FCC kills Net Neutrality

[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]

Originally Posted by Gibcarver [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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...

Originally Posted by Extunarian [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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]

Originally Posted by Slade_the_Slide [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.