5 ms·

Am I the only one surprised by the fact that "the people" have to secure right to start a business for the common good in a democracy? I may be misinformed but

by eklavya 12y ago

Am I the only one surprised by the fact that "the people" have to secure right to start a business for the common good in a democracy? I may be misinformed but in India I can not ever imagine having to need to do this. p.s. I am not trying to show anyone in a bad light, just wondering if things like this are possible in a democracy.

cookrn 12y ago
The state of Colorado passed bill in 2005 [0] disallowing municipalities to offer their own advanced communications (read: broadband/fiber/wireless) services without a local vote. These local votes are what the OP was referring to. [0] http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics2005a/csl.nsf/billcontainers/FA216226F45192FE87256F41007B483C/$FILE/152_01.pdf http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics2005a/csl.nsf/billcontainers...
mudetroit 12y ago
It is a difficult problem. Governments have a number of built in advantages over private companies trying to deliver the same services. I say this while being, in general, a supporter of the ability for municipalities to provide broadband if they choose to do so. There are a number of complex opposing factors in allowing them to do so though. For example, Boulder has required companies leasing space on the public right of way to install, at the company's expense, fiber to be owned by the city. (http://www.branfiber.net/Conduit%20Lease%20Agreement%20between%20Zayo%20and%20the%20City%20of%20Boulder.pdf http://www.branfiber.net/Conduit%20Lease%20Agreement%20betwe...) Basically, Boulder can force competitors for it's own broadband service to subsidize their own competitor. These are non-trivial problems to overcome.
- Zigurd 12y ago
  > * Boulder can force competitors for it's own broadband service to subsidize their own competitor. These are non-trivial problems to overcome.* If it is the will of the people, it isn't a problem. Nobody has a right to operate a for-profit SP any more than they have a right to operate a for-profit water utility.
bhhaskin 12y ago
It wouldn't be starting a business so much as the local government offering a service.
Florin_Andrei 12y ago
What's funny is that a lot of people are worried about the "government" limiting their liberty, whereas in cases like this it's the big corporations that need to be defeated to win back your freedom. Maybe freedom-above-all folks need to rethink what freedom is all about in this new reality.
- coryrc 12y ago
  Huh? It's the state government that has the law mostly preventing municipal broadband. If the government wasn't so powerful, the corporations couldn't use it as a tool against us.
  - DrJosiah 12y ago
    That is some fucked up doublespeak right there. If corporations weren't so powerful, they wouldn't be able to manipulate the government into passing laws that restrict choice among citizens.
    - sanderjd 12y ago
      You are talking around each other because there isn't one "the government", but rather a bunch of different levels constantly pushing and pulling against one another. It's very reasonable to be a small government ideologue while simultaneously wanting a more powerful city government. Many people who want "small government" simply want a less powerful federal government. A few states are playing with this balance (Colorado certainly among them) at all levels. Should the federal government control the state's drug policy? Should the state control the county's or municipality's infrastructure or natural resources? What about schools, who should control those? These sorts of questions are where you see major differences between lots of different people who would all identify themselves as "conservatives" and agreement with many people would would identify themselves as "liberals". It isn't a simple system!
      - Florin_Andrei 12y ago
        I could not agree more with the liberty-above-all folks - in terms of sentiment. I could not disagree more with them that the greatest threat to individual liberty is the "government" - that was true back in the day of Paul Revere maybe. But times have changed. Nowadays the greatest threat, and a much more intelligent and subtle threat, too, is from Big Money. There's a war out there for people's minds, and we-the-people are currently losing. Chaining up the bodies is so medieval and inefficient, so why bother, when you can chain up the minds and then the slaves will passionately defend their own chains. It's easy, too, just set up some "think tanks", or promote some newfangled ideologies that seem to promise "liberty" while in fact weaken the very defenses that support it. Problem solved. I lived the first 2 decades of my life under communist dictatorship, so I think I know from first hand experience what freedom, or lack thereof, truly mean.
mikeyouse 12y ago
Then again, these rules exist largely to prevent scenes like this: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Wdm_lyaf5XQ/UBiioQwzsCI/AAAAAAAAC20/unDPISM_f-A/s640/dangerous+power+lines.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Wdm_lyaf5XQ/UBiioQwzsCI/AAAAAAAAC2...
rhino369 12y ago
Municipalities aren't "the people." The State has total police power in US federal system. Local governments only exist by the charter of the State government. Colorado eliminate all local governments if it wanted to. If a group of citizens wanted to start a cooperative, they could do that. It's more complicated than this, but it's the gist.

by eklavya 12y ago

cookrn 12y ago

The state of Colorado passed bill in 2005 [0] disallowing municipalities to offer their own advanced communications (read: broadband/fiber/wireless) services without a local vote. These local votes are what the OP was referring to. [0] http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics2005a/csl.nsf/billcontainers/FA216226F45192FE87256F41007B483C/$FILE/152_01.pdf http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics2005a/csl.nsf/billcontainers...

mudetroit 12y ago

It is a difficult problem. Governments have a number of built in advantages over private companies trying to deliver the same services. I say this while being, in general, a supporter of the ability for municipalities to provide broadband if they choose to do so. There are a number of complex opposing factors in allowing them to do so though. For example, Boulder has required companies leasing space on the public right of way to install, at the company's expense, fiber to be owned by the city. (http://www.branfiber.net/Conduit%20Lease%20Agreement%20between%20Zayo%20and%20the%20City%20of%20Boulder.pdf http://www.branfiber.net/Conduit%20Lease%20Agreement%20betwe...) Basically, Boulder can force competitors for it's own broadband service to subsidize their own competitor. These are non-trivial problems to overcome.

Zigurd 12y ago
> * Boulder can force competitors for it's own broadband service to subsidize their own competitor. These are non-trivial problems to overcome.* If it is the will of the people, it isn't a problem. Nobody has a right to operate a for-profit SP any more than they have a right to operate a for-profit water utility.

bhhaskin 12y ago

It wouldn't be starting a business so much as the local government offering a service.

Florin_Andrei 12y ago

What's funny is that a lot of people are worried about the "government" limiting their liberty, whereas in cases like this it's the big corporations that need to be defeated to win back your freedom. Maybe freedom-above-all folks need to rethink what freedom is all about in this new reality.

coryrc 12y ago
Huh? It's the state government that has the law mostly preventing municipal broadband. If the government wasn't so powerful, the corporations couldn't use it as a tool against us.
- DrJosiah 12y ago
  That is some fucked up doublespeak right there. If corporations weren't so powerful, they wouldn't be able to manipulate the government into passing laws that restrict choice among citizens.
  - sanderjd 12y ago
    You are talking around each other because there isn't one "the government", but rather a bunch of different levels constantly pushing and pulling against one another. It's very reasonable to be a small government ideologue while simultaneously wanting a more powerful city government. Many people who want "small government" simply want a less powerful federal government. A few states are playing with this balance (Colorado certainly among them) at all levels. Should the federal government control the state's drug policy? Should the state control the county's or municipality's infrastructure or natural resources? What about schools, who should control those? These sorts of questions are where you see major differences between lots of different people who would all identify themselves as "conservatives" and agreement with many people would would identify themselves as "liberals". It isn't a simple system!
    - Florin_Andrei 12y ago
      I could not agree more with the liberty-above-all folks - in terms of sentiment. I could not disagree more with them that the greatest threat to individual liberty is the "government" - that was true back in the day of Paul Revere maybe. But times have changed. Nowadays the greatest threat, and a much more intelligent and subtle threat, too, is from Big Money. There's a war out there for people's minds, and we-the-people are currently losing. Chaining up the bodies is so medieval and inefficient, so why bother, when you can chain up the minds and then the slaves will passionately defend their own chains. It's easy, too, just set up some "think tanks", or promote some newfangled ideologies that seem to promise "liberty" while in fact weaken the very defenses that support it. Problem solved. I lived the first 2 decades of my life under communist dictatorship, so I think I know from first hand experience what freedom, or lack thereof, truly mean.

mikeyouse 12y ago

Then again, these rules exist largely to prevent scenes like this: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Wdm_lyaf5XQ/UBiioQwzsCI/AAAAAAAAC20/unDPISM_f-A/s640/dangerous+power+lines.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Wdm_lyaf5XQ/UBiioQwzsCI/AAAAAAAAC2...

rhino369 12y ago

Municipalities aren't "the people." The State has total police power in US federal system. Local governments only exist by the charter of the State government. Colorado eliminate all local governments if it wanted to. If a group of citizens wanted to start a cooperative, they could do that. It's more complicated than this, but it's the gist.