi becomes more ubiquitous, we will have dozens or hundreds of companies that can provide us with a fast connection.

I'm not too worried about there being too little competition in the future, unless the government is able to pass regulations which allows it to determine who may compete, and net neutrality laws are that Trojan horse. I, too, dislike big businesses that want to screw over customers. Unfortunately, they have learned that using the government is the best way to obtain a monopoly. We want to avoid having a few unelected bureaucrats in charge of the rules of the internet. People are corruptible and once a few people are given the power to make decisions that affect huge industries, the big players in those industries will use their influence to make sure the rules are stacked in their favor.

[sedain]

the last thing we need is the fcc being able to regulate the intarweb,they are over-reaching,the courts have already ruled that theyre overstepping their mandate...

they dont have the authority to regulate the intarweb,it is free and should stay as-is...giving the government more authority over it would be a huge loss for ALL people.

these companies make plenty of money,they dont need "toll lanes"...the UN regulating the internet???? that should give everyone a sad face...

unfortunately you can count on obama being a supporter of "net neutrality",which is a loaded pile of bs,what the fuck does it mean? it all depends on whether youre for it or against it,and we can be sure that any bill that is passed in favor of it is over 1000 pages of bullshit that takes away freedom that we currently have.

[Erazmus]

"Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem."

[Extunarian]

"Stupid one liners that offer no substance or alternatives are not the solution to our problem. Stupid one liners that offer no substance or alternatives are the problem."

[Torqumada286]

It's far more than that. That is what they want you to think, that it's only extra few bucks down the road. Meanwhile the government begins it's regulations, this current step at least, one of the many as they have already made progress. Same general principle that applied to our auto makers, of which the end result is the government managing what GM produces now etc. ie expensive electric cars that no one wants.

If you are referring to the Chevy Volt, you are way off base on your timeline and it's background. Chevy had been working on the Volt for at least two years prior to even asking for a bailout (the idea had been kicked around since 2005, but they started building parts of it in 2007). The production of the Volt did not come from any government regulation stating that GM must build an electric car as there hasn't been any regulation to that effect. As for no one wanting it, last I heard there was a waiting list of over 50,000 people, which is enough to take up the first two years of production.

Torqumada

[Gibcarver]

It takes a snake like the US government to name a power grab "net neutrality". who's version of neutral? yours? probably not. centralized control is exactly what people want to avoid yet some how the chosen defense seems to be giving centralized control to the government. If hundreds of COEs of ISPs across the country can be corrupted to take control of the internet and make it shit then I guarantee the single elected official in charge of the comity overseeing net neutrality WILL be corrupt. Passing this bill would have guaranteed all the unknowns people fear would come to pass.

The great thing about a free market is any "wrongs" in the eyes of a consumer does not force sufferance but rather open new opportunities for competitors to step up and offer a product that is more desirable. This effect is however diminished by government entanglement such as licensing and regulation.(IE our market is not actually free)

If you want more freedom, elect officials who promise to abolish laws and regulations. You do not need government protection...do people fear friends, family, communities so much that they would turn to an imaginary force as their savior?

[Gibcarver]

Companies compete for customers by having better policies(such as price policy) then their competition. Who would the government compete with? what force keeps them in line? When companies aren't allowed to be different because they must conform to state policy whole industries suffer.

[Harazzer]

Always amazing to me how people with absolutely no knowledge of finance or banking like to talk about how soon China will be buying us. Its like saying "I bought 4 cars from that dealership, if I buy 5 more I'll own the dealership."

[Extunarian]

The great thing about a free market is any "wrongs" in the eyes of a consumer does not force sufferance but rather open new opportunities for competitors to step up and offer a product that is more desirable. This effect is however diminished by government entanglement such as licensing and regulation.(IE our market is not actually free)

If you want more freedom, elect officials who promise to abolish laws and regulations.

So when an entire housing development gets ripped to shreds in a storm or earthquake due to poor building regulations the survivors should be thankful for the opportunity to buy Pulte's new line of less deadly abodes? Though without inspectors who knows if the claim is true.

When poisons show up in baby formula the parents ought to be grateful that Gerber is going to promise to invest more money in quality control so their next kid is less likely to perish? Of course, this would bite into Gerber's profit margin, but I'm sure they and their shareholders would approve simply out of the goodness of their hearts.

Face it, your view looks good on a handmade sign at a campaign rally, but it would cause untold problems if actually implemented. Look at the difference between the damage caused by the earthquakes that hit Haiti and Chili last year. Chili's earthquake was stronger but due to strict building codes and a well-prepared government response the damage was not even comparable to the destruction that Haiti endured.

[Gibcarver]

So when an entire housing development gets ripped to shreds in a storm or earthquake due to poor building regulations the survivors should be thankful for the opportunity to buy Pulte's new line of less deadly abodes? Though without inspectors who knows if the claim is true.
This is the typical response by someone who cannot think for themselves because they have been raised to be dependent on the state. Why would there be no inspectors? Did I make that argument? People don't want services? no I think the people who want services should pay for them and the people who don't care can have their roof fall in. Government building inspectors sure as hell don't stop buildings from falling down any better than one hired by people interested in living there.
if you go to buy a house, ask for the inspection report. Keep shopping if it is not certified by a name you trust(people use carfax for vehicle reports because they have a positive reputation) If a builder can't sell a house because people ask to see the inspection report there is intensive to build houses to reasonable standards.
Of course, this would bite into Gerber's profit margin,

NO! this would in NO WAY cut into gerber's profit margin. The FDA is NOT the only quality assurance company! If gerber's competitor has the "tested by foodSmart" symbol and the gerber, while slightly cheaper, just uses "whatever" consumers will have a choice. The quality product will be chosen over a potentially dangerous one as long as the person can afford it, and anyone who can only afford the cheaper product can know that they are taking a risk instead of going without. I am tired of these pointless strawmans where just because it's not a centralized government performing a service the service cannot be performed.
Do you also think there would be no roads? oh god you do...poor disconnected person. I've plowed a road out of the swamp, it really is possible without steeling the money to do so from tax payers

but it would cause untold problems if actually implemented.
You did a good job of making up imaginary portents that could occur without the state(and without any sense whatsoever), but are you so blind that you can't see the REAL problems that HAVE happened and continue to happen because of reliance on state organizations?
In 1971 the US department of commerce and the consumer product safety commission required all children's pajamas to be treated with tris (2, 3-dibromopropyl) phosphate. In 1977 it was found that this chemical is a carcinogenic and causes sterility. Thousands of children got terminal skin cancer and countless thousands more were rendered sterile. the government REQUIRED them to be given that cancer, REQUIRED them to be made sterile. This was not the intention but this is what HAPPENED it can never be changed. Only swept under the rug, plenty of fingers to point inside the government so no real consequence can arise.
If a private company did the same thing they would go out of business, consumers would demand justice, and the next company would be inclined to do some testing or suffer the consequences of its predecessor.


Net neutrality should be a consumer advocacy group, not a power grab by a centralized force.

[purist]

Nobody cares about your libertard hocus pocus, get the fuck outta here.

[Orruar]

Just to finish what Gibcarver started, since he didn't explode your last fallacy as he did the others...

Face it, your view looks good on a handmade sign at a campaign rally, but it would cause untold problems if actually implemented. Look at the difference between the damage caused by the earthquakes that hit Haiti and Chili last year. Chili's earthquake was stronger but due to strict building codes and a well-prepared government response the damage was not even comparable to the destruction that Haiti endured.

Do you really think building codes are the only difference between these two countries which may have led towards better constructed housing in Chile? Here's a hint.

GDP per capita
Chile - $9,644
Haiti - $646

When you have more money, you tend to want better housing. Building standards tend to be implemented when people can afford them. If you took Chile's building standards and forced them upon Haiti, you'd force 95% of the population out of their homes and onto the streets. They simply could not afford to follow the building standards. For some people, all they can afford is a hut built out of sticks and corrugated tin.

And btw, it's Chile, with an e. It's not a country that you can eat.

[Slade_the_Slide]

In a perfect world, companies would compete fairly and the winner would be the consumer, not the corporation. But this is not a perfect world. The corporations are out for one thing. To screw you out of as much money as they can. Don't like it? Who are you going to go with? They're the only service provider. Their attitude is "pay me or get the fuck out and starve". Mafia boss mentality rules these corporations. Government is no better. It's the same shit with a different label.

[jeffd]

itt freshmen undergrads explain why 'the government totally sucks, dude'

[Orruar]

In a perfect world, companies would compete fairly and the winner would be the consumer, not the corporation. But this is not a perfect world. The corporations are out for one thing. To screw you out of as much money as they can. Don't like it? Who are you going to go with? They're the only service provider. Their attitude is "pay me or get the fuck out and starve". Mafia boss mentality rules these corporations. Government is no better. It's the same shit with a different label.


Can you name a single corporation that has a monopoly of any industry without the help of government?

Without government help, corporations are at the mercy of the market. When companies screw over their customers, other companies are more than glad to come in and pick up all of these unhappy customers.

[baub]

And btw, it's Chile, with an e. It's not a country that you can eat.

[Harrison]

itt freshmen undergrads explain why 'the government totally sucks, dude'

That describes half of this server.

[Gibcarver]

To screw you out of as much money as they can.
This system is commonly refereed to as negative reciprocity, and is commonly accepted as the best way to find a fair exchange.
When the best way to make the most money is by providing a quality experience so that repeat business is induced this motivator benefits everyone.
Do you honestly think when you walk out the door with your product the producer cheers that you are gone? "Hope he will never come back! Wait till he sees what I put in the box!" you imagine them saying. NO! Repeat business IS business!
How can anyone not know this?

[Slade_the_Slide]

This system is commonly refereed to as negative reciprocity, and is commonly accepted as the best way to find a fair exchange.
When the best way to make the most money is by providing a quality experience so that repeat business is induced this motivator benefits everyone.
Do you honestly think when you walk out the door with your product the producer cheers that you are gone? "Hope he will never come back! Wait till he sees what I put in the box!" you imagine them saying. NO! Repeat business IS business!
How can anyone not know this?

Let me give you a basics in business 101. The objective is to screw them and make them like it. The customer walks away feeling they have had everything handed on a platter and all is right with the world, when in reality the company did as much as they could to suck the wallet dry. I've seen it done on so many levels.

[Hoggen]

The US was founded by capitalists. They saw government as a necessary evil and attempted to limit it as much as was practical. None of them believed that business could be quantified as evil, in and of itself.

No one is forced to buy anything from any particular corporate/private company. Life may be harder if you decide you have to move somewhere else to increase your buying opportunities, but you still have that choice. The company can't follow you and bring you back to make you buy their crap.

Government on the other hand is a monopoly on force. You have no options save what the government offers to you, and to reject their mandates is to risk bankruptcy, slavery, or death. Government can partner with business to enslave people, or at least limit their options, but business can't force government to do anything.

[Slathar]

when abraham lincoln wrote the constitution he warned us about this in the sub section talking about the military-industrial complex

[Torqumada286]

but business can't force government to do anything.

No, but they can throw tons of money at it to influence officials to do things their way.

Torqumada

[Hoggen]

No, but they can throw tons of money at it to influence officials to do things their way.

Torqumada

It's still the government that takes the action to harm the citizen, not the corporation. You can pay someone to kill a person, but they are the murderer: not you.

Also, money does not guarantee cooperation. Hitler accepted funds from many companies. After he took power, while many initially profited from the wartime economy, they had no real control over the actions of the government that inevitably led to their near complete destruction.

[Torqumada286]

It's still the government that takes the action to harm the citizen, not the corporation. You can pay someone to kill a person, but they are the murderer: not you.

No, actually you are considered the murderer by law. You can be tried for First degree murder and get the death penalty, while the person who actually did the murder can get off with a lighter sentence. See here. (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/269326/wife_on_trial_for_hiring_her_lover.html) If a corporation manages to convince a government to take action to harm it's citizens, the corporation is still the one ultimately responsible.

Also, money does not guarantee cooperation. Hitler accepted funds from many companies. After he took power, while many initially profited from the wartime economy, they had no real control over the actions of the government that inevitably led to their near complete destruction.

So you are equating a Constitutional Republic with a Dictatorship as they are both governments and operate the same way?

Also, Godwin.

Torqumada

[Hoggen]

No, actually you are considered the murderer by law. You can be tried for First degree murder and get the death penalty, while the person who actually did the murder can get off with a lighter sentence. See here. (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/269326/wife_on_trial_for_hiring_her_lover.html) If a corporation manages to convince a government to take action to harm it's citizens, the corporation is still the one ultimately responsible.



So you are equating a Constitutional Republic with a Dictatorship as they are both governments and operate the same way?

Also, Godwin.

Torqumada

Without bothering to look up specific laws, I'll address your first example as follows: the man is guilty of murder. Nothing in the article says he is not charged with murder. He is getting a plea deal for implicating the woman.
The woman will be charged with conspiracy to commit murder, accessory, and perhaps numerous other charges allowed by law. Conspiracy is a serious crime, but no more so than murder. I'm not a lawyer, but this is my understanding based on all I've seen and heard.

I used Hitler as a general example that few would disagree with. You seem to forget that Germany was run by the Weimar Republic up until their collapse in 1933 when they handed power over to Hitler. They in fact WERE a constitutional republic in all but name when they did so ( they were still nominally an empire in spite of their constitution and governmental structure).

If you want a perfectly synonymous example in place of Hitler, look at the 2008 election. In spite of giving generously to the Obama campaign, many CEOs of banks and corporations found their companies seized (i.e. AIG, GM, etc.) or heavily positioned by the feds with direct support of Obama and his administration. You can argue that they were able to retire rich and likely were happy to leave, but the fact remains that the entities involved took their power from them and assumed control of their companies, at least in part. This was not done to enrich the companies or the politicians, but to seize power through direct control of the companies, and in a move seen as likely popular with their voter base.