Quote:
|
Boycotting/taking your business elsewhere is useless when problems exist within every corporation in an industry and that industry provides an irreplaceable necessity. Lawsuits only work if they provide a sufficient deterrent, which usually come in the form of large punitive cash awards. Perhaps you're the exception to the rule here, but I've not known many small government folk in favor of large punitive settlements against private industry.
|
The difficulty you refer to in regard to boycotts is true. However, this is a function of Corporate Personhood ( which is a Market Distortion, btw, inimical to Free Enterprise, and which should be got rid of ASAP), not of private property or of the Market iteself. Since you ask, yes; I am in favour of large punitive cash awards. If a company is polluting somebody's land, for instance, they deserve to be FRIED. However, I am also in favour of Common Law (ie no professional, Guild-certified and -protected Attourneys) and Loser Pays (ie 'if you intitiate a frivolous lawsuit and lose, you pay for EVERYTHING'.) Such steps would, IMO, cut down on the number of frivolous lawsuits in this country wile simultaneously ensuring that if someone -did- bring a worthy Suit at Law, the "Bad Guys" (think PG&E for a minute here) would be both unable to bring their uber-expensive corporate lawyers to bear, and would be liable for IMMENSE damages. This would ensure that competition was kept both hoest and vigorous, driving (either or both) prices down and quality/service up. Why do you think people who have a choice fly Swisair, Luftansa, British Airways, etc? Because they provide better service than the catastrophe we all the US Airlines industry, that's why.
Quote:
|
You realize that the only thing stopping the "Corpies" from doing this to you is the fact that the government would punish them via a process where government that tells these Corpies what they can and can't to with their own property?
|
Not unless they own my house, everything in it, and my own self. That's the Gov't mantra: "We own you. We will do with you as we will. Resistance to the will of the Collective is futile." Don't believe me? Try not paying your yearly Rent (ie Proprty Taxes) and see what happens.
Edited For Clarity: I should further add that my basis for saying this is that at least in the Corporate world the concept of personal, individual ownership (of anything, ie of property Rights) still has some meaning (though its' full meaning and import is hardly acknowledged here either). Ownership still means something. Governments, especially nowadays, simply do not appear to accept the notion that anyone can own (ie have formal and absolute control, with acceptance and liability of profits, hazards, costs and consequences thereof and thereto) much of anything anymore.
Quote:
|
I am fairly certain that you aren't as powerful as you think with respect to either of these evils. But I've been mistaken before.
|
You are mistaken. Nobody thought an old black lady named Rosa Parks was very powerful either, but ask the Montgomery Transportation Authority how well -that- assumption worked out for 'em.
Quote:
|
Never heard of Blackwater, eh?
|
A bunch of murderous, treasonous scumbag killers-for-hire acting under FedGov authority, using Fed money, on the Fed's orders and with the Fed's imprimatur. Absent the ability to make money by doing the Fed's legitimised bloody work, BlackWater would be nothing but a rent-a-cop firm at the local mall. And frankly, I'd have a hard time trusting them not to fuck -that- up.
Quote:
|
Net neutrality does not mean that providers can't decide what type of content they will host.
|
Umm, actually...
Quote:
|
prevent Internet access providers from discriminating against particular Internet content or applications
|
See that part about "prevent Internet access providers from discriminating
against particular Internet content or applications"?
That's exactly what it says, right there in green and gray.
Quote:
|
First of all, as a public utility
|
Really? This despite the fact that the owner paid for, maintains, and operates the thing? Private property isn't really private, but instead subject to Gov't dictats backed by the threat of lethal violence?! In AMERICA?! Whoda thunk it?!
Quote:
|
while ISPs might own the cables and servers, they don't own the airwaves and public land where those cables are
|
You mean that, although the ISP owns all the hardware, performs all the maintainence, paid for all this shit to begin with...because the cables are sometimes on public land the Gov't should be allowed to tell the owners/shareholders what they can/should do with it? Sounds rather like my neighbors trying to tell me what to do with my tractor or hay-baler because I sometimes have to take them on a road we all share.
Quote:
|
Telephone companies cannot prevent you from calling out of network.
|
They certainly can, they simply chose not to because it would be bad for their business. Ask folks who bought the I-Phone when it first came out.
Quote:
|
Toll roads cannot prevent cars from a certain maker to access its roads.
|
They can but, again, they don't. If it was a privately-held Toll Road, they would be 100% legal to do so. However, since these roads are operated by the Gov't with everyone's stolen money, they currently deign to allow everyone onto them, in order to continue making money and avoid the appearance of impropriety and favoritism.
Quote:
|
why should they be able to prevent you from using skype on their network?
|
They are able, and should remain so. "Their roof, their rules" as it were. However, I wouldn't recommend such a course of action; bad for business.
Quote:
|
Why should they be able to prevent you from sending email to certain addresses? Or from accessing certain websites?
|
Because it's THEIRS. They paid for it, they keep it running, and they provide the service. They should be able to allow or disallow whatever content they like. However, I and other consumers should be (and largely are, except when dealing with the Gov't) able to "vote with my wallet" by taking my business elsewhere.