Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's not true most of the lines in the UK are still owned by British Telecom (BT) but the government of the UK regulates them in such a way that they legally must lease a certain (rather large percentage) of the capacity to other companies to directly compete against BT (the costs of the lease must cover maintenance and upgrade of the lines) so as to create competition and choice for consumers. That's why there is more choice in the UK, more competition, lower prices, and faster service. Liberals tried to copy this model in the 1990's but conservatives, bribed by cable and phone company lobbyists, blocked it.
That's why America continues to have the least competition, the highest prices, and the lowest internet speeds in the 1st world. Sadly, not even the liberals are standing up to the lobbyists any more, as the latest proposals to end net neutrality prove, so it is only going to get worse in America as far as speed, cost, and consumer choices go. This is what happens when your political system is highly corrupt as our's is; where bribes, er... "campaign donations" are the rule.
Funny..........I get online with no issues ever. Most do also. They choose their provider and can watch movies or listen to music what have you. Watch a hoops game. I don't know what your braying about. I have five providers to pick from. How many do you have Brit boy?
It's not that. The issue is that libertarians have a hard time distinguishing between libertarianism and anarchism. They either can't or don't want to.
I have no problem with libertarian ideals. I just don't like the border line anarchism they push. This is why as of now, libertarianism is a fringe element within the ideological spectrum.
Again that is a strawman inserted by the MSM and both Republican and Democrats.
Afterall Libertarians get elected to political offices and go on to perform jobs in government.
Funny..........I get online with no issues ever. Most do also.
The new proposed rules won't go into effect for two years, genius. When they do expect to see some websites, those owned by the cable company or which pay the cable company for access, to load super fast while all of the others will either load super slow or not at all. In other words, the ISP will decide what you can and cannot see or do on the internet.
You can try to spin it any way you want but, no, that's not freedom.
The only thing worse than an unregulated Monopoly is a regulated monopoly that controls the regulators. Most electric utilities, railroads and Big Pharma fit the latter description.
It appears you care more about "super fast". Hey **** on you. Yes the ISP will decide as they should. If not go find another. Unreal the whining in this world..............
The only thing worse than an unregulated Monopoly is a regulated monopoly that controls the regulators. Most electric utilities, railroads and Big Pharma fit the latter description.
Again that is a strawman inserted by the MSM and both Republican and Democrats.
Afterall Libertarians get elected to political offices and go on to perform jobs in government.
Libertarian ideas are easily blamed because they are so ill defined, and frankly they are extremely naive. Simplistic statements like "reduce regulation" and "get the government out of the way" do nothing to address the monopolistic nature of the modern American economy nor the negative externalities of unfettered capitalism, which sounds too much like anarcho-capitalism.
Libertarian ideas are easily blamed because they are so ill defined, and frankly they are extremely naive. Simplistic statements like "reduce regulation" and "get the government out of the way" do nothing to address the monopolistic nature of the modern American economy nor the negative externalities of unfettered capitalism, which sounds too much like anarcho-capitalism.
I know how to cut and paste but will not waste my time any further.
The only thing worse than an unregulated Monopoly is a regulated monopoly that controls the regulators. Most electric utilities, railroads and Big Pharma fit the latter description.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25
LOL..........too funny sir.
How is what Greg said funny?
It is 100% accurate.How could a so called free market Republican be pro- monopoly?
It's not that. The issue is that libertarians have a hard time distinguishing between libertarianism and anarchism. They either can't or don't want to.
I have no problem with libertarian ideals. I just don't like the border line anarchism they push. This is why as of now, libertarianism is a fringe element within the ideological spectrum.
Libertarians aren't anarchists. That's an invention of the media-political complex to make you scared of the concept of smaller government.
Show me in Locke's "Two Treatises" (foundational text of libertarian thought from the Scottish Enlightenment) where he calls for the total absence of government?
Show me in the Anti-Federalist Papers (America's most libertarian writing in the 18th Century) or any of Patrick Henry's pre-sellout speeches as a rock solid Virginia anti-constitutionalist where the case is made for the total absence of government?
Even "Atlas Shrugged" and Rothbard's "Libertarian Manifesto" do not call for anarchy.
Easily one of popular culture's more widely accepted myths is libertarian = anarchist. Every informed, well read libertarian I know understands the absolute necessity of some amount of government, and what most of us argue for is not its absence, but its return to a much smaller, narrowly focused, proper functioning size/scope as enshrined in the sum total of founding documents (Declaration + federalist papers + anti-federalist papers + Constitution + articles of Confederation). Limited != absence. Limited government != no government.
I am OK with taxes. I understand their necessity to fund any amount of government. And I never argue for the removal of all taxation...I argue for taxation to be lower (in conjuntion with smaller government that runs on less money) and applied as fairly and equally as possible. In any tax thread, I am the guy who calls for National Retail Sales Tax, not "NO TAXES!!" What happens, like any time a libertarian throws out a libertarian idea, is that I say NRST, and someone pipes up that people will stop buying everything immediately so I really mean no taxes and that really means anarchy. Basically, I can say water is wet, and someone who hates libertarians will find a way to make that statement = anarchy.
But our government can be smaller. Much smaller, and still accomplish all of the standard "yeah, what about roads/schools/etc" things anti-libertarians think we want to get rid of. I do not need a department of defense that spends half its budget on corporate welfare, waste/fraud/abuse, and congressional slush funding in order to defend the nation. The DoD could cut it's budget by half tomorrow, and if the remining half went to actual defense instead of whatever racketeering scheme, nobody would notice. The federal workforce could be cut by 25% tomorrow, and if done with an eye on actual process optimization and not inflicting pain on Americans for politcal purposes...nobody would notice. The Department of Education could disappear tomorrow, and if the NEA and AFT actually cared about teaching children, nobody would notice.
And yes, we could drastically reduce the size of the welfare state, and besides the scam artists and grievance peddlers, nobody would really notice.
Now in any of the above, do I call for the absence of government? Might makes right? Lawlessness? No, I don't. Changing the order of sovereignty to individual->town->state->nation does not obliterate town, stae or nation, it simply says the individual should be the first order of sovereignty, what we default to when making decisions, and doing our level best to ensure the most freedom for. Crimes are still crimes, law is still law, and fair play is still fair play...but it does not need to be as massive and bloated as it is currently is.
This kind of thinking is not anarchistic. It is libertarian. They are different...really.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
