8 posts in this topic

I believe that floating platforms have been created so we have someplace to put people who ask questions about floating platforms.

 

But I could be mistaken.

 

( I am not trying to pick a fight...this is just my silly sense of humor   :D  and I realize humor doesn't work very well in email . Sorry )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is social media the solution or the problem?

 

It's no problem, for me.  I rather enjoy the opportunity to keep in touch and explore unusual people's ideas.  The latest stuff is sometimes great, but not always.

 

Solutions found by energetic explorers on what can be accomplished utilizing the SM,  is becoming a strong concern for me.  It definitely can be a cutting edge information link for people who seek meanness, death and destruction.  But that's nothing new for humans.  So without a doubt,  regulations are needed,  somehow.  I don't know that SM actually comes under the heading of Freedom of Speech. Clarity and definitions should be established by providers in order to keep the peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Freedom has a price. Freedom requires regulation.

Then you are stating that no freedom existed before government.

Whatever did homo sapiens do before government came along to tax (price) and legislate (regulation requires making law first)?

 

The problem cited for this is bandwidth and the cost.

Guess what folks. This has nothing to do with freedom.

It is all about price per quantity of service and private business concerns.

Some seem to think there is a freedom issue involved.

This is all about government theft of services and redistributing it to fences (sellers of stolen goods).

 

eric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eric N,

I wonder if you are confusing liberty with freedom? The definitions of these are context-based and they always have been.

 

Liberty, within the context of American ideals, is the right to self determination. Freedom within the context of the American ideals, is the ability to act upon that self determination. At least that's how I perceive those concepts.

 

Liberty is a right, and freedom is a privilege. Let me explain why I think so before you all freak out.

 

You aren't free to kill someone (or even yourself), or free to yell "Fire" in crowded theater. That's because laws determine the context of our freedoms, and laws are designed to exist in the service to all people. In other words, your freedom stops at my nose, prohibiting you from punching me in the face (right now) because I write something that you don't like.

 

Freedom isn't absolute. It requires that everyone obey the rules we all have agreed upon in our society. If people, don't agree, then conflict resolution is determined by those we have granted authority to interpret and administer the laws.

 

I think GEO was referring to this when he wrote, "Freedom requires regulation", and I tend to agree with that assertion. That said, I see it a little differently than he does. I say, "Freedom requres responsibility." If everyone behaves responsibly, then we wouldn't need laws. But as it turns out, that's not how people behave.

 

American society certainly contains more than it's fair share of conflict, and our system for conflict resolution is precisely what the forebearers envisioned...mostly. If we don't agree with the rules, then we can work to change them. Changing rules in America takes a lot of money, and that method of conflict resolution has it's shining virtues and near-fatal flaws, but that's the American way.

 

In my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No confusion on my part.

You are the one dragging in "Freedom and Liberty".

The thread was about Net Neutrality.

Certain parties are demanding that the government forces the ISPs to give bandwidth away.

This is figuratively the same as some pack of thieves demanding government forces all restaurants to "become all you can eat buffets using the same menu and price list".

 

The word Freedom was used by the Internet free-loaders because it has such a strong emotive appeal to it.

It's kinda like wrapping dog feces in faux fur, tying it to a kitten and having it delivered by a 12 year old girl riding a pink unicorn sudden transforms the same fecal matter into something worthy. Obviously it's the thought that counts.

 

There is a neat phrase I always consider; Cui bono. Who benefits?

 

eric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geo,

You think that there is an "otherwise regulated political process"?  

You mean like campaign finance reform?

I don't really see it.

 

Quoting Eric,

"Certain parties are demanding that the government forces the ISPs to give bandwidth away."

 

Certain parties are demanding something that the government do something different than it is already doing? Is that news? (saracsm)

 

That's how the process works, so thanks for helping to illustrate my point.

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0