On 5/19/06, Ron Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No, that is not what I'm trying to say.
What I'm trying to say is that we can have regulation and a tier-free Internet... but that I think government regulation (as we've been talking about) is morally wrong.
I do NOT believe that the only other choice is to give the communications cartels what they want. I think that there are other things that we can do to stop a Tiered Internet besides regulation.
(I gave some suggestions before, but...) I was hoping this conversation would lead to a discussion of what those other things could be. (This conversation doesn't seem to be going in that direction though.)
(Assuming I read what you wrote correctly.... and assuming that by "artificial people" you mean corporations.) I never said "artificial people" -- corporations -- should have freedom.
I said that forcibly taking away freedom from people is morally wrong.
Now these people could work at or own corporations. But even if they are, forcibly taking away that person's freedom is morally wrong too.
"Artificial people" (which I'm assuming means corporation) are NOT people. (Even though "people" is used in that word.) (And it does NOT matter what they are "legal people" according to the law... they still are NOT people.)
Yes, you are correct. They want the freedom to profit and to control. And as long as they do NOT forcibly take away anyone's freedom (or do something else that is morally wrong) in doing this, then they have done nothing morally wrong. (Regardless of whether they are a bunch of shitheads or not.)
If you don't want that to happen, then fight them... but you should not do things that are morally wrong to fight them though.
It is the act of forcibly taking away a person's freedom that is morally wrong. There is nothing morally wrong with wanting profit or wanting control. (That could only potentially make them shitheads, but not morally wrong.)
I agree with you.
(Google my name, and you'll see I've been involved with Free and Open Source software, and Open Standards for quite a while.)
Yes, I know. And I agree that this in extremely important. And that we need to do something to fight this.
(I just disagree on how to fight this.) I don't agree that it is OK to have the government regulate the Internet to prevent this. And I do NOT think that that is our only option to prevent this.
I wish that people would work together, to come up with another way to stop them, besides regulation, because we have a limited time before it might become too late. (But you don't always get what you want.)
Yes I know.
I've worked in corporate world. I've seen what some people are willing to do for wealth or control.
I mentioned this in another e-mail, but....
There are 2 important words here: "rights" and "freedom". And these 2 different words have very different meanings.
Many people seem to confuse these.
So,... getting back to what you said.
You mentioned: "the freedom to be heard". (I think what you really meant was "the right to be heard". But assuming you didn't....)
So,.... Please give me an example where something is being done to YOU. Is someone from these communication cartels taping your mouth shut (when you don't want them to) to prevent you from speaking? Are they forcibly doing something else to YOU? If not, they have NOT forcibly taken away your freedom.
Others can stop you from being heard without doing anything morally wrong. It may suck. But that doesn't make it morally wrong.
This should be a wake up call us. (Not a rally to regulate) We should NOT have it so cartels control the Internet. We should make it so this can NOT happen. (Or at the very least, make it so it is very very difficult to happen.)
Perhaps the Internet should be like the roads.
Alternatively,.... Where are these fire optic wires that make up the backbones for the Internet. Are they under people's homes? Is there some specific law that gives them the "legal right" to do this. Let's get rid of that law. (The telcos and cable companies will completely loose their business in this case.)
You also mentioned: "the freedom to be informed". (Same thing as what I said for "the freedom to be heard". Sorry for being lazy and not arguing it out; it's late Friday, and I'm getting tired :-) )
You also said: "aren't there any more rights worth fighting for that protect the freedom of real live breathing people". Like I said, I'm concerned about "freedom". ("Rights" are a completely different concept. "Rights" have nothing to do with morality... although sometimes people try to embody moral concepts with "rights"... but more often they don't.)
Also (as I already mentioned) I never said corporations should have freedom. Corporations are NOT people. (Regardless of whether people call them "artificial people" or "legal people" or whatever... they are still NOT people.) Now, the people at these corporations (and cartels) should have freedom too (even if some of them are shitheads).
You also said: "or does freedom only apply to property and profit these days". The answer is NO, freedom applies everywhere. And that is my dilemma. I am applying it everywhere. And because of that, whether I like it or NOT, regulating the Internet is morally wrong because it forcibly takes away people's freedom.
See ya
I know people have good intentions (in wanting governments to regulate the Internet to prevent a Tiered Internet).Why don't you just say it, Charles? Why does it need to be implied parenthetically?You are presenting a false dichotomy.We can have regulation and a tier-free internet, or we can give the communications cartel what they want. That is the choice you have given us.
No, that is not what I'm trying to say.
What I'm trying to say is that we can have regulation and a tier-free Internet... but that I think government regulation (as we've been talking about) is morally wrong.
I do NOT believe that the only other choice is to give the communications cartels what they want. I think that there are other things that we can do to stop a Tiered Internet besides regulation.
(I gave some suggestions before, but...) I was hoping this conversation would lead to a discussion of what those other things could be. (This conversation doesn't seem to be going in that direction though.)
What if I said this:I know that the communications companies have good intentions (in wanting governments to regulate the internet to create a tiered system). But, a belief in freedom should guarantee it for everyone, and not just artificial people. (Regardless of whether we agree with them or like what they are doing.)Would it be any less true? Would it still reflect your values?
(Assuming I read what you wrote correctly.... and assuming that by "artificial people" you mean corporations.) I never said "artificial people" -- corporations -- should have freedom.
I said that forcibly taking away freedom from people is morally wrong.
Now these people could work at or own corporations. But even if they are, forcibly taking away that person's freedom is morally wrong too.
"Artificial people" (which I'm assuming means corporation) are NOT people. (Even though "people" is used in that word.) (And it does NOT matter what they are "legal people" according to the law... they still are NOT people.)
The false dichotomy presented in your argument, and in that astroturf flash movie, is not what this is about. It is a red herring.The freedom sought by this information toll road concept is not freedom to innovate. It is freedom to profit and to control.
Yes, you are correct. They want the freedom to profit and to control. And as long as they do NOT forcibly take away anyone's freedom (or do something else that is morally wrong) in doing this, then they have done nothing morally wrong. (Regardless of whether they are a bunch of shitheads or not.)
If you don't want that to happen, then fight them... but you should not do things that are morally wrong to fight them though.
It is the act of forcibly taking away a person's freedom that is morally wrong. There is nothing morally wrong with wanting profit or wanting control. (That could only potentially make them shitheads, but not morally wrong.)
Innovation is going quite well, with open standards, thank you very much. Firefox rolled out nicely and brought IE to finally improve. Blogger, Wordpress, Mambo, Joomla, Plone, Nuke, Moveable Type, and Scoop all brought us innovation and we ran with it. Now the Googles and Yahoos see it, they are co-opting it. Making it better. Operating under open standards. Things hook up, they work.
I agree with you.
(Google my name, and you'll see I've been involved with Free and Open Source software, and Open Standards for quite a while.)
All that is on the table with this Information Tollroad concept, and we stand to lose it.
Yes, I know. And I agree that this in extremely important. And that we need to do something to fight this.
(I just disagree on how to fight this.) I don't agree that it is OK to have the government regulate the Internet to prevent this. And I do NOT think that that is our only option to prevent this.
I wish that people would work together, to come up with another way to stop them, besides regulation, because we have a limited time before it might become too late. (But you don't always get what you want.)
If it becomes profitable to manipulate bandwidth to steer consumers to product, and is legal to do so, you can be sure that people will be ran right off the Information Superhighway.
Yes I know.
I've worked in corporate world. I've seen what some people are willing to do for wealth or control.
What about our Freedom, Charles? The freedom to be heard? The freedom to be informed? Aren't there any more rights worth fighting for that protect the freedom of real live breathing people? or does freedom only apply to property and profit these days?
I mentioned this in another e-mail, but....
There are 2 important words here: "rights" and "freedom". And these 2 different words have very different meanings.
Many people seem to confuse these.
The difference between "freedom" and "rights" is a very
important distinction. (And I think that most people don't really
realize how important it is.)
"Freedom" is something you either have or something that someone has taken away from you. (Also, as a side note, you have "liberty" when you have "freedom".)
"Rights" are something granted to you.
(NOTE: I'm not trying to define "freedom" or "right" here. I'm only trying to communicate important properties for each that are relevant for this discussion.)
Now, a "right" could try to embody a "freedom". (And this has caused some people to use the word "right" and "freedom" as if they were synonyms -- as if they meant the same thing. When, in fact, they have completely different meanings.)
But often "rights" do NOT embody a "freedom".
(For example, patent law [which was created to promote the sciences and useful arts] grants people "rights" to a state enforced monopoly. But patent law does NOT embody a "freedom". In fact, it takes away freedom. The people who created patent law had good intentions . They wanted to promote the sciences and useful arts. However, the enforcement of patent law still forcibly takes away people's freedom.)
"Freedom" is something you either have or something that someone has taken away from you. (Also, as a side note, you have "liberty" when you have "freedom".)
"Rights" are something granted to you.
(NOTE: I'm not trying to define "freedom" or "right" here. I'm only trying to communicate important properties for each that are relevant for this discussion.)
Now, a "right" could try to embody a "freedom". (And this has caused some people to use the word "right" and "freedom" as if they were synonyms -- as if they meant the same thing. When, in fact, they have completely different meanings.)
But often "rights" do NOT embody a "freedom".
(For example, patent law [which was created to promote the sciences and useful arts] grants people "rights" to a state enforced monopoly. But patent law does NOT embody a "freedom". In fact, it takes away freedom. The people who created patent law had good intentions . They wanted to promote the sciences and useful arts. However, the enforcement of patent law still forcibly takes away people's freedom.)
So,... getting back to what you said.
You mentioned: "the freedom to be heard". (I think what you really meant was "the right to be heard". But assuming you didn't....)
So,.... Please give me an example where something is being done to YOU. Is someone from these communication cartels taping your mouth shut (when you don't want them to) to prevent you from speaking? Are they forcibly doing something else to YOU? If not, they have NOT forcibly taken away your freedom.
Others can stop you from being heard without doing anything morally wrong. It may suck. But that doesn't make it morally wrong.
This should be a wake up call us. (Not a rally to regulate) We should NOT have it so cartels control the Internet. We should make it so this can NOT happen. (Or at the very least, make it so it is very very difficult to happen.)
Perhaps the Internet should be like the roads.
Alternatively,.... Where are these fire optic wires that make up the backbones for the Internet. Are they under people's homes? Is there some specific law that gives them the "legal right" to do this. Let's get rid of that law. (The telcos and cable companies will completely loose their business in this case.)
You also mentioned: "the freedom to be informed". (Same thing as what I said for "the freedom to be heard". Sorry for being lazy and not arguing it out; it's late Friday, and I'm getting tired :-) )
You also said: "aren't there any more rights worth fighting for that protect the freedom of real live breathing people". Like I said, I'm concerned about "freedom". ("Rights" are a completely different concept. "Rights" have nothing to do with morality... although sometimes people try to embody moral concepts with "rights"... but more often they don't.)
Also (as I already mentioned) I never said corporations should have freedom. Corporations are NOT people. (Regardless of whether people call them "artificial people" or "legal people" or whatever... they are still NOT people.) Now, the people at these corporations (and cartels) should have freedom too (even if some of them are shitheads).
You also said: "or does freedom only apply to property and profit these days". The answer is NO, freedom applies everywhere. And that is my dilemma. I am applying it everywhere. And because of that, whether I like it or NOT, regulating the Internet is morally wrong because it forcibly takes away people's freedom.
See ya
ron
On May 19, 2006, at 6:16 PM, Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote:Hello,On 5/19/06, Charles HOPE <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:David Meade wrote:
On 5/19/06, Charles HOPE < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Nevertheless, it looks like Charles K. wins this round. The Bill of Rights restricts government power; Net Neutrality restricts the power of the People (who own and control the wires).
Says you. :-P
Going back and forth on definitions is interesting debate, but I'm still not willing to say "Net Neutrality is about government regulation of the Internet"
I'm still saying "No, its about Government protection of the Internet".
This seems weasely. Why not admit that it is regulation for the Good Cause of Protecting the Internet from Evil?
That then gets back to my original point.... Which can be said with the saying...The road to hell is payed with good intentions.
Or also said with what I believe is a (non-obvious or non-intuitive) equivalent saying...The ends don't justify the means.
I know people have good intentions (in wanting governments to regulate the Internet to prevent a Tiered Internet). But, a belief in freedom should guarantee it for everyone, and not just ourselves. (Regardless of whether we agree with them or like what they are doing.)
My dilemma is that I believe forcibly taking away someone else's freedom is morally wrong. (You may or may not agree. However, at the moment, for this argument, it's not relevant. What is relevant is that I believe it.) I believe this to be part of morality.
As I was growing up, one thing I noticed with some people who claimed they had morals was that they only seem to have it some of the time. They only had them when things were NOT difficult. They only had them when they were NOT tested. They only had them when things were NOT tough.
But when it really came down to it, and when things got difficult, when they got tested, when things got tough, they ended up doing the things they said they'd never do. (To me, that meant they had no morals.)
To me, it most important to have morals especially with things a difficult; especially when we are tested; and especially when times are tough.
To me, this is one of those tough and difficult times.
I do NOT want to see a Tiered Internet. However, I must keep my morals. And given I believe that forcibly taking away someone else's freedom is morally wrong. Then I must also believe that regulating the Internet (even to prevent a Tiered Internet) is morally wrong too.
I can not do otherwise and still be a moral person.
I know this is not what people want to hear. I know that this results in a scary situation. And I know it doesn't seem fair. (But who said life was fair?!)
To me, other methods must be used to prevent a Tiered Internet. I was hoping to get a discussion going on what other things we could do. (But it doesn't look like this conversation is going in that direction.)
See yaAnother interesting debate on definition would be "The People" ... I guess I'm not willing consider huge corporate conglomerates as "The People" ... and therefore refuse to consider Net Neutrality as a regulation of The People.
The standard distinction is drawn between public and private entities. You're using nonstandard terminology. What's wrong with the typical language?
--
Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
charles @ reptile.ca
supercanadian @ gmail.com
developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/
___________________________________________________________________________
Make Television http://maketelevision.com/
SPONSORED LINKS
| Fireant | Individual | Typepad |
| Use | Explains |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
