Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: [internetworkers] The Local Gov't Fair Competition Act.

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Phillip Rhodes <mindcrime AT cpphacker.co.uk>
  • To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [internetworkers] The Local Gov't Fair Competition Act.
  • Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 15:18:52 -0400

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> *mocking* yeah with the fine job that Bellsouth and Timewarner do in
> covering our area and providing the highest quality inexpensive
> high-speed internet service how could government match that.

Most of the people in local government that I've known have roughly
the technical sophistication of a head of cabbage, and wouldn't know
a wireless network from a bowling ball.

> Free
> enterprise baby...well Free state-franchised monopoly enterprise
> *mockingly*

government franchised monopolies are evil. How a government *owned*
monopoly is any less evil is not clear to me...


> The state should not usurp more power from the local governments.

In general yes. However, one (maybe the only) valid purpose of
higher levels of government is to protect individuals from
having their rights violated by the lower levels. The original
version of the Local Gov't Fair Competition Act was actually
better in this regard, since it gave the local citizens a vote
on whether or not to go ahead with plans of this nature.

> We
> should be moving power DOWN from the federal to the state and from the
> state to the municipalities and let people in those municipalities
> decide for themselves where they have the most say in the matter.

And as long as we have tax-dollar funded, government owned monopolies
(which this bill *does* allow) we won't have people having the
most say in the matter. If you *really* want people to have maximum
say in the matter, let's talk about establishing private
(non-government) non-profit cooperatives to provide these kinds of
services. Then if Joe Sixpack doesn't approve, he can just skip joining
the coop and skip receiving the service.

Of course this means that if there isn't enough demand for said service
in a given area to run a business at a "break-even" level then Joe
Sixpack won't be subsidizing service for Bob Two-liter through tax
dollars. But that's the real choice and that's the way things should
be. It would be immoral to force Joe to subsidize things for Bob
against his will.


TTYL,


Phil
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGmSGcdkzqYMZbBuwRAs8EAKCHH5KO8pei0nUBToaSPvQoZrYGewCgkIcJ
dfedlffB3df4f1IAwqnVY6I=
=As0t
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
begin:vcard
fn:Phillip Rhodes
n:Rhodes;Phillip
adr:;;P.O. Box 16905;Chapel Hill;NC;27516;USA
email;internet:mindcrime AT cpphacker.co.uk
tel;home:919-928-0236
url:http://www.linkedin.com/in/philliprhodes
version:2.1
end:vcard




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page