[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The idea that government prevents crime is nonsense; if that were true we wouldn’t have one of the worlds largest prison populations. [/quote]
Do you ever stop to read what you write? The size of our prison population does not prove that there would not be more crime were the government not to exist. If Zap were to have said that government eliminates crime, that would be one thing. He said that it addresses specific kinds of crime, namely protecting person property rights. The size of the prison population is irrelevant to the discussion.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
It only proves what actually happened. Further logical analysis concludes that where government does not intervene (in the first place) other means will come about in the market.[/quote]
You are running short on logical analysis.
You made an argument that a certain thing happened, which proves your point. You were shown to be incorrect. Your response is that it “only proves what actually happened?” So what was the point of your example? If you are going to construct fairy tales, include Mother Goose next time.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
And without government others steal from you at the point of a gun and you get less in return.
The idea that government prevents crime is nonsense; if that were true we wouldn’t have one of the worlds largest prison populations. In fact, I would say that larger government actually increases crime because they provide an incentive for violent gang activity with regulation and other taxpayer ripoffs.
And further still, it does not follow that government should be the one deciding what is in the public interest when it comes to economic matters. This is the function of prices. People like what is a “good value”. We already know that government intervention distorts prices which causes inefficiency and higher prices. That isn’t good for the “public”.[/quote]
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Do you ever stop to read what you write? The size of our prison population does not prove that there would not be more crime were the government not to exist.[/quote]
Zap claimed without government that there would be more theft (i.e., that is was somehow responsible for its prevention) but I was trying to illustrate it is not the government’s place to prevent crime – and as an aside, that government actually creates it. Crime prevention is locking ones doors and not accepting candy from strangers, etc. Is that more clear?
Zap presented faulty logic by assuming only government can deal with criminality. I claim that government is the perpetrator of most crimes therefore shouldn’t be given the responsibility of dealing with it.
How do you not see US prison populations as another failure of government?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Do you ever stop to read what you write? The size of our prison population does not prove that there would not be more crime were the government not to exist.
Zap claimed without government that there would be more theft (i.e., that is was somehow responsible for its prevention) but I was trying to illustrate it is not the government’s place to prevent crime – and as an aside, that government actually creates it. Crime prevention is locking ones doors and not accepting candy from strangers, etc. Is that more clear?
Zap presented faulty logic by assuming only government can deal with criminality. I claim that government is the perpetrator of most crimes therefore shouldn’t be given the responsibility of dealing with it.
How do you not see US prison populations as another failure of government?[/quote]
I’m afraid that the only faulty logic here is your own.You really,really need to step back and take stock.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
How do you not see US prison populations as another failure of government?[/quote]
I could see it as a variety of things. High prison populations might indicate that people will naturally commit crimes, but while governments are poor at prevention, they are good at punishment. It could mean anything.
But even if it represents a failure of the government, it is not germane to the question of whether government reduces crime.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
I’m afraid that the only faulty logic here is your own.You really,really need to step back and take stock.
[/quote]
Lifticus refuses to straightforwardly argue a point without twisting it around and manipulating it to fit the facts as they are presented. Which is why it is so maddening.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
I’m afraid that the only faulty logic here is your own.You really,really need to step back and take stock.
Lifticus refuses to straightforwardly argue a point without twisting it around and manipulating it to fit the facts as they are presented. Which is why it is so maddening.[/quote]
I see this…and the leaping off on tangents doesn’t help his cause either.
I will attempt one more time to make this more clear; though I cannot help that you do not agree with the conclusions.
My only point was that the railroads were partly the result of business men wanting to enter the market to meet the demand of delivery that could not be met by the Pony Express, which was only stated because of Zap’s blathered statement that without government we would still be using the pony express.
For our purposes it does not matter how or why it came into being. Government did not command it. They took taxes and gave them to private industry to build railroads – which still proves my point that we must analyze that which we cannot see to determine the cost of other foregone opportunities.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
… Government did not command it. They took taxes and gave them to private industry to build railroads – …[/quote]
You just contradicted yourself right here!!! The government did “command” the creation of the Pacific railroad and they funded the companies that built it. Jeez man, stop being so dense!
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
… Government did not command it. They took taxes and gave them to private industry to build railroads – …
You just contradicted yourself right here!!! The government did “command” the creation of the Pacific railroad and they funded the companies that built it. Jeez man, stop being so dense![/quote]
Are you flat out denying that business men didn’t go begging to government to help them build railroads? Are you further suggesting that granting a favor is a synonym for commanding an order?
Main Entry: command
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: To give orders to.
Synonyms: bid, charge, direct, enjoin, instruct, order, tell
Main Entry: beg
Part of Speech: verb
Synonyms: adjure, apply, ask, beseech, bid, bum, cadge, coax, crave, entreat, exhort, hustle, importune, intercede, mooch, nag, panhandle, petition, plead, pray, request, solicit, sue, supplicate, urge
Main Entry: beg
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: To ask or ask for as charity.
Synonyms: bum, cadge
[quote]nephorm wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
If companies like Google want to use this resource, they’ll have to pay for using it. If they don’t want to pay for premium networks, that’s their prerogative. Where exactly do you find fault with this? There is no coercion here. The only coercion is the coercion via regulation that Google is trying to introduce via this little campaign of theirs.
They already do pay for their end of the connection.
If some of these providers have their way, Google will have to pay a fee to every single one of them if they want their service to be available to their customers at all. The internet only works as well as it does because each person pays for his end of the connection, and all the stuff in the middle takes care of itself. [/quote]
Maybe I’m misunderstanding you Nephorm, but the “stuff in the middle” does not take care of itself. Someone has to pay for it to be maintained and extended.
[quote]
But if I use company A to access the internet, who gets their service from company B, and Google pays for a connection C, which (to get to me) passes through network D, Google will have to (potentially) pay off A-D just so their content does not get intentionally slowed down on the way.
Now multiply that times all the different companies, large and small, who operate ISPs, and all the networks through which that traffic could potentially travel…[/quote]
Google will not have to pay for each and every connection - they would only pay once due to established peering relationships between internet companies (rules for carrying/exchanging traffic between network providers).
No doubt whatever Google pays will have to cover A-D - that will undoubtably be subsumed in the cost/contract they negotiate. As it should be.
Peering is complex to describe but wikipedia does a pretty good job (Peering - Wikipedia)
Here’s an even better description of how this works…
I’m starting to get the sense that you guys own stock in Google Lucky bastards…
Seriously, though, for some reason the underlying assumption to this discussion seems to be that Google has its own, independent, intrinsic worth. Yes, they are a good company. But there may be thousands of even better companies coming behind them. The “creative/destructive” process of capitalism that Schumpeter described is not going to slow down - it’s going to speed up. We are all better off letting that process proceed as it will. We have no idea what solutions the market place will generate - just as ten years ago we had no idea a Google would come along as it has.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Google will not have to pay for each and every connection - they would only pay once due to established peering relationships between internet companies (rules for carrying/exchanging traffic between network providers).
[/quote]
How do you know?
I understand how peering works, but it is voluntary. Changing the model would never work if they made everyone pay, because everyone would have to pay everyone else. It would be a mess. But if they can target a few of the big guys who use a lot of bandwidth…
I have no interest in protecting Google per se. I think Netflix is a target, as well as myspace and facebook. Any large internet presence that is easily identifiable and uses enough bandwidth that everyone and his brother could surcharge.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Maybe I’m misunderstanding you Nephorm, but the “stuff in the middle” does not take care of itself. Someone has to pay for it to be maintained and extended.
[/quote]
Yes, I understand that.
My point was that it takes care of itself in terms of being routed more or less content neutrally (traffic shaping notwithstanding).
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Large companies actually want “net neutrality” that should be your first clue that something isn’t right about it…[/quote]
BINGO.
Big business LIKES regulation.
Big Business. Big Government. Working hand in hand.
Crony Capitalism. That’s the system we have.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Google will not have to pay for each and every connection - they would only pay once due to established peering relationships between internet companies (rules for carrying/exchanging traffic between network providers).
How do you know?
[/quote]
AFAIK this is how it works & will work. I’ll look into it and see if I can come up with a reasoned answer & evidence.
Every company that wants to use this “special packet channeling” would have to pay more. That is voluntary. I suppose when one looks forward to any emerging “system” it seems inconceivably messy. But as you know, markets and order emerge out of seemingly “messy” systems.
If those “big guys” want to use the upgraded channels, a sort of supercharged internet, they’ll have to pay up. It’s voluntary for Google et al. It’s entirely up to them.
I can offer to sell you my beat up old glockenspiel for $3 Trillion dollars. If you think it’s worth it, you’ll pay. If not, you won’t pay. No compulsion - either way.
Anyway, I’m probably not understanding something. Please feel free to educate my ass.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
If those “big guys” want to use the upgraded channels, a sort of supercharged internet, they’ll have to pay up. It’s voluntary for Google et al. It’s entirely up to them.
[/quote]
As I argued from the quote I supplied earlier, I do not believe that the telcos plans are limited to providing levels of service, or upgraded channels, or tiered service. I believe they simply want to charge content providers a use fee to avoid having their traffic actively slowed down. Perhaps that isn’t the intention at all. But from your earlier comments, you seemed to indicate that you would have no problem with that scenario, either.
Charging by the Byte to Curb Internet Usage
Mr. Leddy of Time Warner said that the media companies’ fears were overblown. If the company were to try to stop Web video, “we would not succeed,” he said. “We know how much capacity they’re going to need in the future, and we know what it’s going to cost. And today’s business model doesn’t pay for it very well.”
Looks like Net Neutrality is going to get some competition.
Lucky bastards…