> Cooperation beats competition. It's hard to think of greater scale of cooperation than what happens in the free market > What would those SIGs defend? With

> Cooperation beats competition. It's hard to think of greater scale of cooperation than what happens in the free market > What would those SIGs defend? Without even getting very creative: obscure routes to place lines, brands of hardware, companies to outsource installation/maintenance to, subsidizing of higher up core internet infrastructure, acceptable and unacceptable internet content, subsidizing internet content (since what good is the "right" of internet access if you don't have the "right" to certain content). This is just scraping the surface. > Not everyone competent work for money. Maybe that will weed out the sociopaths from C-level positions, at least. You're right but not in the way you think. The sociopaths are drawn to positions of power. > I'd love to know your reasoning behind this. Virtually every government department has armored vehicles, SWAT style teams, etc. Just a cursory google search reveals that even many local school districts now have armored vehicles, grenade launchers, etc. > Which cuts costs because they are already doing it and there is no increase in their workload. As stated previously, any cost savings possibly imagined are greatly outweighed by the bureaucratic machine created. > It's completely understandable to be throttled in peak load times and enjoy more resources off-peak. Turning the internet into the commons means there is no "off-peak".