Regulation (like taxation, and in fact regulation is taxation) is the process of wealth redistribution.
If you agree that “some” wealth redistribution is good, then you would agree that some regulation (and/or taxation, inflation, etc.) is good too.
I’m not saying that’s deplorable - I too can see that a government-run (equivalent) of a soup kitchen “works”, but I will never support it because I know than less than 5% of taxes go to that causes, and even that is not properly managed. I would rather have a choice to donate SAFE to one of high-rated private soup kitchens in some particular area than write the government a big fat check.
Don’t forget that no one (I hope) objects to the degree of complexity found in a private organization. A point that I tried to explain to Al Kafir in the super long topic the other day is that one can take his opinion (and investment, whether it’s time or money) elsewhere if he likes.
SAFE shows us how it’s possible to have a highly regulated system that you mention which enjoys support of the people and functions without coercion, but instead it is taken as a proof that coercion and central planning are required for the society to be able to efficiently and justly run its affairs.
Let’s say MaidSafe Foundation starts or joins a Wireless Mesh project. Why should it be regulated, when I don’t have to use it or finance its existence? What possible value can some regulator add here?
This isn’t about me (I never said anything about what MaidSafe should or shouldn’t do - in fact in a comment to Al Kafir’s topic I specifically mentioned that I think that my opinion is completely irrelevant to MaidSafe Foundation), but I’ll say this: as long as there is no regulation that apply to what SAFE’s code is used for, it does not matter what SAFE advocates. That’s the whole point and beauty of the free market! Noone has to listen/care! If SAFE does the right thing for its stakeholders, it will prosper. If not, it won’t.
Those who aren’t happy can fork (or rewrite) their own project and do whatever they want to do it.
Now, how could a SafeClone beat SafeNet? It cannot unless it’s better, or unless there’s government regulation that favors it. By arguing for “some” regulation, you will end up with a SafeClone (or some sort of Obamanet with a regulated, government-influenced SafeClone buried in some obscure tab located in Options > Advanced > Settings > Preferences > (insert 50 tabs)).
We’re already seeing that happening to bitcoin. It won’t hit MaidSafe for a while (maybe until version 2) because the government experts are still trying to figure out what bitcoin is, but it’s on the way.
My position is that SAFE is the sort of “regulation” needed.
The only “laws” I have much real respect for are those that can be clearly stated as existing in nature, such as the Inverse Square Law, or the Acceleration of Gravity, etc. Neither the Parliament nor the FCC can decree that gravity will be lighter on the elderly or weak, however compassionate the concept might be. Nor can they decree, with any effectiveness, that people should act against their nature.
The nature of the greedy (for example) is to access the centers of power to use force and influence to their advantage.
SAFE is a huge step toward moving the perception of regulation back toward where it actually exists: in the choices of individuals, acting according to what they consider to be the best options according to their values. This is also why Bitcoin and other decentralizing technologies are important as well.
The only reason I give this net neutrality thing much attention is that so many people seem to think that it’s a great step toward freedom, but it’s really not. The only long-term important regulation is that which makes this sort of stuff irrelevant–i.e., that which empowers individual power and choice, as opposed to some illusion of a non-existent collective.
Anyway . . . Please, do read the article. It’s not too long, and it gives a good perspective on the real results and motivations of the current FCC move.
OK @fergish, at your “insistence” I’ve read the article.
I think you/ @janitor /the author make a leap that I think leads to the mistake (to my mind) of seeing regulation as inherently bad/useless, when it is the ease with which those with power/wealth can subvert the regulation that is the issue.
The author says:
But when you look closely at the effects, the reality is exactly the opposite. It closes down market competition by generally putting government and its corporate backers in charge of deciding who can and cannot play in the market. It erects massive new barriers to entry for upstart firms while hugely subsidizing the largest and most well-heeled content providers.
This may well be the effect, and the authors case is that this is what has happened elsewhere. I’m not arguing with that, although I think it does remain to be seen. What I disagree with us that this means the opposing option (not to regulate) is either OK, or any less likely to be abused by those with power/wealth.
We’ve got some agreement that regulation is necessary. The case against it seems illogical: regulation is broken, therefore don’t regulate. Surely the rational step is to fix what’s broken.
It seems obvious to me the only remedy is to ensure regulation works as intended - to fix the political and regulatory systems that we all agree lead to it being co-opted and subverted.
@fergish I’m not sure, but you seem to say regulation is not possible because nature wins out in the end (your ref to gravity etc.). If that’s why you disagree with my last point, I will argue the point with you because I don’t think it’s correct. We are after all, always creating the human world by working with and against the forces of nature. All life fights against the most fundamental law of physics: increasing entropy.
It is true this means that everything we build is temporary, but that’s no reason not to build stuff.
The Civil rights movement led to legislation and regulation that has served it purpose. It was backed by a movement but it was functional change in law. Maybe this is a movement toward openess and transparency, but if law can have any use at all it has to support not undermine democratic speech.
If we go back to the 2002 telecom act we see the intentional genesis of the problem. The broadband internet was reclassified in a way that ceased to have these firms function as a communications medium to help us explore the world and pursue truth and instead deemed them in info services or intermediaries who would by implication be paid to mislead and obfuscate.
Look at the broadcast flags and the TV tax act. The Bush admin hated the idea of an informed public and wanted to take us in the direction of sponsored elections where the rich would have an easier time placing puppets. Thats not just a direction or a political decision but an attempt to destroy the society by removing its freedom.
I’ve laid out a bit of an essay here to clarify. I hope you don’t find it too long and uninteresting to read.
Laws are just the basics of how things actually work at the nitty-gritty level. Let go of something and it will be attracted towards the center of the earth. No debate, no choice.
On the human to human level, concepts are notions of the nature of the world. They are as useful as they reflect the actual laws of the universe, or at least the fixed agreements amongst the people involved.
Concepts are what is used to regulate personal interactions (interpersonal, social, legal, etc.). Everybody knows they must live according to the laws of the universe. So those concepts ARE the rules that regulate behavior. Even a completely wrong concept can often be useful if everybody agrees upon it and nobody strays out into a realm which makes its wrongness undeliable. People in a cult get along just fine within a twisted context, but when they rub shoulders with people with other ideas, both groups seem crazy to each other. People holding a much more accurate concept of the world than the bulk of their fellows are almost always viewed as crazy by the others.
I’m not saying that regulation is impossible. I’m saying that some concepts which are broadly agreed upon are not true. Therefore, as more of the people involved start to see the gap between the concept being used to regulate and the underlying truth, things shift.
For instance, and easy example on a more obvious scale than “government” is Santa Claus. In the narrow example I’m highlighting, Santa and Christmas are concepts used to regulate the behavior of children. “Santa knows if you’ve been naughty or nice, so be nice or you’ll get a lump of coal instead of wonderful toys.” This works with the very young, at least partially. They buy it and it is likely to affect what they chose to do. When the cognitive dissonance gets to a certain level (say, around 6-7 years, assuming parents have been willing to inflict this atrocity on their children) the kid realizes he’s been duped. Hopefully he takes it well, and moves on with the understanding that Santa was not only not necessary to Christmas, but that Santa was just a tool to influence his behavior. Many people remember this manipulation with fondness, if it was all done in good humor, a great joke on the naivety of children. On the other hand, some people experience a profound sense of betrayal by their parents and others in society at large, for so blatantly taking advantage of them.
Santa, as a concept, is very, very far away from the underlying truth of the world.
The concept “government” is a much more multifaceted and agreed-upon concept which has been pretty successful in its use to regulate behavior, but when you get right down to it the concept has little more substance than Santa.
Going back to the pinnacle of simplicity, monarchy is the concept that the ruler owns everything, land, people and all, and are organized and live at his/her pleasure. As long as you have a ruler who is fantastically wise, and does everything in his power to let others get on with life, doesn’t extract from them more value that he gives in civilizing influence, and doesn’t call them to war except in the extreme of self defense. If he falls short, you eventually get the barons at Runny Meade proving to him that he doesn’t own everything and only rules by their forbearance. Witness, the Magna Carta.That was a great move forward in history, because the concept of the divine right of kings was shown forcibly to not be a high level truth. That’s not to say that all was rosy after that, but it was a move closer to the underlying truth. More steps have been taken since.
I won’t try to breakdown the other forms of the concept of “government”, but I think you can see from the above what I’m getting at: “Government” is a concept used to influence human behavior and organization. At it’s root is the concept of “authority”. Authority, as it applies to “ruling” or “government” is simply the proposition that one can owe a duty to obey which can somehow supercede one’s own responsibility to chose. This is a contradiction and cannot be true.
The only real authority that can possibly exist is natural law. In other words, if I jump off of a building bare-naked, I don’t have the option to choose to fly. I have no choice to not obey. I fall.
A ruler, government, etc., (even a parent, actually) can always be disobeyed. One might not be willing to suffer the consequences, but one always has a range of choices. The illusion that a government actually exists can only be maintain where people agree to or are duped into letting the concept influence their choices, much like Santa.
Fighting the actions of “government” is little more effective than fighting the actions of “Santa”. All you’re ever doing is changing peoples ideas about their individual choices.
That’s why Bitcoin, and Maidsafe and all technologies that empower individual choice, regardless of what “governments” think, are such a seachange in history.
As I said before, the only reason why I commented on the “net neutrality” decision is that people’s excitement about it is playing right into the hands of those who knowingly use the concept of government to manipulate people’s thinking, while certainly doing something different.
In the long run it doesn’t matter. Technologies as mentioned, and the unprecedented numbers of people waking up to the deeper truth will continue to evolve the culture beyond the age old concept that we MUST have rulers. We will always have rules, but rules without rulers is hard for people to grasp, till they see it. Then it’s easy. After you’ve seen it, it can be a bit frustrating to see people deferring to Santa Claus, and to see others insisting that Santa is NECESSARY.
Anyway, I figured that most on this forum, because they are attracted naturally to the revolutionary properties of SAFE, might be able to grasp these points.
The government sold Comcast the right to string Cables all over the place. If I try to do that before or after this ruling, I am going to get stopped because I have no right to string cables all over the place… Same goes for any potential competitor to the telephone provider or the cable companies.
So what does this change as far as competition goes? Before, if I wanted to compete, I had to go to the government and ask for permission. After this, if I want to compete, I still have to go to the government and ask permission. This isn’t a “free market” interference. It was a closed market all along.
All this changes is that folks who already paid the massive bribe to get the government monopoly now have to be more impartial as to what traffic they carry. All in all this is a good idea… As they have a vested interest in building an audience for the programming that they own, and a vested interest in interfering with programming that they don’t own. The government sold the monopoly to provide a service for the public good – Not to line the pockets of the cable company. They ought to be allowed to define what that public good is…
Of course there needs to be nuance here – they should maintain quality of service for everybody – But I don’t see a massive government interference here. The government is interfering where it already has interfered. Probably productively.
In the mean time as we edge government out of the picture I’d rather have a government with less entitled rhetoric. Having states that think its ok in law to buy the dialog or buy silence or votes puts us in a much more dangerous position even as we work on the problem.
I think you must have misunderstood something somewhere, but I’m aware of what I can do with my opinion and where I can take it and until told otherwise (and not by you) - that will be to express it and on this forum. The same goes for the investment advice. I’m 100% behind Maidsafe whatever they do, so please do not try to mis-represent my position.
This is my whole point. If it changes anything it probably changes it for the worse (as far as real people are concerned), because people it has people fighting over whether or not it’s a good move, rather than the deeper truth, which is that it’s a sock-puppet play. The real action is happening elsewhere.
All I can suggest is to re-read what I wrote above. You’ll either see it or you won’t.
I read it twice, and I still see Tucker’s point as being quite a jump.
Does this new setup prevent a new Amazon or Netflix? He seems to hint at “yes” but I am not buying that. Mostly he is saying that Comcast and Verizon are fine with it, because any potential competitors have to carry the same load … Ignoring the fact that additional competitors already had a massive regulatory load to overcome-- and the only one that was threatening is Google fiber – And it wouldn’t be burdened at all…
Certainly it doesn’t prevent a MaidSAFE or a BitTorrent… So all in all it will eventually be irrelevant.
What I see is Conservatives using the talking points off the shelf, while totally ignoring the real situational context that we are in, and as a result they look quite silly. Generally I am all in agreement with the talking points. But they make zero sense in this context.
We’ll see how the regulations and enforcement trend.
That’s almost the whole point of my “essay”.
Tucker would be offended (no, amused, actually) at being called a conservative. Some people try to tar him with liberal, as well.
No, he’s an anarchist, plain and simple.
But that position doesn’t keep him from commenting on currents in the social construct.
I’m not arguing for the absolute correctness of Tucker’s essay. Political theater can be entertaining, frustrating, or whatever. The point is, it’s mostly irrelevant in the long run.
Very telling that Google wouldn’t be burdened at all. Its the ocean of dark fiber and the phony burden issue to drive up rates. And yet I was looking at something related to yoga on youtube recently and got a modal ad for fundamentalist evangelism interrupting the video stream. A targeted ad for the worst most political reasons and on one based on interest. The Google model is really breaking.
If you told all these smart open minded people that neutrality meant no tariffs and open trade they would get it. But when you tell them that you don’t want toll roads being allowed to edit speech and messages that is somehow a problem. And as always the pundits are paid off and see a threat to their gig. Change that to “the excellent economics of net neutrality,” the net has been getting worse as its been being weakened at predictable rate of all-the-market-will-bear. Also the internet is much more than a business opportunity, that’s not its primary value. The business prospects should be absolute last on the list. So often the thinking is that it should make money for some disconnected investor or support fortunes of prior plunderers or its bad.
To me neutrality doesn’t go remotely far enough. I don’t want for-profit media, especially not for-profit sponsored media- that in particular I think should be illegal and that as a society we need to find a way to get rid of the paid liars, because the misrepresentation business is a threat to our liberty. I also don’t want the people who’ve derived their power or fortune from it to retain either, its worse than theft.
It wasn’t representing or mis-representing your opinion at all and because I wanted to help you make that clear, I was careful to say one can take his business elsewhere.
It was merely a statement of praise about the voluntarist nature of MaidSafe and completely unrelated to you. Your name appears simply because I hate to unnecessarily put URLs in posts and/or repeat myself - I was telling the man where he can find that for additional context.
OK @fergish, thanks for explaining. I read every word and believe I have a good grasp of your premise.
I understand and accept the main points without entirely agreeing with everything you say, or the meaning you seem to be making at least (but that’s a different discussion). Independently, I was earlier musing on our “constructed reality” from an even more fundamental perspective, and the amount of our “reality” that is cultural (mind to mind implanted rather than based on direct experience of the natural) does I think go far deeper (and broader) than you’ve stated. It is all grounded in experience, but our experience in a cultural sense (non “natural”) is what constructs most of the world we inhabit, and is powerful enough to override the direct physical (“natural”) experiences that we treat as external reality. As a taste, I ran into that musing by considering the difficulty one would have trying to imagine a new colour. This followed my reading a very interesting article by John Gray, on a different issue: What scares the new atheists. This is well off topic, so any follow ups should go to a new topic please!
Now, returning to the topic! What I’m not comfortable with, again, is in going from the point you so eloquently explained, to concluding that net neutrality is a bad thing.
I think that remains to be seen, and depends on whether the regulation mechanism is robust, not an ideological principle of unregulated is better than regulated, subsequently rationalised to justify it (which given the amount of unknowns is how I see those arguments). Of course it also depends on the regulations which are being adopted - I agree the devil is in the detail too.
I agree completely. You’ve gone even deeper than I tried to.
On net neutrality, I don’t know if the regulations will be positive or negative. I was only trying to break up the illusion that because some bureaucrats said something that sounds good, it will result in what people hope it will. I think it likely won’t. But we’ll see.
We’re working on SAFE and other such efforts in order to make such news irrelevant.
I’ve read the article.
you weren’t careful enough to miss the “he” off the end.