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.
I agree in that self-interest actions by the state or corporate powers could have positive side affects (or negative). In the case of internet access I’m not going to claim to know whether or not high speed broadband is going to better their lives or not.
This was always the "progressive" argument, that economic-growth is a good thing, and that private-public partnerships can improve quality-of-life. There was a saying in the 50's and 60's, "What is good for General Motors, is good for America".
In the modern sense you could say, what is good for Google, or Apple, or Wall-Street, or the banks, is good for America. And there is some truth in it. As the saying goes in investing, "A rising-tide floats all boats".
The government has, over our history, made significant "investments" in all kinds of industries.
To illustrate your point, think of "public roads". Why did the government build these roads? For the people? Ignore America for a moment and think of a third-world country. What is the purpose of government's investment in infrastructure in a country in Africa? And where does the infrastructure go?
The original purpose of infrastructure is to connect resources/production to markets. In a third-world country, infrastructure primarily connects things like oil-fields or gold-mines to ports, where goods are sold off to the world. But in a third-world country, the markets where resources and production are sold to, are primarily foreign, so you don't need much internal infrastructure.
But in a first-world country, the markets are the people themselves. So you need to connect not only the coal-mines and the iron-mines to the factories, but you need to connect the factories to the people. Which means retail stores, car dealerships, gas stations, postal service, etc.
Without infrastructure, no one could buy anything, because nothing could be brought to markets, and people couldn't get to markets.
Which brings us to the question. Were the building of roads a "people's initiative"? And the simple answer is, NO. It was businesses who wanted these roads to be built. And the government, being a kind of business itself, builds roads as a form of investment. Whereby if the government spends X on roads, it will actually profit, because through more economic-growth, there will be more tax revenue.
Even something as simple as building a park, when the project is pitched at a government, the argument is that, by building a park, property-values will go up, and with higher property values, the government will get more property taxes. And so if they spend $10 million to build a park, then if it means $1 million in new revenue per year from higher property values, then it'll pay itself off in ten years, and then it is basically "free money" for the government.
If a project won't pay for itself through economic-growth and/or higher property-values, it won't be done.
And who really pays for these projects? Take the roads for instance. Who really pays for the roads?
As you might be aware, the cost of roads is not only paid by gas taxes. They are often financed by things like property taxes, or just from the general fund. Plus semi-trucks and other large vehicles, because they damage the roads exponentially-more than small passenger cars, don't pay anywhere close to their "fair-share" for the maintenance of the roads.
The truck drivers defend this by saying "If you charge us more, we will just charge more for freight, so the customers will have the gas-tax regardless". Which is not only valid, but is my point. The consumer/laborer pays all taxes. Not the producer, not the corporation, not the rich, etc.
So when it really comes down to who is paying for the roads. The people who proportionately pay the most for the roads, are the people who use them the least, or don't use them at all.
But just because the purpose of the government building a road or a park is to profit, does that make building them a bad thing? Isn't it better to have the park than to not have the park? Isn't it better to have the roads than not have the roads?
Even if the "poor" pay the most, don't roads still make the poor, richer?
Likewise with the internet. Even if the poor are stuck paying what amounts to a regressive-tax. Aren't they still better-off because local-businesses are doing better, which means more jobs, better jobs, and ultimately, more-money in their pocket?
Haven't we then proven the case that "Whatever is good for business, is good for the people"?
If so, why should we listen to "the people" at all? Wouldn't it be ideal if businesses basically ran everything in America? Wouldn't it be better if businesses chose our leaders and created government-policy? Shouldn't "the people" be quieted, distracted, and manipulated, to make sure they don't "get in the way"?
And if businesses are better-able to manage the country. Shouldn't they control the wealth of the country? Shouldn't they own all the land, all the resources, all the means of production, etc? And the more transferred into their hands from the people, the better? The people should rightfully be stripped of almost everything, and only be able to offer their labor to businesses, who can organize the people for maximum-efficiency(IE profit-maximization)?
I think you are placing too much value on "materialism". While believing the primary goal of "the community" is or ought to be, materialism.
As I like to say, there are two types of environmentalists. You have actual tree-huggers. People who want us to be closer to nature, to ride horses, or just to do work with our hands. And then you have "progressives", who may complain about oil, but they want nothing to do with nature. They just want cleaner air. They don't care whatsoever about freedom, or morality, or anything else. They just have some utopia in their minds, which consists mostly of more stuff, and better stuff, and to travel the universe, and live forever. And they hate anyone who seems to be standing in their way of getting what they want.
Is the world better than it has ever been? Will the world be better in the future?
Last edited by Redshadowz; 12-17-2018 at 02:07 PM..
This was always the "progressive" argument, that economic-growth is a good thing, and that private-public partnerships can improve quality-of-life. There was a saying in the 50's and 60's, "What is good for General Motors, is good for America".
In the modern sense you could say, what is good for Google, or Apple, or Wall-Street, or the banks, is good for America. And there is some truth in it. As the saying goes in investing, "A rising-tide floats all boats".
The government has, over our history, made significant "investments" in all kinds of industries.
To illustrate your point, think of "public roads". Why did the government build these roads? For the people? Ignore America for a moment and think of a third-world country. What is the purpose of government's investment in infrastructure in a country in Africa? And where does the infrastructure go?
The original purpose of infrastructure is to connect resources/production to markets. In a third-world country, infrastructure primarily connects things like oil-fields or gold-mines to ports, where goods are sold off to the world. But in a third-world country, the markets where resources and production are sold to, are primarily foreign, so you don't need much internal infrastructure.
But in a first-world country, the markets are the people themselves. So you need to connect not only the coal-mines and the iron-mines to the factories, but you need to connect the factories to the people. Which means retail stores, car dealerships, gas stations, postal service, etc.
Without infrastructure, no one could buy anything, because nothing could be brought to markets, and people couldn't get to markets.
Which brings us to the question. Were the building of roads a "people's initiative"? And the simple answer is, NO. It was businesses who wanted these roads to be built. And the government, being a kind of business itself, builds roads as a form of investment. Whereby if the government spends X on roads, it will actually profit, because through more economic-growth, there will be more tax revenue.
Even something as simple as building a park, when the project is pitched at a government, the argument is that, by building a park, property-values will go up, and with higher property values, the government will get more property taxes. And so if they spend $10 million to build a park, then if it means $1 million in new revenue per year from higher property values, then it'll pay itself off in ten years, and then it is basically "free money" for the government.
If a project won't pay for itself through economic-growth and/or higher property-values, it won't be done.
And who really pays for these projects? Take the roads for instance. Who really pays for the roads?
As you might be aware, the cost of roads is not only paid by gas taxes. They are often financed by things like property taxes, or just from the general fund. Plus semi-trucks and other large vehicles, because they damage the roads exponentially-more than small passenger cars, don't pay anywhere close to their "fair-share" for the maintenance of the roads.
The truck drivers defend this by saying "If you charge us more, we will just charge more for freight, so the customers will have the gas-tax regardless". Which is not only valid, but is my point. The consumer/laborer pays all taxes. Not the producer, not the corporation, not the rich, etc.
So when it really comes down to who is paying for the roads. The people who proportionately pay the most for the roads, are the people who use them the least, or don't use them at all.
But just because the purpose of the government building a road or a park is to profit, does that make building them a bad thing? Isn't it better to have the park than to not have the park? Isn't it better to have the roads than not have the roads?
Even if the "poor" pay the most, don't roads still make the poor, richer?
Likewise with the internet. Even if the poor are stuck paying what amounts to a regressive-tax. Aren't they still better-off because local-businesses are doing better, which means more jobs, better jobs, and ultimately, more-money in their pocket?
Haven't we then proven the case that "Whatever is good for business, is good for the people"?
If so, why should we listen to "the people" at all? Wouldn't it be ideal if businesses basically ran everything in America? Wouldn't it be better if businesses chose our leaders and created government-policy? Shouldn't "the people" be quieted, distracted, and manipulated, to make sure they don't "get in the way"?
And if businesses are better-able to manage the country. Shouldn't they control the wealth of the country? Shouldn't they own all the land, all the resources, all the means of production, etc? And the more transferred into their hands from the people, the better? The people should rightfully be stripped of almost everything, and only be able to offer their labor to businesses, who can organize the people for maximum-efficiency(IE profit-maximization)?
I think you are placing too much value on "materialism". While believing the primary goal of "the community" is or ought to be, materialism.
As I like to say, there are two types of environmentalists. You have actual tree-huggers. People who want us to be closer to nature, to ride horses, or just to do work with our hands. And then you have "progressives", who may complain about oil, but they want nothing to do with nature. They just want cleaner air. They don't care whatsoever about freedom, or morality, or anything else. They just have some utopia in their minds, which consists mostly of more stuff, and better stuff, and to travel the universe, and live forever. And they hate anyone who seems to be standing in their way of getting what they want.
Is the world better than it has ever been? Will the world be better in the future?
Materialism can be a curse and I agree more than I disagree with you, changing the economy so that investment or the application of modern technology is not needed would be a greater qualifier to actually limit consumption to personal needs rather than the needs of a larger organization (corporate, government, etc.).
At the same time global supply chains have created a network to sustain 7 billion people, could say India survive with its people migrating elsewhere and production focused on the community, maybe.
But investments don’t have to be derived from some external source, they can be derived from the community itself with technology shared by other such communities.
Technological progress will continue, but without state and corporate power (private property/money) the application of such investments will not be constant or expected.
As for environmentalists, lower consumption and the methods of consumption can be good, but even progressives who want to keep modern enmities and clean air have a significant point of being right in that renewable sources are better providers of needed energies than fossil fuels.
Materialism can be a curse and I agree more than I disagree with you, changing the economy so that investment or the application of modern technology is not needed would be a greater qualifier to actually limit consumption to personal needs rather than the needs of a larger organization (corporate, government, etc.).
I have a hard time understanding what you want, and everyone wants something. Are you just a progressive who hates corporations? What is it that you actually hate about corporations?
What are you actually hoping to accomplish? What is it that you value most in the world? Freedom? Morality? Better-environment? Better living-standards? Equality? More stuff? Acceptance?
What is the point of life? What should be the point of life? What makes a life worth living? Can you waste your life? And if so, how? Are rock stars wasting their lives? Should people want to be like them? What should we be striving towards? Are the Amish wasting their lives?
Last edited by Redshadowz; 12-17-2018 at 03:57 PM..
I have a hard time understanding what you want, and everyone wants something. Are you just a progressive who hates corporations? What is it that you actually hate about corporations?
What are you actually hoping to accomplish? What is it that you value most in the world? Freedom? Morality? Better-environment? Better living-standards? Equality? More stuff? Acceptance?
What is the point of life? What should be the point of life? What makes a life worth living? Can you waste your life? And if so, how? Are rock stars wasting their lives? Should people want to be like them? What should we be striving towards? Are the Amish wasting their lives?
This is all my opinion of course:
I don’t know if I’m a progressive because I don’t know what that word means. I am a communist in every sense of the word, just not one that cares for state authority or any ‘planned economy’.
But those are just labels, I think having an industrial society without money or private property (separate from personal property) is not only possible, but necessary.
Liberty and freedom confined by personal ability (no accumulation of capital/no profit motive). Methods of industry would be run via industrial democracy and rural communities won’t be confined by the need to feed urban areas.
But moreso I have great belief in the possibility and natural tendencies of man to achieve such greatness. That is also why I’m not an atheist anymore.
I don’t buy into the judeo-Christian values of western culture, but the modern neo-pagans.
No economic system will define human beings, only the great eternal hope of communal freedom and individual decision making.
Nah, Orcas Island in Washington state did it without the government and without the corporations (which are one in the same).
It can be done. No guns to heads required!
I guess I must be unique in that I have three internet providers.....
One is the data service on my phone Verizon.
The second is a small coop at my place in Arizona. That system for about 300 households cost in the neighborhood of 60,000 plus maintenance costs. But definitely doable, particularly if you have people with some expertise in your community.
It is a little more difficult when you get to the county level. In my county, in Washington state, the county asked private companies to put in a fiber network and they said no.
So they did it themselves and over the objections of the state government. It cost 125 million and the Democrats put conditions on the county such that only fairly wealthy counties could do it in the future. I guess we know who donates to their political campaigns.
Basically, the county can only wholesale internet services not retail.
Do a search on municipal internet. We have the "best government money can buy" and in many states like Washington, it is virtually impossible to build a municipal network.
For people that want municipal internet....you might have to get laws changed before doing it.
BTW....municipal fiber is great. More rural communities should do it IF LEGAL.
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.
