----- Original Message -----
From: "Rich Comroe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz
>
> Our economy has thrived IN SPITE OF GOVERNMENT for as long as our
> nation
> has
> existed. It has and always be so. There are many things that could
> be
> done to limit the damage, but few of us ever support those things.
Here's where we disagree. Wireless policy cannot be anarchistic (my term
... you always use the terms" free market") as you advocate. For
industries
But we don't disagree... Much. You're mistaking what I'm saying, because
you're attempting to read between the lines what isn't there. We don't
need to argue this, and this isn't the place for it. But the argument
displaces good conversation, which is why I want to address it.
where what "I" choose to do doesn't impact "your" choices, no problem.
Wireless DOES NOT FIT in this class (many other industries don't fit as
well, completely unrelated to wireless). Your FREEDOM impacts MY
choices.
I'm not sure why you think that objecting to badly applied and wrongly
written regulation impacts your choices.
Government policy MUST regulate wireless industries for the public good.
Not really. It has taken upon itself, for better or for worse ( that's
not
even the point of the argument, so let's not get bogged in it) the task of
regulating radio spectrum. That doesn't mean it has to regulate the
industry... Just the use of the spectrum for the best outcome it can
figure
out how to do.
Study some history of various industries (not restricted to just
wireless)
and you will find that lack of government "guidance" / or bad government
guidance (read: lack of vitally needed regulation) hurts everyone. We've
Could you provide a few examples? I can't think of any. I know we have
anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws, but those are just protections of free
markets, not "regulation of industries".
had previous threads where we respectfully disagree on this. You see
free
market as the best for everyone, and I know how painfully untrue this
often
is. Do you really truly believe that everyone always benefits from your
having "no restriction" whatsoever on what you choose to do? I respect
your
yes. Absolutely.
opinions immensely but I just can't help believe that deep down you know
from your own career experiences that this has never really been true
under
all circumstances. But then again, a lot of people in Wash/Ore
apparently
seem willing to believe this fantasy.
huh? I live in the socialist state of Oregon, where dang near everyone
wants the nanny state, and believes in centralized control of every damn
thing.
>
>>
>> Our government prints billions of new dollars each month (millions of
>> dollars each day) but these dollars are not being circulated in our
>> real-world, local-businesses economy. These dollars are circulated on
>> Wall Street. These dollars are circulated between our government and
>> large corporations. These dollars are circulated between foreign
central
>> banks in countries outside the U.S.
>>
>> Now that I've framed the problem (political corruption), I have an
>> obligation to do more than just complain. I have an obligation to
>> outline the solution. The solution is to take the money out of
politics.
>> Allow all candidates to campaign with an small but equal amount of
>> public money (our money). Remember, the job of politicians is to write
>> the laws that govern our country. By taking the large-corporation
>> money
>> out of politics, politicians will be reminded each day who they are
>> supposed to be working for... they're supposed to be working for "us".
>
> No, Jack, this only gaurantees that the famous, the incumbents... these
> will
> get elected and re-elected. All this does is limit the power of those
> NOT
> in power to speak to the people. Every time someone tries to limit
this,
> it further calcifies the power in place and people already into power.
>
> Money is not the problem. The problem is that we have allowed
goverment
> to
> do everything for us, and we don't insist it stop. Poll this list,
> and
> you'll find a lot of people want the government to take over EVEN MORE
> parts
> of our economy than they have already. Health care being one. Gee,
> we
> whine and moan that government is intrenched into everything and plays
> favorites with those who give it money, and then we start talking about
> giving it EVEN MORE control and power.
Government is not the source and stem of all evil. Thinking in
competitive
free market terms, we have a fairly good government compared to most
which
are much worse. That doesn't make it the perfect, and money/power is the
evil. I agree with Jack on this. Money/power/influence are the things
that
make government act against the best interests of the country ... it's
not
government itself that's the source of evil.
Huh... I guess I can only state this in my defense... I DO state
exactly
what I think, to the best of my ability. When you respond and insist upon
claiming I think other than what I say, the conversation breaks down and
all
it ends up being is a shouting match without any rational point.
I don't state that government is the source of all evil. It is, however,
a
necessary evil. Anarchy is absurd, and we all know that. However, there
are certain characteristics of government proven true from the beginning
of
time, and that is that power and wealth corrupt. Government must not be
allowed much of iether, or it becomes corrupt.
Our argument is over the scope and philosophy behind the necessary things
government does...and to some degree what is "necessary". I really don't
know if we agree or disagree on much in that regard, and this isn't the
place for that. But some things we have to acknowledge and then be used
in
our calculations of how we should respond as business people and as an
industry. Just to be clear:
I do NOT think we should be required to spend a single dime to comply with
some federal mandate, for public purpose.
I do NOT think we should be required to do ANYTHING for public purpose
without compensation.
I do believe that we, as good citizens should be as cooperative and
helpful
(not obstructive) as we can to assist law enforcement and the function of
good governance. Nobody here argues otherwise. If we can help stop
something harmful, by golly, we have an personal obligation to do so.
I do believe we should object to EVERYTHING that is harmful to our
industry
and our business. It's our obligation as citizens and as business people.
Further, we should PROMOTE good things from the regulators. There is no
shame in defending our best self-interest.
Now exactly why some people have to say I'm promoting anarchy, or that I'm
against all government, or calling government universally evil, I dunno.
Maybe you could explain it to me. Maybe it's just playing politics in a
group to try to marginalize the loud guy. Maybe it's just your
perception.
Maybe it's because I portray the nature of government as being adversarial
to the citizenry and our best interests... I say it because unchecked,
government ALWAYS is. Without restraints, it always runs counter the
welfare of the governed.
But that's like saying that fire is evil, because uncontrolled it is
horribly destructive. When it serves us, controlled and restrained to
it's
purpose, it is a huge benefit. Good government is that which is
restrained
and controlled within it's boundaries. But it's nature is to exceed those
boundaries, even in a democracy, or a constitutional republic. WE are the
check, we are the enforcers of the boundaries. Let's not be timid about
doing so.
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
