A small, specific question about libertarianism

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
sam_i_am
Posts: 624
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:38 pm UTC
Location: Urbana, Illinois, USA

Re: A small, specific question about libertarianism

Postby sam_i_am » Tue Aug 14, 2012 5:12 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
sam_i_am wrote:
Zamfir wrote:
Maybe some day in our lifetimes law will be kept track of with the same version-control technology used for software

In many countries you can look up laws on websites where changes from the past have been marked, and usually it is also indicated when a law is under under revision and expected to change at some point. Would you really need more than that?



Maybe instead of a base law with a list of self-referencing amendments at the end, you'd have essentially 1 document, and the amendments would be stored as diffs to the law.

That's… kind of how it works, in the US, at least. When a law is passed, it enters into the Statutes at Large, which is the body of all bills that have ever been signed by the President. Most bills contain language to the effect of "Section such and such of the United States Code shall be amended to read so and so." So, the Statutes at Large are diffs for the US Code.



Source control stores the diffs only for historacal purposes. It doesn't expose them to you if you're not looking for them. For instance


instead of

Section A:
Blah blah blah A

Section B:
Blah blah blah B

Section C:
Blah blah blah C

AMENDMENT 1:
Section A shall read
"Blah blah blah AA"


you'd have

Section A:
Blah blah blah AA

Section B:
Blah blah blah B

Section C:
Blah blah blah C


as the legal document, but the amendment itself would still be stored if you wanted to look at the law's history.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: A small, specific question about libertarianism

Postby leady » Tue Aug 14, 2012 5:13 pm UTC

lol - there is no way that scenario will ever happen (for one reason I'd tell the right people how dumb it is)

on other hand if an internet movie provider came to me and said they'd pay per end-user to get priority, I'd be jumping all over them. Note though in these circumstances you still need to maintain a good service ofr other mainstream services whilst providing a level of priority. What good means is the hard issue, when customers expects iplayer and the like to just work. But the scaling of unicast services I think will break that model eventually as it becomes even more uneconomic.

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: A small, specific question about libertarianism

Postby omgryebread » Tue Aug 14, 2012 5:32 pm UTC

leady wrote:lol - there is no way that scenario will ever happen (for one reason I'd tell the right people how dumb it is)

on other hand if an internet movie provider came to me and said they'd pay per end-user to get priority, I'd be jumping all over them. Note though in these circumstances you still need to maintain a good service ofr other mainstream services whilst providing a level of priority. What good means is the hard issue, when customers expects iplayer and the like to just work. But the scaling of unicast services I think will break that model eventually as it becomes even more uneconomic.
If they'd never do it anyway, what's wrong with a rule telling them not to?
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

User avatar
sam_i_am
Posts: 624
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:38 pm UTC
Location: Urbana, Illinois, USA

Re: A small, specific question about libertarianism

Postby sam_i_am » Tue Aug 14, 2012 5:39 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:
leady wrote:lol - there is no way that scenario will ever happen (for one reason I'd tell the right people how dumb it is)

on other hand if an internet movie provider came to me and said they'd pay per end-user to get priority, I'd be jumping all over them. Note though in these circumstances you still need to maintain a good service ofr other mainstream services whilst providing a level of priority. What good means is the hard issue, when customers expects iplayer and the like to just work. But the scaling of unicast services I think will break that model eventually as it becomes even more uneconomic.
If they'd never do it anyway, what's wrong with a rule telling them not to?


That's hardly a justification for any law I dare say

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: A small, specific question about libertarianism

Postby omgryebread » Tue Aug 14, 2012 5:44 pm UTC

sam_i_am wrote:That's hardly a justification for any law I dare say
Of course it's not a justification for the law. The justification is that them doing it would be very bad, so let's not let them do it.

I doubt you'd kill anyone even if it were legal, but that doesn't mean it should be legal for you to kill people.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

User avatar
sam_i_am
Posts: 624
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:38 pm UTC
Location: Urbana, Illinois, USA

Re: A small, specific question about libertarianism

Postby sam_i_am » Tue Aug 14, 2012 5:54 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:
sam_i_am wrote:That's hardly a justification for any law I dare say
Of course it's not a justification for the law. The justification is that them doing it would be very bad, so let's not let them do it.

I doubt you'd kill anyone even if it were legal, but that doesn't mean it should be legal for you to kill people.



Logic doesn't always work in reverse

"If It's bad, they won't do it" does not imply "if they won't do it than it must be bad"

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: A small, specific question about libertarianism

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:04 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:
leady wrote:lol - there is no way that scenario will ever happen (for one reason I'd tell the right people how dumb it is)

on other hand if an internet movie provider came to me and said they'd pay per end-user to get priority, I'd be jumping all over them. Note though in these circumstances you still need to maintain a good service ofr other mainstream services whilst providing a level of priority. What good means is the hard issue, when customers expects iplayer and the like to just work. But the scaling of unicast services I think will break that model eventually as it becomes even more uneconomic.
If they'd never do it anyway, what's wrong with a rule telling them not to?


Legal bloat, like we're currently discussing. Laws have costs, even if some of those are not obvious. Therefore, if a law is unnecessary, it should not be made.

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: A small, specific question about libertarianism

Postby omgryebread » Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 pm UTC

sam_i_am wrote:
omgryebread wrote:
sam_i_am wrote:That's hardly a justification for any law I dare say
Of course it's not a justification for the law. The justification is that them doing it would be very bad, so let's not let them do it.

I doubt you'd kill anyone even if it were legal, but that doesn't mean it should be legal for you to kill people.



Logic doesn't always work in reverse

"If It's bad, they won't do it" does not imply "if they won't do it than it must be bad"
...which isn't my argument.

I'm saying it's bad because of the effects it has on the internet.
Because it's bad, it should be illegal.

Then leady's argument was:
But it would never happen, so it shouldn't be illegal.

Which is nonsensical.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: A small, specific question about libertarianism

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:35 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:I'm saying it's bad because of the effects it has on the internet.


Aright, first premise. You haven't justified this. The presented evidence indicates that this being legal has no negative effects on the internet.

Because it's bad, it should be illegal.


An even sketchier premise. Making things illegal is not always the best or only solution to a problem. Usually, you'll want to demonstrate why making it illegal would improve the scenario, first. We can't just gleefully skip over the part where we demonstrate a proposed solution actually will fix the problem.

Then leady's argument was:
But it would never happen, so it shouldn't be illegal.

Which is nonsensical.


Not at all. We could outlaw turning the world purple by sneezing. This example entirely fits your criteria for a law, and would absolutely be nonsensical.

Banning things that don't happen is unnecessary.

User avatar
sam_i_am
Posts: 624
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:38 pm UTC
Location: Urbana, Illinois, USA

Re: A small, specific question about libertarianism

Postby sam_i_am » Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:52 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:
sam_i_am wrote:
omgryebread wrote:
sam_i_am wrote:That's hardly a justification for any law I dare say
Of course it's not a justification for the law. The justification is that them doing it would be very bad, so let's not let them do it.

I doubt you'd kill anyone even if it were legal, but that doesn't mean it should be legal for you to kill people.



Logic doesn't always work in reverse

"If It's bad, they won't do it" does not imply "if they won't do it than it must be bad"
...which isn't my argument.

I'm saying it's bad because of the effects it has on the internet.
Because it's bad, it should be illegal.

Then leady's argument was:
But it would never happen, so it shouldn't be illegal.

Which is nonsensical.


What's bad?

is it bad to set a bandwidth limit on expensive protocols like bit torrent?

is it bad for the ISP to refuse service to websites known to participate in illegal activity(such as fraud)

Is it bad to limit bandwidth for the unforseen reason?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: A small, specific question about libertarianism

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 14, 2012 7:45 pm UTC

sam_i_am wrote:
What's bad?

is it bad to set a bandwidth limit on expensive protocols like bit torrent?


The protocol isn't particularly expensive. Streaming video from netflix is a much bigger bandwidth issue than say, torrenting is, and torrents come from all manner of different places. I admit this is somewhat nitpicky, but torrents sometimes get a bad rap.

I have no problem with this so long as they make it clear. If they just start doing it without even bothering to notify me, then we have us an issue.

is it bad for the ISP to refuse service to websites known to participate in illegal activity(such as fraud)


This is something they can easily disclose in the EULA, and that 99% of people will high-five over.

Is it bad to limit bandwidth for the unforseen reason?


Well, that's pure quality of service issues. If you're advertising this as a fast, reliable connection, but it isn't, there's some basic truth in advertising concerns. I have absolutely no problem with the idea of cheap, limited connections being sold. Even subsidized connections with limited service to certain provides only(remember Juno anyone?).

I just really, really hate them gleefully plastering unlimited on everything when it is, in fact, limited. That's not really a net neutrality issue as such, though. It just requires stricter enforcement on truth in advertising laws.

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: A small, specific question about libertarianism

Postby HungryHobo » Wed Aug 15, 2012 1:16 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Aright, first premise. You haven't justified this. The presented evidence indicates that this being legal has no negative effects on the internet.



have you even been reading?

abusing your position in one market to gain an advantage in another is bad for the market and bad for the economy as a whole.

this is not hard.

allowing netflicks to pay ISP's to degrade lovefilms service (lets say by pushing all netflicks packets to the front whenever both are in a queue) is no different than allowing intel to pay retailers to push back the launch of AMD products which is already illegal.

Or perhaps I've misread your position. do you maintain that this kind of abuse of the market is not bad and or that we don't need basic antitrust and anti-monopoly laws?

leady wrote:on other hand if an internet movie provider came to me and said they'd pay per end-user to get priority, I'd be jumping all over them.


it's good to know you don't like antitrust and anti competitive trading laws (at least when you have the chance to make a quick buck to everyone elses cost)

lol - there is no way that scenario will ever happen


right, so facebook come to you and say "hey, there's this new startup, hardly any users on your network yet. hardly anyone has ever heard of them but we're worried about them. we'll give you X million to make sure their page loads like a flash animation in the days of dialup for any of your customers and anyone who's connection gets routed across your network". what do you do?
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

capefeather
Posts: 98
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2008 4:23 am UTC

Re: A small, specific question about libertarianism

Postby capefeather » Wed Aug 15, 2012 3:58 am UTC

There are a few things that really bug me about what's being argued in this thread.

I don't like that we are distinguishing between situations in such a way that others can only agree on a matter-of-fact level. I know that there is a fairly well-defined difference between negative and positive rights, for example; I just see no reason whatsoever to apply this difference to morality. There have been a lot of instances where people get out of opposing arguments by insisting, "Hey, it's not actually X, it's Y." Why should I treat "let die" so much differently from "kill" when they're dying either way? That might be a more complicated issue on a more individual level (e.g. trolley problem), but when we're talking about matters of fact on a large scale, this is really not a given.

The second is this insistence on concentrating on increasing average wealth regardless of the cost. This is something that people definitely disagree with as well, and is definitely not a given. Maybe my personal objection can be summed up as, "As a fan of Rawls, this is completely incompatible with my beliefs." Are people really suggesting that we should continue to increase the disparity between rich and poor because the rich are, on average, more "valuable"? Are people really suggesting that we screw over one individual in favour of another, based on who has more wealth? Because this is the implication that I'm seeing here. I could easily increase the average wealth of society by killing people at random.

A big problem that I'm seeing here is that we're placing too much trust in a human's ability to exercise good judgment, regardless of mitigating factors. Quite frankly, even disregarding being drunk (Actually, why even "infringe on the rights" of a drunk driver? He doesn't actually intend to kill people!) or mentally unstable (as has been mentioned quite a few times), we humans are pretty fucking retarded. We have incredibly exaggerated opinions of ourselves; we conform to roles we are given even when explicitly told they're arbitrary; we are capable of committing terrible atrocities just because we were ordered to; our memories are extremely malleable; the list goes on. At some point, we have to accept that, just as parents need to restrict the freedom of a child for the child's greater good and/or fairness, we sometimes need to take away a little bit of freedom for a greater benefit and/or fairness. That's not tyranny. Tyranny is when it gets out of hand and more freedom is taken away for less benefit.

I mentioned Rawls before, so maybe this next part isn't surprising. Imagine YOU (or someone you know) were the one screwed over by the policy you support. That's what's on the line when policies on society are made. And I know people like to think that people have ample opportunity to change their lives. This really isn't the case; people get lucky or unlucky with stuff like family background, which affects everything, including supposed "free will" factors like motivation and how pro-social/anti-social one tends to be. In a sense, there is no free will; chaotic dynamics just make it seem as if there were sometimes. I really have no respect for belief systems that are okay with luck because they can just call it free will.

I guess a lot of this came off as rambling and I'm sorry about that. I've thought about this to the point where I don't remember everything I was going to say.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: A small, specific question about libertarianism

Postby leady » Wed Aug 15, 2012 9:37 am UTC

allowing netflicks to pay ISP's to degrade lovefilms service (lets say by pushing all netflicks packets to the front whenever both are in a queue) is no different than allowing intel to pay retailers to push back the launch of AMD products which is already illegal.

Or perhaps I've misread your position. do you maintain that this kind of abuse of the market is not bad and or that we don't need basic antitrust and anti-monopoly laws?


Well no because Intel at least could have been described as having market dominance - there is no such issue in these discussions.

it's good to know you don't like antitrust and anti competitive trading laws (at least when you have the chance to make a quick buck to everyone elses cost)


I'm not overly enamoured of them, but thats irrelevent given this discussion is not set in a monopoly scenario. Anyone can choose to take or not take my service.

right, so facebook come to you and say "hey, there's this new startup, hardly any users on your network yet. hardly anyone has ever heard of them but we're worried about them. we'll give you X million to make sure their page loads like a flash animation in the days of dialup for any of your customers and anyone who's connection gets routed across your network". what do you do?
[/quote]

Id say "there is no way you can afford to pay the millions required to outweigh my customer brand damage if I do such a thing" as would anyone else who wants to run a successful business. I hate to break it to you, but businesses are not stupid, evil entities.

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: A small, specific question about libertarianism

Postby HungryHobo » Wed Aug 15, 2012 10:36 am UTC

leady wrote:I'm not overly enamoured of them, but thats irrelevent given this discussion is not set in a monopoly scenario. Anyone can choose to take or not take my service.


You seem to be under the misaprehension that your company is in the role of intel. the retailers intel bribed weren't monopolies. even intel only controlled about 70% of the market.

That's why I used the example of facebook coming to you: they control a similar fraction of the social networking market. It doesn't have to be as extreme as outlined, even more subtle changes so that CompetitorBook's packets always lose to facebooks packets when there's a queue or congestion and the network has to drop some packets or facebooks packets always get pushed forward in the queue.

Just enough that the competitor ends up feeling sluggish and slow in comparison, that much artifically less appealing.

for the streaming services you wouldn't have to completely blackhole a competitor, just degrade the service ever so slightly: slightly enough that it'd be hard to prove it's intentional just so that their stream is jumpy and poor(We don't know anything, must be a problem on their end or at some node along the way).
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: A small, specific question about libertarianism

Postby leady » Wed Aug 15, 2012 12:22 pm UTC

I don't need to be intel for the example to work - basically intel had a defacto monopoly on home computing and was signing deals with dominant retailers (for example dixons groups in the uk). The internet example not only does FB not have a monopoly on social media (unless you define markets so tightly that everything is a monopoly), but your ISP isn't a monopoly and even your access provider to connect to the internet isn't a monopoly (3G etc). So all restrictions based on market abuse reasons are bunk.

Your final example similarly makes little difference, if I am discovered deliberately screwing over someones service like that without prior notification then i'm going to screw myself in the marketplace and I'm in contractual breach with my existing cusotmer base. Its just not going to happen and if someone is dumb enough to do it, they will be enjoying a tech "Ratner" moment. Now actively promoting a service is very different, particularly in terms of the consumer and their acceptance, but even then they will walk if certain service hygene factors are ignored.

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: A small, specific question about libertarianism

Postby HungryHobo » Wed Aug 15, 2012 1:12 pm UTC

Simply repeating that you don't believe a company with a dominant market share isn't equivilent to a company with a dominant market share doesn't an argument make.


Now actively promoting a service is very different


could you explain this without weasel words by any chance?

Pushing Facebooks packets ahead of CompetitorBooks in the queue is functionally equivilent to pushing CompetitorBooks packets behind Facebooks.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: A small, specific question about libertarianism

Postby leady » Fri Aug 17, 2012 8:39 am UTC

But then the scenario in question that you are putting forward has a key actor that is not a monopoly. Your ISP annoys you, then choose another.

could you explain this without weasel words by any chance?

Pushing Facebooks packets ahead of CompetitorBooks in the queue is functionally equivilent to pushing CompetitorBooks packets behind Facebooks.


They are different both in concept and intent. Promoting a service pushes it ahead of millions of potential service competitors in a non-descriminatory manner. Actively screwing a single service pushes it to the back of the millions of competitors. One is a positive action, one is a deliberately negative action.

Picture 100 men running from zombies. Your view is that shooting someone in leg to escape, is the same as wearing better running shoes. I would put forward that its not, and that people generally agree with that position even if you change the setup from 100 to 2 when the functional outcome at that extreme is identical.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: A small, specific question about libertarianism

Postby morriswalters » Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:03 am UTC

How many ISP's do you think exist in any geographic location?

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: A small, specific question about libertarianism

Postby leady » Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:34 am UTC

in the UK for 80% of the population you generally have a choice of 9 infrastructure provider options and literally 100s of service provider choices

so a lot

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: A small, specific question about libertarianism

Postby HungryHobo » Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:45 am UTC

leady wrote:in the UK for 80% of the population you generally have a choice of 9 infrastructure provider options and literally 100s of service provider choices

so a lot



You still aren't getting it. It's not the ISP's who are the monopolites. it's whatever services are provided over the net and there there are a lot of companies which control 70%+ of a particular market. ie: the people you want to be allowed take bribes from in exchange for giving them an unfair advantage in the market.

of course there's also companies doing things like favoring their own sister companies streaming service and such, that's just plain old market abuse to give yourself an unfair advantage even without a total monopoly
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: A small, specific question about libertarianism

Postby leady » Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:22 am UTC

No I really do get it - you are

a) arguing that consumer selection choices can't or won't affect the behaviours of companies on the internet. I'm stating that absolutely they do and that even the rational fear of such choices prevents almost all the "market abuses" you are afraid of.

b) creating a false premise that coming up with creative products in a non-monopolistic market is "unfair" and or "market abuse" as opposed to just being clever.

and at this point it become futile to argue further :)

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: A small, specific question about libertarianism

Postby HungryHobo » Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:30 am UTC

leady wrote:creative products

leady wrote:clever


We also seem to disagree about whether either of these things are creative or clever. Every sysadmin since the first packet switched network has had the ability to mess with the network in exchange for bribes.that's not clever or creative,(Unless you studied "buisness" or similar, they seem to have a stunningly low standard for what they consider creative or clever) the idea is as old as the net. it's obvious and stupid while also degrading the whole network. Every CPU cycle you waste checking if a packet is from someone who's on a list of people who've bribed you to give them an advantage over their competitors slows down the whole queue and could instead be spent getting every packet through faster.

Simply being able to get money for something doesn't make it clever.

again since this doesn't seem to be sinking in: You are not the monopoly. it doesn't matter if you're not a monolpoly. it's whether the companies which pay you are monopolies that matters.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: A small, specific question about libertarianism

Postby leady » Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:29 pm UTC

I disagree, creating things that generate you more money are "clever". Iphones are clever, Napster was clever etc etc so too would a prioritised service be if it made money overall (the big elephant in the room). The fact you don't like the idea is somewhat irrelevant unless you start pulling out the guns of the state.

I can't be arsed to rebut the last point for the 4th time.... :)

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: A small, specific question about libertarianism

Postby omgryebread » Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:43 pm UTC

leady wrote:I disagree, creating things that generate you more money are "clever". Iphones are clever, Napster was clever etc etc so too would a prioritised service be if it made money overall (the big elephant in the room). The fact you don't like the idea is somewhat irrelevant unless you start pulling out the guns of the state.

I can't be arsed to rebut the last point for the 4th time.... :)
Sneaking into your house and stealing all your electronics is clever.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: A small, specific question about libertarianism

Postby HungryHobo » Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:53 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote: Sneaking into your house and stealing all your electronics is clever.

Very clever indeed.

If he hadn't included napster this comment would be unfair but since he did...
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

User avatar
sam_i_am
Posts: 624
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:38 pm UTC
Location: Urbana, Illinois, USA

Re: A small, specific question about libertarianism

Postby sam_i_am » Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:03 pm UTC

HungryHobo wrote:
omgryebread wrote:Comparing using napster to "stealing" physical goods


Image

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: A small, specific question about libertarianism

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:35 pm UTC

sam_i_am wrote:Source control stores the diffs only for historacal purposes. It doesn't expose them to you if you're not looking for them. For instance


instead of

*snip*

as the legal document, but the amendment itself would still be stored if you wanted to look at the law's history.

That's exactly how it currently works. If you look at the United States Code, you will get the current version of the law, accounting for all amendments. You go elsewhere, to the Statues at Large, to see the diffs.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: A small, specific question about libertarianism

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Aug 20, 2012 9:37 pm UTC

HungryHobo wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Aright, first premise. You haven't justified this. The presented evidence indicates that this being legal has no negative effects on the internet.



have you even been reading?

abusing your position in one market to gain an advantage in another is bad for the market and bad for the economy as a whole.

this is not hard.

allowing netflicks to pay ISP's to degrade lovefilms service (lets say by pushing all netflicks packets to the front whenever both are in a queue) is no different than allowing intel to pay retailers to push back the launch of AMD products which is already illegal.

Or perhaps I've misread your position. do you maintain that this kind of abuse of the market is not bad and or that we don't need basic antitrust and anti-monopoly laws?


So long as lovefilm's stuff is delivered within the advertised parameters of the service, I do not have cause for complaint. How exactly the ISP provides the service they advertise is not really my problem. They could be cashing netflix stuff locally and also advertising "no lag ever for netflix subscribers with our service" if they wished. That is not a concern at all.

right, so facebook come to you and say "hey, there's this new startup, hardly any users on your network yet. hardly anyone has ever heard of them but we're worried about them. we'll give you X million to make sure their page loads like a flash animation in the days of dialup for any of your customers and anyone who's connection gets routed across your network". what do you do?


Did I pay for a dialup connection? If so, sucks to be me, I should probably buy something that isn't crap. If, on the other hand, the ISP elects for whatever reason not to provide their contractually obligated services....they should be liable for the damages. If it can be shown to be intentional, punitive damages could also be appropriate at a judge's discretion.

capefeather wrote:The second is this insistence on concentrating on increasing average wealth regardless of the cost. This is something that people definitely disagree with as well, and is definitely not a given. Maybe my personal objection can be summed up as, "As a fan of Rawls, this is completely incompatible with my beliefs." Are people really suggesting that we should continue to increase the disparity between rich and poor because the rich are, on average, more "valuable"? Are people really suggesting that we screw over one individual in favour of another, based on who has more wealth? Because this is the implication that I'm seeing here. I could easily increase the average wealth of society by killing people at random.


No. The point is that "how much money do I have compared to Bill Gates" is not actually important. What's important is "how much money do I have". Absolute values of wealth are important, but relative wealth is not actually much of a concern. He could have twelve mansions or fifteen, and it would impact my life not at all. However, if I've got an extra few bucks in my pocket to buy something additional DOES matter.

It also happens that equality in outcomes has a social cost to create. It is not natural, and even if artificially created, will rapidly destabilize. If every person in a town had their net worth set to the same amount, in a year, there would be a massive spread in outcomes because people are different, and want different things. Thus, any amount of equality has an ongoing cost in the form of wealth redistribution plans, which have a non-zero overhead cost.

The aforementioned destabilization will inherently channel wealth to those who produce it. If I spend my year partying with booze and hookers, I am likely to have little wealth at the end of it. On the other hand, the guy who elected to start making booze will probably have more than he started with. There is no "screwing people over". If I chose booze and hookers, and I got booze and hookers, I was not screwed over. I got exactly what I wanted. If what I wanted did not include "save money for retirement", then...guess what I don't get.

So, we ignore the disparity. It will always exist unless people are standardized to want the same things(and what a boring world that would be). We don't suffer the overhead cost of a wealth redistribution system. We also don't suffer the problem of massively incentivizing the state of being needy. 'Cause, frankly, Mr Booze-maker probably also enjoys booze and hookers, but is thinking long-term about his access to them. If there's no long term reason to be productive...people tend to gleefully take the freebies, and to hell with the future.

capefeather wrote:A big problem that I'm seeing here is that we're placing too much trust in a human's ability to exercise good judgment, regardless of mitigating factors. Quite frankly, even disregarding being drunk (Actually, why even "infringe on the rights" of a drunk driver? He doesn't actually intend to kill people!)


Wanted to address this clause. Intent is irrelevant. I can say every single day that I want to help those starving people in Africa, and really, really intend to send them money...but if I never do, and instead spend the money on booze and hookers, my intent does not matter one whit to those starving people.

Market centric philosophy is big on "revealed intent". IE, if you spent all your money on booze and hookers instead of helping starving people...you really did want the first one more, regardless of what you said. So, you can SAY that you didn't want to hurt people, but if you chose to guzzle down the booze, get behind the wheel, then plow into someone's living room....it doesn't matter a damned bit. The outcome is the same regardless of your words, and your actions make you responsible.

morriswalters wrote:How many ISP's do you think exist in any geographic location?


This is a real problem. It is one that is also almost wholly created by government-enforced monopolies. Government and broadband providers have signed rather a lot of deals limiting competition in this area, and this issue is best fixed by axing such monopolies to begin with.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: A small, specific question about libertarianism

Postby morriswalters » Tue Aug 21, 2012 1:10 am UTC

It's one created by the free market. They will only operate where they can make money. I have a family member that lives in an area with good access to cable. Except where she lives, on the perimeter. The cable company won't make the link since the infrastructure is to expensive for the number of potential users. This in a market where they have a franchise which won't let any similar services compete.


edit
It's a pure money play, the service wouldn't have existed at all without that exclusivity.

User avatar
Kingreaper
Posts: 170
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 4:23 pm UTC

Re: A small, specific question about libertarianism

Postby Kingreaper » Tue Aug 21, 2012 1:21 am UTC

leady wrote:one last time then using your anology :)

If a supermarket sells you a 100 dollar item for 1 dollar because they make another 1000 sales that outweigh your sale thats their perogative, but whilst you aren't freeloading off the shop, you are off the other customers.

Nope.

You're being subsidised by the shop. The shop is profiting off the other customers. At no point are you freeloading.

capefeather
Posts: 98
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2008 4:23 am UTC

Re: A small, specific question about libertarianism

Postby capefeather » Tue Aug 21, 2012 3:59 am UTC

I think everyone can recognize that disparity will exist no matter what. That argument addresses nothing. My misgivings remain the same, that there's this assumption that we have all this control over what happens to us. A terrible assumption.

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: A small, specific question about libertarianism

Postby HungryHobo » Tue Aug 21, 2012 8:34 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Did I pay for a dialup connection? If so, sucks to be me, I should probably buy something that isn't crap. If, on the other hand, the ISP elects for whatever reason not to provide their contractually obligated services....they should be liable for the damages. If it can be shown to be intentional, punitive damages could also be appropriate at a judge's discretion.


Lets put this in small words.

Your ISP never ever ever ever guarantees a high quality connection to any particular site. ever. because they can't. Something could happen elsewhere in the network, a particular network block might end up with a cruddy connection through happenstance. the contract they offer isn't just whatever you imagine you want. the problem is that they can abuse this situation to extort money out of buisnesses with whom they have no contract. buisnesses who have already paid their own ISPs for connectivity.

Network neutrality laws in their basic form are little different from unfair trading, market manipulation, antitrust or similar laws only applied to the network.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: A small, specific question about libertarianism

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 21, 2012 1:09 pm UTC

HungryHobo wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Did I pay for a dialup connection? If so, sucks to be me, I should probably buy something that isn't crap. If, on the other hand, the ISP elects for whatever reason not to provide their contractually obligated services....they should be liable for the damages. If it can be shown to be intentional, punitive damages could also be appropriate at a judge's discretion.


Lets put this in small words.

Your ISP never ever ever ever guarantees a high quality connection to any particular site. ever. because they can't. Something could happen elsewhere in the network, a particular network block might end up with a cruddy connection through happenstance. the contract they offer isn't just whatever you imagine you want. the problem is that they can abuse this situation to extort money out of buisnesses with whom they have no contract. buisnesses who have already paid their own ISPs for connectivity.

Network neutrality laws in their basic form are little different from unfair trading, market manipulation, antitrust or similar laws only applied to the network.


Guaranteed speeds and uptimes are definitely a thing already, yes. And of course, yes, the guarantees only apply to their services, and not for those at the far end. Because, obviously, they can't guarantee performance outside their network.

Note that connections with guaranteed speeds and uptimes do tend to be more costly as the relevant statistics climb, often significantly so. But yes, this exists. Of course you can't expect a lot in the way of actual guarantees for the cheapest broadband service, but if you go to higher speed or business class connectivity options, service guarantees are a thing right now.

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: A small, specific question about libertarianism

Postby HungryHobo » Tue Aug 21, 2012 1:34 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Note that connections with guaranteed speeds and uptimes do tend to be more costly as the relevant statistics climb, often significantly so. But yes, this exists. Of course you can't expect a lot in the way of actual guarantees for the cheapest broadband service, but if you go to higher speed or business class connectivity options, service guarantees are a thing right now.


never to a particular site. If lovefilm gets strangled to 5800 baud, even if it's the ISP doing it intentionally, but you can still download at X mbits per second from some other site, lets say netflix then they haven't violated their guarantees because your network is up and you can still get data at X mbits per second .

re-read your contract.

ditto for latency. You sometimes get some sort of latency guarantee but never to a particular site so if packets from eve online are being artifically slowed down while packets from world of warcraft are getting pushed to the front of the queue there's no violation of your contract.

because they can't guarantee those kinds of things. which isn't a problem. the problem is that they want to take advantage of this fact to extort money from other buisnesses rather than simply providing as solid a service as they can to their customers.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: A small, specific question about libertarianism

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 21, 2012 2:29 pm UTC

HungryHobo wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Note that connections with guaranteed speeds and uptimes do tend to be more costly as the relevant statistics climb, often significantly so. But yes, this exists. Of course you can't expect a lot in the way of actual guarantees for the cheapest broadband service, but if you go to higher speed or business class connectivity options, service guarantees are a thing right now.


never to a particular site. If lovefilm gets strangled to 5800 baud, even if it's the ISP doing it intentionally, but you can still download at X mbits per second from some other site, lets say netflix then they haven't violated their guarantees because your network is up and you can still get data at X mbits per second .

re-read your contract.

ditto for latency. You sometimes get some sort of latency guarantee but never to a particular site so if packets from eve online are being artifically slowed down while packets from world of warcraft are getting pushed to the front of the queue there's no violation of your contract.

because they can't guarantee those kinds of things. which isn't a problem. the problem is that they want to take advantage of this fact to extort money from other buisnesses rather than simply providing as solid a service as they can to their customers.


This is settled law, that yes, traffic shaping of this nature IS a breach of contract. Hart Vs Comcast is one such case.

This was all handled under existing fraud, truth in advertising, etc laws.

I don't know how you can insist this isn't the case. More laws are unnecessary, as the example you provide is resolved currently under current law.

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: A small, specific question about libertarianism

Postby HungryHobo » Tue Aug 21, 2012 2:45 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:This is settled law, that yes, traffic shaping of this nature IS a breach of contract. Hart Vs Comcast is one such case.

This was all handled under existing fraud, truth in advertising, etc laws.

I don't know how you can insist this isn't the case. More laws are unnecessary, as the example you provide is resolved currently under current law.


from a quick google

1: it was settled out of court. so no the court didn't make a decision.

2: one of the claims of the suit was that Comcast's actions violated established Federal Communications Commission policies on Net Neutrality. so no it was not handled under existing fraud, truth in advertising, etc laws. it was handled in part under net neutrality rules.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: A small, specific question about libertarianism

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 21, 2012 2:55 pm UTC

Policies /= laws. The actual laws at hand were cited.

Settling out of court for millions of dollars is not something big companies do for cases they are winning.

The existing system is thus resulting in an actual penalty for this behavior. Thus, there does not seem to be a case for additional law.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: A small, specific question about libertarianism

Postby leady » Tue Aug 21, 2012 2:59 pm UTC

and if someone openly creates a limited service (the default in the UK by and large) and sells it as such, they will live or die based on the product - just as it should be

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: A small, specific question about libertarianism

Postby HungryHobo » Tue Aug 21, 2012 4:00 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Policies /= laws. The actual laws at hand were cited.

the policies of the regulator are extremely relevant. relevant enough that they were referenced as part of the suit. You seem to want to pretend that they didn't exist at the time and had no effect.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests