Doesn't their existing infrastructure, and social dependency on that infrastructure, give them a somewhat legitimate need for a bailout? If other, smaller, more efficient companies can replace everything the telecom behemoths do, then let the big boys suffer, but is that the case? Can smaller tech savvy companies do everything the large telecoms do or are we talking strictly about broadband internet?
This is why we should seriously consider abolishing the government and leaving everything to the market forces.
I don't know about you, but I'd sure miss the powers granted to me by the fact that I live in a democracy right now, and the rights granted to me by my country's constitution.
Go back to the jungle, or participate in a free fight, if you think that's best for humanity. But please allow the rest of us to strive for some civilization. Thanks.
I don't know about you, but I'd sure miss the powers granted to me by the fact that I live in a democracy right now, and the rights granted to me by my country's constitution.
You are not speaking of the United States, are you? I don't know of any rights granted to me by the constitution. If anything, the people have ceded certain rights to the government.
I don't know of any rights granted to me by the constitution.
Read it again.
Compare the government of the United States with governments typical 250 years ago and with various contemporary governments in other parts of the world such as North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, Iraq, Zimbabwe, etc.
Most U.S. citizens are spoiled by not having direct first-hand experience with a big league oppressive regime. Take a 6 month bus tour of Central America and tell me when you get back that we aren't lucky to have the luxury to be actually arguing over something like a ballistics database.
Personally, I rather enjoy the right to not be woke up in the middle of the night by jack-booted thugs displeased with my criticism of some leader in government.
But he is still right, the USA constitution, while it does have a "bill of rights" attached, the main purpose of the document is to list the FEW things the government is allowed to do, state many things it cannot do, and decaalre that its citizens can do as they please within this framework.
declare that its citizens can do as they please within this framework.
Aye, there's the rub.
My government is powerful, so I'm grateful for restrictions placed upon its use of that power.
But my life is full of interactions with other non-governmental organizations, such as my employer, my telephone service provider, my credit card company, etc, that have a substantial impact on my life.
They are free to require quite a lot of things of me that the government is not permitted to do.
To be sure, if I don't agree with the terms of that interaction, I'm certainly "free" to go live a pauper's existence in a cabin in Montana. A rotten choice, though, to give up some privacy for material comfort.
Please piss in this cup as part of the pre-employment screening. Video surveillance of the premises is done for your protection.
Personally, I rather enjoy the right to not be woke up in the middle of the night by jack-booted thugs displeased with my criticism of some leader in government.
Which is why every day, I consider leaving the US.
I did read it again. Apparently, I understood the words it contained. It doesn't grant rights; it recognizes them. The notion that rights exist only because a piece of paper says they do is rather horrifying. The Constitution exists to spell out the specific powers of the government, not the specific rights of the citizenry.
Here, look
Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Translation: Just because we mentioned a few rights doesn't mean others don't exist. They do, because this document isn't the source of rights.
Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Translation: This document says what the government can do. If it doesn't say the Feds can do it, then the Feds can't do it. If it says the states can't do something, than the states can't do it. Other than that, let the people decide how they want their communities to be run.
Yeesh. Before making pronouncements about what the Constitution says, maybe you should try understanding it .
They're trolling you on a technicality. When they say that the Constitution does not give them any rights, what they mean is that they have those rights because they are human, and the Constitution merely acknowleges that those rights exists and spells out the protection of the preexisting rights in black and white.
I don't know of any rights granted to me by the constitution
Well, he's right, but not in the way he intended. The Constituion doesn't grant rights to the people, it witholds powers from the government. That is and always was the intent when it was created and ratified. The Bill of Rights, enumerating basic human rights explictly, were included in the Constitution at the same time as a safeguard. This was done at the insistence of those framers who were afraid that people/govt would forget that original intent. It's probably contributed to some confusion over the years, but in retrospect it was probably a wise decision.
As the saying goes, a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.
Most U.S. citizens are spoiled by not having direct first-hand experience with a big league oppressive regime. Take a 6 month bus tour of Central America and tell me when you get back that we aren't lucky to have the luxury to be actually arguing over something like a ballistics database.
I one hundred percent agree with you. It bears repeating every time this point is brought up, however, that the insecurity in many other countries (especially S. and C. America) is a direct result of US foreign policy.
That much is not arguable. What is debatable is to what degree our peace, prosperity and relative liberty has been purchased with the blood of our neighbors to the south.
In a probably vain attempt to be on-topic, attempts at de-privatizing (and sometimes nationalizing) resources like telephones and such have been some of the justifications that we (as a citizen of the US I think it necesary to use the first person plural when referring to the government) have historically used to fund/incite revolutions in these very nations under discussion.
"Be there. Aloha."
-- Steve McGarret, _Hawaii Five-Oh_
Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:0, Flamebait)
This is why we should seriously consider abolishing the government and leaving everything to the market forces.
People like Friedman and Hayek have proved that markets are the ultimate source of truth, at least in this world.
Though it is always funny to read how commie CEO's beg for state subsidies to help their mismanaged companies.
The market economy answer is of course: sell it if it doesn't work.
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know about you, but I'd sure miss the powers granted to me by the fact that I live in a democracy right now, and the rights granted to me by my country's constitution.
Go back to the jungle, or participate in a free fight, if you think that's best for humanity. But please allow the rest of us to strive for some civilization. Thanks.
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:0, Insightful)
You are not speaking of the United States, are you? I don't know of any rights granted to me by the constitution. If anything, the people have ceded certain rights to the government.
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:3, Offtopic)
I don't know of any rights granted to me by the constitution.
Read it again.
Compare the government of the United States with governments typical 250 years ago and with various contemporary governments in other parts of the world such as North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, Iraq, Zimbabwe, etc.
Most U.S. citizens are spoiled by not having direct first-hand experience with a big league oppressive regime. Take a 6 month bus tour of Central America and tell me when you get back that we aren't lucky to have the luxury to be actually arguing over something like a ballistics database.
Personally, I rather enjoy the right to not be woke up in the middle of the night by jack-booted thugs displeased with my criticism of some leader in government.
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:2)
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:2)
declare that its citizens can do as they please within this framework.
Aye, there's the rub.
My government is powerful, so I'm grateful for restrictions placed upon its use of that power.
But my life is full of interactions with other non-governmental organizations, such as my employer, my telephone service provider, my credit card company, etc, that have a substantial impact on my life.
They are free to require quite a lot of things of me that the government is not permitted to do.
To be sure, if I don't agree with the terms of that interaction, I'm certainly "free" to go live a pauper's existence in a cabin in Montana. A rotten choice, though, to give up some privacy for material comfort.
Please piss in this cup as part of the pre-employment screening. Video surveillance of the premises is done for your protection.
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is why every day, I consider leaving the US.
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:4, Interesting)
I did read it again. Apparently, I understood the words it contained. It doesn't grant rights; it recognizes them. The notion that rights exist only because a piece of paper says they do is rather horrifying. The Constitution exists to spell out the specific powers of the government, not the specific rights of the citizenry.
Here, look
Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Translation: Just because we mentioned a few rights doesn't mean others don't exist. They do, because this document isn't the source of rights.
Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Translation: This document says what the government can do. If it doesn't say the Feds can do it, then the Feds can't do it. If it says the states can't do something, than the states can't do it. Other than that, let the people decide how they want their communities to be run.
Yeesh. Before making pronouncements about what the Constitution says, maybe you should try understanding it .
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:2)
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:2)
Well, he's right, but not in the way he intended. The Constituion doesn't grant rights to the people, it witholds powers from the government. That is and always was the intent when it was created and ratified. The Bill of Rights, enumerating basic human rights explictly, were included in the Constitution at the same time as a safeguard. This was done at the insistence of those framers who were afraid that people/govt would forget that original intent. It's probably contributed to some confusion over the years, but in retrospect it was probably a wise decision.
As the saying goes, a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:1)
I one hundred percent agree with you. It bears repeating every time this point is brought up, however, that the insecurity in many other countries (especially S. and C. America) is a direct result of US foreign policy.
That much is not arguable. What is debatable is to what degree our peace, prosperity and relative liberty has been purchased with the blood of our neighbors to the south.
In a probably vain attempt to be on-topic, attempts at de-privatizing (and sometimes nationalizing) resources like telephones and such have been some of the justifications that we (as a citizen of the US I think it necesary to use the first person plural when referring to the government) have historically used to fund/incite revolutions in these very nations under discussion.