4 ms·

LOL, it's even better than that, AFAIK. ARPANET was a (D)ARPA project that to my knowledge was started to have computers start interoperating with each other so

LOL, it's even better than that, AFAIK. ARPANET was a (D)ARPA project that to my knowledge was started to have computers start interoperating with each other so researchers at universities could easily and generally transfer data and information with each other, e.g. research papers. You may have noticed the 'start' bit. The reason it was 'starting' is because prior to that, corporations did NOT want you to have computers that could talk to each other. That would weaken their grip on the market and ability to lock you in; when no computers can talk to each other, and your business depends on computers from Corp X, this is good for them: you can't go to anyone else. Printers, sockets, none of these are interoperable - you rely on them for everything. As far as I understand, this is exactly what companies like GE did in those days. ARPANET was completely against everything they wanted, because it meant consumers were freed from their lock in. You could mix and match computers (perhaps cheaper, not-GE ones) with your GE machines, and you weren't beholden to their whims (oh, you need a better mainframe? Gotta upgrade all your machines so they can talk to each other!) And it's unlikely the 'free market' would have ever bore out the same result, and if it did, it probably would have only happened decades later. Of course, good luck explaining this shit to a libertarian-infested hellhole like HN: they all believe they're on the cusp of Gettin' Big Bucks, so they don't want a market that allows competition, or a government that regulates anything they do. They want one that allows them to strangle competition with no repercussions or limits - they're just about to make it big after all as Uber Millionaires, and why do you want to steal their money!???!! Like said elsewhere, Americans believe themselves to be impovershed millionaires, so they don't want to limit their future greatness. And of course, to build on what Carlin said: this is a part of the 'American Dream' because you have to be asleep (or braindead) to believe in it.

imjustsaying 12y ago
The government is a player in the free market.
shmerl 12y ago
> Of course, good luck explaining this shit to a libertarian-infested hellhole like HN: they all believe they're on the cusp of Gettin' Big Bucks, so they don't want a market that allows competition, I'm not sure where you get this idea. Libertarians are pro competition, not anti. So they are actually quite negative towards monopolies and support their prevention.
- thoughtpolice 12y ago
  You say this, but most Libertarians do not really give a fuck about competition, only that the government does not interfere with corporations in any way, and they get theirs (no matter the cost to anyone else). Despite the fact there is boundless amounts of evidence of companies using their influence to force monopolies or crush competition. Oh, but Libertarians don't like that (allegedly). Well then, their answer is simple: But if you don't like that, just move! Don't support that company! Bootstrap harder! Externalities don't real! That'll show those big mean old companies (nevermind the fact you don't have the money or ability to move or go without services like the internet, making the point moot). At the end of the day, having dealt with many of them here in Texas, most libertarians are just dumbass 20 something white male Republicans who want to smoke weed and end the Fed. They're a joke, but they're a joke that exist on this site in quite a plentiful manner, as you can see. They don't care about the monopolistic control most ISPs have over their customers in plenty of places in the US. They only care that Obama doesn't get all up in their internet; everything else be damned.
  - shmerl 12y ago
    > but most Libertarians do not really give a fuck about competition, only that the government does not interfere with corporations in any way No, libertarians are against excessive control over society, not necessarily corporations. I.e. if corporation is a monopoly, it itself gets excessive control over society, so as such libertarians support preventing monopolies. That's the logic behind it. I've never seen a libertarian who is supporting monopoly. It simply sounds like an oxymoron to me.

imjustsaying 12y ago

The government is a player in the free market.

shmerl 12y ago

> Of course, good luck explaining this shit to a libertarian-infested hellhole like HN: they all believe they're on the cusp of Gettin' Big Bucks, so they don't want a market that allows competition, I'm not sure where you get this idea. Libertarians are pro competition, not anti. So they are actually quite negative towards monopolies and support their prevention.

thoughtpolice 12y ago
You say this, but most Libertarians do not really give a fuck about competition, only that the government does not interfere with corporations in any way, and they get theirs (no matter the cost to anyone else). Despite the fact there is boundless amounts of evidence of companies using their influence to force monopolies or crush competition. Oh, but Libertarians don't like that (allegedly). Well then, their answer is simple: But if you don't like that, just move! Don't support that company! Bootstrap harder! Externalities don't real! That'll show those big mean old companies (nevermind the fact you don't have the money or ability to move or go without services like the internet, making the point moot). At the end of the day, having dealt with many of them here in Texas, most libertarians are just dumbass 20 something white male Republicans who want to smoke weed and end the Fed. They're a joke, but they're a joke that exist on this site in quite a plentiful manner, as you can see. They don't care about the monopolistic control most ISPs have over their customers in plenty of places in the US. They only care that Obama doesn't get all up in their internet; everything else be damned.
- shmerl 12y ago
  > but most Libertarians do not really give a fuck about competition, only that the government does not interfere with corporations in any way No, libertarians are against excessive control over society, not necessarily corporations. I.e. if corporation is a monopoly, it itself gets excessive control over society, so as such libertarians support preventing monopolies. That's the logic behind it. I've never seen a libertarian who is supporting monopoly. It simply sounds like an oxymoron to me.