4 ms·

From the perspective of a non-American, it's sad to see you taking _another_ step away from laissez-faire capitalism. In what world is it reasonable to take mo

From the perspective of a non-American, it's sad to see you taking _another_ step away from laissez-faire capitalism. In what world is it reasonable to take money from people by force and use it to compete with private business? If people want municipal broadband, let them form non-profits to provide it through voluntary donations. That should be legal, and if it's not, that'd be something to fix.

orthecreedence 12y ago
Wow, so much wrong with your statement. Obama isn't trying to rally all the states to create broadband that competes with the big telecoms, he's proposing we strike down laws that telecoms lobbied for that forces people not to form their own local broadband. So what we have currently is citizens being forced NOT to exercise the democratic process thanks to the efforts of large companies. That is laissez-faire capitalism at work, my friend, in it's most common form. Secondly, I can't imagine anybody in the world (US citizen or not) thinking the US needs to move more towards laissez-faire capitalism. It's about as brutally capitalist/monopolistic/imperialist as anyone could ever want, and the citizens' collective voice has never been so drowned out as it has right now. Any time anyone even talks about some kind of social service or public good (including local broadband), everyone comes out of the woodwork screaming "COMMUNISM!!!" What we need is to strangle our corporate culture back into complete submission of the American people. No more spending our tax dollars invading countries or setting up puppet dictators so the corporate good ol' boys can steal from the locals. No more politicians entirely in the pocket of a bunch of greedy fucks, fighting for legislation they don't even understand. No more US banks destroying the world economy and having zero repercussions whatsoever. In what world is it reasonable to want more of these things?
- duncan_bayne 12y ago
  You're wrong. The laws Obama is planning to strike down are entirely reasonable; they prevent people from being _compelled_ to fund municipal broadband. That is, there is a difference between: a) some people setting up a non-profit to offer broadband, provided by voluntary donations, sponsorship, whatever and b) local Government taxing people to offer same The former is as I understand it entirely legal, and entirely compatible with a free market.

orthecreedence 12y ago

Wow, so much wrong with your statement. Obama isn't trying to rally all the states to create broadband that competes with the big telecoms, he's proposing we strike down laws that telecoms lobbied for that forces people not to form their own local broadband. So what we have currently is citizens being forced NOT to exercise the democratic process thanks to the efforts of large companies. That is laissez-faire capitalism at work, my friend, in it's most common form. Secondly, I can't imagine anybody in the world (US citizen or not) thinking the US needs to move more towards laissez-faire capitalism. It's about as brutally capitalist/monopolistic/imperialist as anyone could ever want, and the citizens' collective voice has never been so drowned out as it has right now. Any time anyone even talks about some kind of social service or public good (including local broadband), everyone comes out of the woodwork screaming "COMMUNISM!!!" What we need is to strangle our corporate culture back into complete submission of the American people. No more spending our tax dollars invading countries or setting up puppet dictators so the corporate good ol' boys can steal from the locals. No more politicians entirely in the pocket of a bunch of greedy fucks, fighting for legislation they don't even understand. No more US banks destroying the world economy and having zero repercussions whatsoever. In what world is it reasonable to want more of these things?

duncan_bayne 12y ago
You're wrong. The laws Obama is planning to strike down are entirely reasonable; they prevent people from being _compelled_ to fund municipal broadband. That is, there is a difference between: a) some people setting up a non-profit to offer broadband, provided by voluntary donations, sponsorship, whatever and b) local Government taxing people to offer same The former is as I understand it entirely legal, and entirely compatible with a free market.