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

[Phillip Rhodes <mindcrime AT cpphacker.co.uk>]

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

Tanner Lovelace wrote:
> On 7/14/07, Phillip Rhodes <mindcrime AT cpphacker.co.uk> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> And that differs from the people in the state and federal government
> how, pray tell?

Not at all, as far as I can tell.  But I can't speak from
experience about the folks at those levels as much as I can
the local level.


> What?!? Stop the presses!  Phillip advocates more government
> at a higher level!  Who are you, and what have you do with
> our libertarian friend? :-)

To the extent that I believe in any government beyond
self-government, I see the only valid purpose of any
level of government as protecting the rights of
individuals.  And if there is going to be some sort of tiered level
thing, I believe the progressively higher levels should serve to protect
our rights from the lower levels.  So if Bumfuck County NC decides
to start putting people in jail without "due process" ideally
the State or Federal government would serve to step in
and prevent that.

Unfortunately  in practice even our Federal government
seems unconcerned with our rights as individuals.


> 
> Seriously, though, how exactly does having more network
> choices violate local citizens rights?  If they want to create
> their own network, let them do it. 

I've already said I'm fine with local citizens creating their own
networks.  As long as they do it through means that don't involve
forcing unwilling participants to participate in, or fund, the thing.

> (And, cut the crap about
> not making those who don't want it not pay for it.  You absolutely
> cannot get away from that in a representative government
> and to even consider it is intellectually dishonest.)

If what  you say is true, then that only tells me that representative
government is not necessarily a Good Thing.  Any government that
presumes the authority to initiate force, and uses force or threat of
said force, to coerce individuals into doing things against their will
is Evil.

> Sigh.  I guess it was too much to hope for.  Phillip, your SUV
> tears up the road much more than my station wagon.  Why then,
> do I pay just as much tax as you do to support the roads? (Yes,
> I realize you'll pay more gas tax, put that's only a fraction.)  Why
> are you not paying your fare share?

It's *not* fair.  That's undoubtedly true.  But life isn't fair.
Anyway, the "representative government" you think so highly of created
this system, and it is what it is. I'd love to see a different system
where highways are maintained by either private for profit businesses
OR non-profit cooperatives, and funded through usage fees, as opposed
to the current tax supported model.

If we had that, then the maintainers would have the choice to say "Hey,
you in the SUV, your toll is $X.00 more since you impose more demand on
the infrastructure."


> Also, Phillip, I know you've taken classes at Wake Technical
> college.  How do you justify going to a state supported school
> where people's tax dollars pay for you to get an education?
> Isn't that immoral too?


Yes, in a great many ways it is.  I don't necessarily like it, but
there's a distinction to be made between arguing ideology on one hand
and displaying pragmatism on the other.  I have my ideology, but I also
have a life to live, and I live in a world where the existing system is
in place and a part of that world.  And at least some of the money that
has gone into the state school system has been *my* money.

I will work within the system to try to change it to a model that
I believe in.  I'm not going to go off and spend my life living in a
mud hut in Montana somewhere, foraging for berries in the woods, just
to avoid any possible suggestion that I've benefited from "the state."
I have, and I won't deny it.  That doesn't mean I'm not allowed to
argue for replacing the current system with a different system.  I
don't many any claim to being "Mr. Perfect Libertarian" or anything.
I'm just a regular guy trying to make it through this crazy beast
we call life, and trying to promote ideals I believe in along the way.

So if that makes my a hypocrite, then fine. I'm a hypocrite.  Now that
we have that out of the way, we can get past worrying about the
messenger and worry about the message, eh? :-)


> So, until you start paying your entire way, 


I can't afford to pay my own way, since a third or so of my income
is appropriated by the government.

> please don't come
> back with the arguments that taxes are immoral.

I should be clear, I think *involuntary* taxation is immoral, because
of the implied initiation of force (eg, you don't pay your taxes, you go
to jail) and because it denies my fundamental right to own my own
property and keep the fruits of my labor.

In the context of a voluntary, non-profit communal system, like
the ones I've spoken of before, you could consider the money paid
into the system to be a "voluntary tax."  I have no problem with
that whatsoever.



TTYL,


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

iD8DBQFGm6DbdkzqYMZbBuwRAkSvAKDuy9yo2YUFivDe3ZamC652OsthDACgs8FC
691UJhOy9J7T20fluG3KSss=
=/dO4
-----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