FCC votes for net neutrality, a ban on paid fast lanes, and Title II

Internet providers are now common carriers, and they're ready to sue.

Read the whole story

 

[EDNYLaw]

tim305[/url]":2q3n4l4g]

EDNYLaw[/url]":2q3n4l4g]

fgoodwin[/url]":2q3n4l4g]

EDNYLaw[/url]":2q3n4l4g]

villanim[/url]":2q3n4l4g]

If broadband providers cannot charge the likes of Netflix or Amazon for the large chunks of bandwidth they consume, then you and I are ultimately going to pay for it.

This, this right there, is why you need to stop speaking and read. How is Netflix or Amazon at fault? It's their users that are requesting the packets, Netflix isn't pushing it's content to every IP address in the world by default.

Does UPS charge Amazon and you for a package delivery? Does a grocery store charge Doritos for having Doritos on the shelves? (emphasis added)

Ever heard of stocking fees (also called "slotting fees")?

If not, I invite you to look them up. Newspapers and magazines charge advertisers and readers -- is that harmful to readers?

There's no reason to fear two-sided markets.

Well, my bad. But the UPS analogy is still valid. But, in general, two opposing parties do not pay a middleman for the exact same thing. That's called double dipping. It's just not typically how business is done. Also, in the grocery store example, I'm sure that has more to do with placement of the product than just putting it on the shelf. The former is closer to advertising costs and the latter is closer to extortion.

Edit: And yes, there is a great reason to fear the two sided market. It hurts consumers and drives up prices while adding exact zero benefit. It's literally a company's wet dream. Invest not a single cent more but double your revenues. Where does that extra revenue come from? The increased price of the product the consumer ultimately purchases. So yes, fear it, loathe it, hate it, destroy it. A two-sided market does nothing to help the economy except drive up prices for absolutely no additional benefit.

Except the Internet has always been a two sided market. Everybody pays for their connection, whether they are a content provider or a consumer. 20 years ago, long haul was the expensive part, so the backbone providers were generally the middlemen getting paid from both sides. But content providers with money to spend stimulated the build out of high capacity private networks and distributed cacheing to bypass the backbones. This capital investment has driven costs down so much that now the last leg fan out to individual homes is the most expensive part of the path. At the same time residential IPS's have consolidated and built their own internal backbones. So, now it is most likely that the inflow of money from each end of a connection meets somewhere within the residential ISP. E.g., simples example would be if the content provider uses the residential ISP as their own ISP, or when 2 people on the same ISP have a Skype call. Both ends pay the same middleman. That's just how it works.

It has? So this Netflix extortion has been a part of the internet since Netflix's inception? No. The 2 sided market doesn't generally exist. It's getting paid twice to do the same thing. I pay my ISP, Netflix pays theirs. That's not a 2 sided market. But, I pay my ISP and Netflix pays my ISP, that is a 2 sided market and that is what is wrong.

Does UPS get paid by the sender and the sendee? Does an attorney (but for fee shifting statutes, and I assure you there are very few) get paid by the plaintiff and the defendant? Do you pay for cable and does cable get paid by the networks? In each of those situations, the middleman isn't adding any value for one of the payors. They're merely doing their contracted job and getting paid twice. That's not a sustainable model where there is literally any other competition.

 

[ChristoMax]

Lukacsmw[/url]":ceh4iix8]

EDNYLaw[/url]":ceh4iix8]

Lukacsmw[/url]":ceh4iix8]

EDNYLaw[/url]":ceh4iix8]

Lukacsmw[/url]":ceh4iix8]
Of course I'm quoting the Declaration of Independence and I know that has no US law in it, I'm not an idiot. But your assertion is that somewhere between 1776 and 1789 the founders developed an alternative viewpoint of where rights derive from? The US Constitution exists to protect our rights, not grant them. Read the Federalist Papers and you would understand that.

Also, in the preamble to the bill of rights: "THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

The bill of rights exist to protect the people from Governmental abuses, plain and simple. Rights do not derive from the Government, they are secured and protected by the Government, assuming that same Government doesn't abuse them.

Quoting the Declaration of Independence as justification for your point is like citing the President's personal opinion as law. It's not going to work, quit trying to shoehorn it.

I can't help you if you're going to be intentionally obtuse. Do you think you have the right to do heroin in front of a cop? Would you care to try? Do you think you have the right to publish that a non-pedophile has sex with kids? Government grants rights. This is obvious to literally anyone who can think for more than 2 seconds about it. Do your rights transfer from country to country? No? So then, you don't magically have rights, they are granted to you. End of story. Anything further is more grasping at straws.

You are confusing rights with the rule of law Sir. We have laws in this country that secure our rights. Yes, you have the right to not be murdered. That right is secured by a law, it is not granted by the Government. Rights do not "transfer" from country to country because other countries have decided to restrict them in methods based on their societies. I'm not concerned about them, I'm concerned about the US. You do not have the right to do anything you want, that is enshrined in no governing document anywhere and I'm not sure where you are getting that from. You have the right to do what you want, until it interferes with someone else's rights - at which point the rule of law steps in to establish some framework of order in society. We as a society have determined that drug use and pedophilia are immoral and/or illegal and have been curtailed by the rule of law. Other places that's not the case - you can do drugs in front of cops in Holland for instance. The right is the same, the rule-of-law that based on societal norms is different.

I've never said that we shouldn't have the rule of law or that certain things are not rights and deemed illegal under our system of justice. I am saying that rights derive from your existence, not from the Government. The purpose of Government is to establish rule-of-law that creates an ordered society that secures the rights of the people in the best way possible.

Dude, your argument is literally unsustainable. If you have rights that are not granted by a government, and just exist, then why don't you have those rights in another country? Let's take an affirmative right. The 1st Amendment. If you travel to another country that has no similar law, and you invoke your 1st Amendment "rights", what do you think will happen? Further, if the country has no law regarding Freedom of Speech, how can it be "restricting" speech?

There is literally no example of rights being derived solely from existence. Even a right to life. That's relatively modern, taking into account the whole of human existence. When we were Neanderthals, do you think they had rights? No. They just lived, and if someone wasn't a fan of you, they killed you. There was no right. We formed governments to enshrine our rights and protect them. However, can't protect a right until it's given to you. I think you need to spend some time outside of the US and gain perspective. The US is not the world and the world can be a pretty fucked up place. We are lucky here because our government granted us certain rights and freedoms. Others are not so fortunate. But by all means, feel free to go and assert your right to Freedom of Speech in the Middle East. Wear a thick turtleneck though (like Kevlar thick) because they might try to behead you.

Read this and maybe you'll have a different opinion:

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

That's all I can say. We are at an impasse. The idea that rights derive from Government is absurd to me. I would hate to live in your world where everything is granted by your all-high masters and you exist merely because they allow it. Wonderful thought - sleep well. Maybe tomorrow they'll decide you shouldn't exist.

No. Just.....no. You're missing the point. You can _say_ you have certain rights, all you want. Fine. However, if there's no system (we'll call it a government...you know, that thing that governs how society works in reality) in place to actually secure and enforce those rights, then you don't *actually* have them. If there is no system in place to enforce your right to life, what's to stop me from exercising what I feel is my right to end your life just because I feel it's...well, my right? Rights are not inherent by virtue of being alive, as has already been stated. I'm not sure why you are having a difficult time grasping this concept, but I'm sure that link you decided to appeal to....with 'Life is a Gift from God' as the third entry...tells everyone pretty much all they need to know about your reasoning.

 

[THavoc]

Lukacsmw[/url]":3t34ydj0]

THavoc[/url]":3t34ydj0]

Lukacsmw[/url]":3t34ydj0]

Read this and maybe you'll have a different opinion:

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

That's all I can say. We are at an impasse. The idea that rights derive from Government is absurd to me. I would hate to live in your world where everything is granted by your all-high masters and you exist merely because they allow it. Wonderful thought - sleep well. Maybe tomorrow they'll decide you shouldn't exist.

Because God said so. That's the argument?

I think I'll pass on commenting how poor that argument really is since I'm sure Ed can do it better than I can.

Dude - just read past the first two sentences. That's the only time he brings up God. He was a theorist in the 1800s when God was much bigger. The rest of his argument stands without God. But you can substitute "The Universe" or "Existence" or "The Great Turtle" however you want if it makes you feel happy. The fact is, Life, Liberty and Property derive from a greater power, not from Governments. Governments are created to secure Life, Liberty and Property.

Yeah, apparently you didn't actually read the link then.

A search for the word 'God' comes up with 20 matches.

That's a LOT more past the first two sentences!

Life Is a Gift from God
The Socialists Wish to Play God

"Each of us has a natural right — from God — "
"Would not this be in accord with the concept of individual responsibility which God has willed in order that mankind may have the choice between vice and virtue, and the resulting punishment and reward?"
"Moreover, even where they have consented to recognize a principle of action in the heart of man — and a principle of discernment in man's intellect — they have considered these gifts from God to be fatal gifts."

There's three quotes that are not part of the first two sentences.

Please try again with your logic fail. You're doing so well at it today.

 

[Papageno]

fgoodwin[/url]":1nytj09p]
Yes, and thanx for the explanation.

You said: "If they (i.e., rights) weren't explicitly stated, you wouldn't have those rights." So where does the Constitution give people the right to marry? As a non-lawyer, I'd guess the Tenth Amendment?

So when two rights conflict, say the freedom of religion (which is detailed in the Constitution) vs. the right to marry (which isn't), then which right controls?

As someone else here pointed out, the marriage equality cases going before the Supreme Court right now are all about the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause. If Joe and Jane get official state/federal benefits/protections from being married, Joe and Jim/Jane and Jill should too. This includes civil rights public accommodation provisions as far as I'm concerned (there are some religions that frown upon interracial marriage, and I don't think a hotel owner gets to deny letting an interracial couple rent a room for their honeymoon, does he/she?).
But in light of the BS Hobby Lobby decision, who knows.

 

[EDNYLaw]

Lukacsmw[/url]":2zi73pdg]

Sir, the rule of law exists exactly for the reason you state: when rights conflict with each other.

No, if you decide you have the right to kill people and the rest of society decides no one has the right to kill people, those are rights in conflict, but really, you're just a sociopath. Society determines rights, not the individual. If you want to determine your individual rights, find a deserted island and live there by your lonesome. The rest of us will continue to live in a society that has defined our rights so that we know what our rights are and we know where they came from and how matters will be adjudicated. I prefer my knowledge based on tangible evidence, not magic and mystery.

 

[ChristoMax]

Lukacsmw[/url]":fa92dob6]

THavoc[/url]":fa92dob6]

Lukacsmw[/url]":fa92dob6]

Read this and maybe you'll have a different opinion:

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

That's all I can say. We are at an impasse. The idea that rights derive from Government is absurd to me. I would hate to live in your world where everything is granted by your all-high masters and you exist merely because they allow it. Wonderful thought - sleep well. Maybe tomorrow they'll decide you shouldn't exist.

Because God said so. That's the argument?

I think I'll pass on commenting how poor that argument really is since I'm sure Ed can do it better than I can.

Dude - just read past the first two sentences. That's the only time he brings up God. He was a theorist in the 1800s when God was much bigger. The rest of his argument stands without God. But you can substitute "The Universe" or "Existence" or "The Great Turtle" however you want if it makes you feel happy. The fact is, Life, Liberty and Property derive from a greater power, not from Governments. Governments are created to secure Life, Liberty and Property.

So your argument hinges on someone else's argument that we're all precious snowflakes with inherent rights because some supernatural force that is impossible to define/interact with granted us those rights?

That doesn't sound crazy to you? Like, at all?

 

[fgoodwin]

EDNYLaw[/url]":1mylj8n6]

tim305[/url]":1mylj8n6]

EDNYLaw[/url]":1mylj8n6]

fgoodwin[/url]":1mylj8n6]

EDNYLaw[/url]":1mylj8n6]

villanim[/url]":1mylj8n6]

If broadband providers cannot charge the likes of Netflix or Amazon for the large chunks of bandwidth they consume, then you and I are ultimately going to pay for it.

This, this right there, is why you need to stop speaking and read. How is Netflix or Amazon at fault? It's their users that are requesting the packets, Netflix isn't pushing it's content to every IP address in the world by default.

Does UPS charge Amazon and you for a package delivery? Does a grocery store charge Doritos for having Doritos on the shelves? (emphasis added)

Ever heard of stocking fees (also called "slotting fees")?

If not, I invite you to look them up. Newspapers and magazines charge advertisers and readers -- is that harmful to readers?

There's no reason to fear two-sided markets.

Well, my bad. But the UPS analogy is still valid. But, in general, two opposing parties do not pay a middleman for the exact same thing. That's called double dipping. It's just not typically how business is done. Also, in the grocery store example, I'm sure that has more to do with placement of the product than just putting it on the shelf. The former is closer to advertising costs and the latter is closer to extortion.

Edit: And yes, there is a great reason to fear the two sided market. It hurts consumers and drives up prices while adding exact zero benefit. It's literally a company's wet dream. Invest not a single cent more but double your revenues. Where does that extra revenue come from? The increased price of the product the consumer ultimately purchases. So yes, fear it, loathe it, hate it, destroy it. A two-sided market does nothing to help the economy except drive up prices for absolutely no additional benefit.

Except the Internet has always been a two sided market. Everybody pays for their connection, whether they are a content provider or a consumer. 20 years ago, long haul was the expensive part, so the backbone providers were generally the middlemen getting paid from both sides. But content providers with money to spend stimulated the build out of high capacity private networks and distributed cacheing to bypass the backbones. This capital investment has driven costs down so much that now the last leg fan out to individual homes is the most expensive part of the path. At the same time residential IPS's have consolidated and built their own internal backbones. So, now it is most likely that the inflow of money from each end of a connection meets somewhere within the residential ISP. E.g., simples example would be if the content provider uses the residential ISP as their own ISP, or when 2 people on the same ISP have a Skype call. Both ends pay the same middleman. That's just how it works.

It has? So this Netflix extortion has been a part of the internet since Netflix's inception? No. The 2 sided market doesn't generally exist. It's getting paid twice to do the same thing. I pay my ISP, Netflix pays theirs. That's not a 2 sided market. But, I pay my ISP and Netflix pays my ISP, that is a 2 sided market and that is what is wrong.

Does UPS get paid by the sender and the sendee? Does an attorney (but for fee shifting statutes, and I assure you there are very few) get paid by the plaintiff and the defendant? Do you pay for cable and does cable get paid by the networks? In each of those situations, the middleman isn't adding any value for one of the payors. They're merely doing their contracted job and getting paid twice. That's not a sustainable model where there is literally any other competition.

But Coca Cola pays the grocer for preferred shelf space, and I pay the grocer for my individual Coke purchases. Where is the consumer harm in that two-sided market?

 

[EDNYLaw]

THavoc[/url]":3pmgx2xr]

Lukacsmw[/url]":3pmgx2xr]

THavoc[/url]":3pmgx2xr]

Lukacsmw[/url]":3pmgx2xr]

Read this and maybe you'll have a different opinion:

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

That's all I can say. We are at an impasse. The idea that rights derive from Government is absurd to me. I would hate to live in your world where everything is granted by your all-high masters and you exist merely because they allow it. Wonderful thought - sleep well. Maybe tomorrow they'll decide you shouldn't exist.

Because God said so. That's the argument?

I think I'll pass on commenting how poor that argument really is since I'm sure Ed can do it better than I can.

Dude - just read past the first two sentences. That's the only time he brings up God. He was a theorist in the 1800s when God was much bigger. The rest of his argument stands without God. But you can substitute "The Universe" or "Existence" or "The Great Turtle" however you want if it makes you feel happy. The fact is, Life, Liberty and Property derive from a greater power, not from Governments. Governments are created to secure Life, Liberty and Property.

Yeah, apparently you didn't actually read the link then.

A search for the word 'God' comes up with 20 matches.

That's a LOT more past the first two sentences!

Life Is a Gift from God
The Socialists Wish to Play God

"Each of us has a natural right — from God — "
"Would not this be in accord with the concept of individual responsibility which God has willed in order that mankind may have the choice between vice and virtue, and the resulting punishment and reward?"
"Moreover, even where they have consented to recognize a principle of action in the heart of man — and a principle of discernment in man's intellect — they have considered these gifts from God to be fatal gifts."

There's three quotes that are not part of the first two sentences.

Please try again with your logic fail. You're doing so well at it today.

Oh god (no pun intended), I didn't even bother reading that link. But here's a question, I'm posing to you because you called him on that BS, if "god" gifted these rights, isn't that literally the same thing as government granting rights? I mean, ok god =/= government, I get that (I don't believe in god, so I don't particularly care about the comparison), but if rights are granted from source A (deity) or source B (government), in the end isn't that the exact same thing? Although one is definitively provable and the other is imaginary, but looking past that.

 

[tim305]

fgoodwin[/url]":1zxgwr7t]

BajaPaul[/url]":1zxgwr7t]Be careful what you wish for. You might actually get it.

I see billing by quantity used happening real soon. Just like any other utility. The price increase cord cutters will see will have them paying much more than they are now.

Nothing about Title II requires metered billing.

If that were the case, we would never have had flat-rated monthly billing for unlimited local telephone service, which is obviously a Title II service. Also, under Title I, broadband rates were completely unregulated -- there was nothing to prevent ISPs from billing for broadband on a metered basis, yet they didn't (at least not for wireline broadband).

What makes you think metered billing is more likely now?

The flat rate consumer access is predicated on the assumption that data is being metered on the inbound side. It's not so critical whether the ISP gets any of that money, but just that there is some limiter on network load to prevent a tragedy of the commons. I don't see any reason to believe the FCC is going to interfere with that dynamic, though it seems like it would be within their authority now, and some people envision what the Netflix CEO has called "strong Network Neutrality," where sending is free. This would turn the equation around to make it all you can eat for senders, with metering on the receiving side. Much as Netflix would like that, I don't believe it is a realistic possibility. It will probably remain fine to continue charging senders by volume, as long as there is no discrimination.

 

[EDNYLaw]

fgoodwin[/url]":12489do7]
But Coca Cola pays the grocer for preferred shelf space, and I pay the grocer for my individual Coke purchases. Where is the consumer harm in that two-sided market?

No, that's advertising in person. That's like Coke paying for a spot on Network TV during prime time. However, if Coke has to pay the grocery store just to be put on the shelf at all, even if it's in the back where no one will purchase it, to me, that's extortion and that's the danger, especially to small companies who can't afford initial exposure, let alone prime time exposure.

 

[Lukacsmw]

THavoc[/url]":39lj43xs]

Lukacsmw[/url]":39lj43xs]

THavoc[/url]":39lj43xs]

Lukacsmw[/url]":39lj43xs]

Read this and maybe you'll have a different opinion:

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

That's all I can say. We are at an impasse. The idea that rights derive from Government is absurd to me. I would hate to live in your world where everything is granted by your all-high masters and you exist merely because they allow it. Wonderful thought - sleep well. Maybe tomorrow they'll decide you shouldn't exist.

Because God said so. That's the argument?

I think I'll pass on commenting how poor that argument really is since I'm sure Ed can do it better than I can.

Dude - just read past the first two sentences. That's the only time he brings up God. He was a theorist in the 1800s when God was much bigger. The rest of his argument stands without God. But you can substitute "The Universe" or "Existence" or "The Great Turtle" however you want if it makes you feel happy. The fact is, Life, Liberty and Property derive from a greater power, not from Governments. Governments are created to secure Life, Liberty and Property.

Yeah, apparently you didn't actually read the link then.

A search for the word 'God' comes up with 20 matches.

That's a LOT more past the first two sentences!

Life Is a Gift from God
The Socialists Wish to Play God

"Each of us has a natural right — from God — "
"Would not this be in accord with the concept of individual responsibility which God has willed in order that mankind may have the choice between vice and virtue, and the resulting punishment and reward?"
"Moreover, even where they have consented to recognize a principle of action in the heart of man — and a principle of discernment in man's intellect — they have considered these gifts from God to be fatal gifts."

There's three quotes that are not part of the first two sentences.

Please try again with your logic fail. You're doing so well at it today.

The argument is irregardless of God. That you exist with the rights to Life, Liberty and Property. That the rule of law is established to secure those rights. And that it can be equally perverted to destroy those rights because of the feebleness of men.

 

[Lukacsmw]

EDNYLaw[/url]":nyo6s4dr]

THavoc[/url]":nyo6s4dr]

Lukacsmw[/url]":nyo6s4dr]

THavoc[/url]":nyo6s4dr]

Lukacsmw[/url]":nyo6s4dr]

Read this and maybe you'll have a different opinion:

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

That's all I can say. We are at an impasse. The idea that rights derive from Government is absurd to me. I would hate to live in your world where everything is granted by your all-high masters and you exist merely because they allow it. Wonderful thought - sleep well. Maybe tomorrow they'll decide you shouldn't exist.

Because God said so. That's the argument?

I think I'll pass on commenting how poor that argument really is since I'm sure Ed can do it better than I can.

Dude - just read past the first two sentences. That's the only time he brings up God. He was a theorist in the 1800s when God was much bigger. The rest of his argument stands without God. But you can substitute "The Universe" or "Existence" or "The Great Turtle" however you want if it makes you feel happy. The fact is, Life, Liberty and Property derive from a greater power, not from Governments. Governments are created to secure Life, Liberty and Property.

Yeah, apparently you didn't actually read the link then.

A search for the word 'God' comes up with 20 matches.

That's a LOT more past the first two sentences!

Life Is a Gift from God
The Socialists Wish to Play God

"Each of us has a natural right — from God — "
"Would not this be in accord with the concept of individual responsibility which God has willed in order that mankind may have the choice between vice and virtue, and the resulting punishment and reward?"
"Moreover, even where they have consented to recognize a principle of action in the heart of man — and a principle of discernment in man's intellect — they have considered these gifts from God to be fatal gifts."

There's three quotes that are not part of the first two sentences.

Please try again with your logic fail. You're doing so well at it today.

Oh god (no pun intended), I didn't even bother reading that link. But here's a question, I'm posing to you because you called him on that BS, if "god" gifted these rights, isn't that literally the same thing as government granting rights? I mean, ok god =/= government, I get that (I don't believe in god, so I don't particularly care about the comparison), but if rights are granted from source A (deity) or source B (government), in the end isn't that the exact same thing? Although one is definitively provable and the other is imaginary, but looking past that.

No it is not the same. Government granting means it can be taken away. A higher authority (God, the Universe, existence, you name it) means it can't be taken away. Every attempt to take it away is, literally, a violation of those rights.

 

[EDNYLaw]

Lukacsmw[/url]":c4ohiz3o]

THavoc[/url]":c4ohiz3o]

Lukacsmw[/url]":c4ohiz3o]

THavoc[/url]":c4ohiz3o]

Lukacsmw[/url]":c4ohiz3o]

Read this and maybe you'll have a different opinion:

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

That's all I can say. We are at an impasse. The idea that rights derive from Government is absurd to me. I would hate to live in your world where everything is granted by your all-high masters and you exist merely because they allow it. Wonderful thought - sleep well. Maybe tomorrow they'll decide you shouldn't exist.

Because God said so. That's the argument?

I think I'll pass on commenting how poor that argument really is since I'm sure Ed can do it better than I can.

Dude - just read past the first two sentences. That's the only time he brings up God. He was a theorist in the 1800s when God was much bigger. The rest of his argument stands without God. But you can substitute "The Universe" or "Existence" or "The Great Turtle" however you want if it makes you feel happy. The fact is, Life, Liberty and Property derive from a greater power, not from Governments. Governments are created to secure Life, Liberty and Property.

Yeah, apparently you didn't actually read the link then.

A search for the word 'God' comes up with 20 matches.

That's a LOT more past the first two sentences!

Life Is a Gift from God
The Socialists Wish to Play God

"Each of us has a natural right — from God — "
"Would not this be in accord with the concept of individual responsibility which God has willed in order that mankind may have the choice between vice and virtue, and the resulting punishment and reward?"
"Moreover, even where they have consented to recognize a principle of action in the heart of man — and a principle of discernment in man's intellect — they have considered these gifts from God to be fatal gifts."

There's three quotes that are not part of the first two sentences.

Please try again with your logic fail. You're doing so well at it today.

The argument is irregardless of God. That you exist with the rights to Life, Liberty and Property. That the rule of law is established to secure those rights. And that it can be equally perverted to destroy those rights because of the feebleness of men.

And you've just tipped your hand. Man is born with nothing more than he is born with, that is, himself. That's it. You have the right to be secure in your own body (recently), beyond that you have no rights. You think you have the right to property? Since when has anyone just freely given you property? Rights are granted and enshrined, end of story.

By the way, irregardless isn't a word. The word you're looking for is regardless.

 

[fgoodwin]

tim305[/url]":asc31vk2]

fgoodwin[/url]":asc31vk2]

BajaPaul[/url]":asc31vk2]Be careful what you wish for. You might actually get it.

I see billing by quantity used happening real soon. Just like any other utility. The price increase cord cutters will see will have them paying much more than they are now.

Nothing about Title II requires metered billing.

If that were the case, we would never have had flat-rated monthly billing for unlimited local telephone service, which is obviously a Title II service. Also, under Title I, broadband rates were completely unregulated -- there was nothing to prevent ISPs from billing for broadband on a metered basis, yet they didn't (at least not for wireline broadband).

What makes you think metered billing is more likely now?

The flat rate consumer access is predicated on the assumption that data is being metered on the inbound side. It's not so critical whether the ISP gets any of that money, but just that there is some limiter on network load to prevent a tragedy of the commons. I don't see any reason to believe the FCC is going to interfere with that dynamic, though it seems like it would be within their authority now, and some people envision what the Netflix CEO has called "strong Network Neutrality," where sending is free. This would turn the equation around to make it all you can eat for senders, with metering on the receiving side. Much as Netflix would like that, I don't believe it is a realistic possibility. It will probably remain fine to continue charging senders by volume, as long as there is no discrimination.

Local telephone service has been (for the most part) unmetered forever.

There was no "tragedy of the commons", at least not until dial-up Internet access became popular in the early 90s, and people left their Internet connections "nailed-up" forever, tying up limited telco resources.

But I'm not sure how that example applies in a broadband context.

 

[EDNYLaw]

Lukacsmw[/url]":2yw9hos4]

EDNYLaw[/url]":2yw9hos4]

THavoc[/url]":2yw9hos4]

Lukacsmw[/url]":2yw9hos4]

THavoc[/url]":2yw9hos4]

Lukacsmw[/url]":2yw9hos4]

Read this and maybe you'll have a different opinion:

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

That's all I can say. We are at an impasse. The idea that rights derive from Government is absurd to me. I would hate to live in your world where everything is granted by your all-high masters and you exist merely because they allow it. Wonderful thought - sleep well. Maybe tomorrow they'll decide you shouldn't exist.

Because God said so. That's the argument?

I think I'll pass on commenting how poor that argument really is since I'm sure Ed can do it better than I can.

Dude - just read past the first two sentences. That's the only time he brings up God. He was a theorist in the 1800s when God was much bigger. The rest of his argument stands without God. But you can substitute "The Universe" or "Existence" or "The Great Turtle" however you want if it makes you feel happy. The fact is, Life, Liberty and Property derive from a greater power, not from Governments. Governments are created to secure Life, Liberty and Property.

Yeah, apparently you didn't actually read the link then.

A search for the word 'God' comes up with 20 matches.

That's a LOT more past the first two sentences!

Life Is a Gift from God
The Socialists Wish to Play God

"Each of us has a natural right — from God — "
"Would not this be in accord with the concept of individual responsibility which God has willed in order that mankind may have the choice between vice and virtue, and the resulting punishment and reward?"
"Moreover, even where they have consented to recognize a principle of action in the heart of man — and a principle of discernment in man's intellect — they have considered these gifts from God to be fatal gifts."

There's three quotes that are not part of the first two sentences.

Please try again with your logic fail. You're doing so well at it today.

Oh god (no pun intended), I didn't even bother reading that link. But here's a question, I'm posing to you because you called him on that BS, if "god" gifted these rights, isn't that literally the same thing as government granting rights? I mean, ok god =/= government, I get that (I don't believe in god, so I don't particularly care about the comparison), but if rights are granted from source A (deity) or source B (government), in the end isn't that the exact same thing? Although one is definitively provable and the other is imaginary, but looking past that.

No it is not the same. Government granting means it can be taken away. A higher authority (God, the Universe, existence, you name it) means it can't be taken away. Every attempt to take it away is, literally, a violation of those rights.

Can't be taken away, eh? So, if someone murders you, they didn't take your right to life away? If I come in, and kick you off your property, and let's say there's no government to protect that right, I haven't taken your right to property? Yeah... your entire point falls apart when even the smallest bit of logic is applied. There are no universal rights, it's that simple. We're all animals and our "rights" are just constructs of our minds that we all agreed are a fairly good idea if we'd like to keep on living on this blue marble.

 

[THavoc]

Lukacsmw[/url]":eyy29gz9]

THavoc[/url]":eyy29gz9]

Lukacsmw[/url]":eyy29gz9]

THavoc[/url]":eyy29gz9]

Lukacsmw[/url]":eyy29gz9]

Read this and maybe you'll have a different opinion:

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

That's all I can say. We are at an impasse. The idea that rights derive from Government is absurd to me. I would hate to live in your world where everything is granted by your all-high masters and you exist merely because they allow it. Wonderful thought - sleep well. Maybe tomorrow they'll decide you shouldn't exist.

Because God said so. That's the argument?

I think I'll pass on commenting how poor that argument really is since I'm sure Ed can do it better than I can.

Dude - just read past the first two sentences. That's the only time he brings up God. He was a theorist in the 1800s when God was much bigger. The rest of his argument stands without God. But you can substitute "The Universe" or "Existence" or "The Great Turtle" however you want if it makes you feel happy. The fact is, Life, Liberty and Property derive from a greater power, not from Governments. Governments are created to secure Life, Liberty and Property.

Yeah, apparently you didn't actually read the link then.

A search for the word 'God' comes up with 20 matches.

That's a LOT more past the first two sentences!

Life Is a Gift from God
The Socialists Wish to Play God

"Each of us has a natural right — from God — "
"Would not this be in accord with the concept of individual responsibility which God has willed in order that mankind may have the choice between vice and virtue, and the resulting punishment and reward?"
"Moreover, even where they have consented to recognize a principle of action in the heart of man — and a principle of discernment in man's intellect — they have considered these gifts from God to be fatal gifts."

There's three quotes that are not part of the first two sentences.

Please try again with your logic fail. You're doing so well at it today.

The argument is irregardless of God. That you exist with the rights to Life, Liberty and Property. That the rule of law is established to secure those rights. And that it can be equally perverted to destroy those rights because of the feebleness of men.

Yeah, ummm, the article says Life, Liberty and Property are given to us by God.

So no, the argument is not irregardless of God.

Thanks for trying again with your logic fail. Like I said before, you're doing so well at it today.

 

[ChristoMax]

Lukacsmw[/url]":3pbirdh5]

THavoc[/url]":3pbirdh5]

Lukacsmw[/url]":3pbirdh5]

THavoc[/url]":3pbirdh5]

Lukacsmw[/url]":3pbirdh5]

Read this and maybe you'll have a different opinion:

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

That's all I can say. We are at an impasse. The idea that rights derive from Government is absurd to me. I would hate to live in your world where everything is granted by your all-high masters and you exist merely because they allow it. Wonderful thought - sleep well. Maybe tomorrow they'll decide you shouldn't exist.

Because God said so. That's the argument?

I think I'll pass on commenting how poor that argument really is since I'm sure Ed can do it better than I can.

Dude - just read past the first two sentences. That's the only time he brings up God. He was a theorist in the 1800s when God was much bigger. The rest of his argument stands without God. But you can substitute "The Universe" or "Existence" or "The Great Turtle" however you want if it makes you feel happy. The fact is, Life, Liberty and Property derive from a greater power, not from Governments. Governments are created to secure Life, Liberty and Property.

Yeah, apparently you didn't actually read the link then.

A search for the word 'God' comes up with 20 matches.

That's a LOT more past the first two sentences!

Life Is a Gift from God
The Socialists Wish to Play God

"Each of us has a natural right — from God — "
"Would not this be in accord with the concept of individual responsibility which God has willed in order that mankind may have the choice between vice and virtue, and the resulting punishment and reward?"
"Moreover, even where they have consented to recognize a principle of action in the heart of man — and a principle of discernment in man's intellect — they have considered these gifts from God to be fatal gifts."

There's three quotes that are not part of the first two sentences.

Please try again with your logic fail. You're doing so well at it today.

The argument is irregardless of God. That you exist with the rights to Life, Liberty and Property. That the rule of law is established to secure those rights. And that it can be equally perverted to destroy those rights because of the feebleness of men.

Dude, the guy's whole argument RELIES on the concept that we are granted these rights because of GOD. They aren't inherent, they are given to us by a supernatural being. Inherent and given to us by a divine being are two incompatible concepts. If you're going to use a random source to make your point, at least try to stay consistent with what that argument is.

 

[Z1ggy]

Lukacsmw[/url]":a63ny1km]

THavoc[/url]":a63ny1km]

Lukacsmw[/url]":a63ny1km]

Read this and maybe you'll have a different opinion:

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

That's all I can say. We are at an impasse. The idea that rights derive from Government is absurd to me. I would hate to live in your world where everything is granted by your all-high masters and you exist merely because they allow it. Wonderful thought - sleep well. Maybe tomorrow they'll decide you shouldn't exist.

Because God said so. That's the argument?

I think I'll pass on commenting how poor that argument really is since I'm sure Ed can do it better than I can.

Dude - just read past the first two sentences. That's the only time he brings up God. He was a theorist in the 1800s when God was much bigger. The rest of his argument stands without God. But you can substitute "The Universe" or "Existence" or "The Great Turtle" however you want if it makes you feel happy. The fact is, Life, Liberty and Property derive from a greater power, not from Governments. Governments are created to secure Life, Liberty and Property.

God is mentioned 18 times in this article you mention.

Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property.

If one disagrees with what his definition of law is, then his whole argument is flawed.

His entire argument consists of this natural right from God.

And does not experience prove this? Look at the entire world. Which countries contain the most peaceful, the most moral, and the happiest people? Those people are found in the countries where the law least interferes with private affairs; where government is least felt; where the individual has the greatest scope, and free opinion the greatest influence; where administrative powers are fewest and simplest; where taxes are lightest and most nearly equal, and popular discontent the least excited and the least justifiable; where individuals and groups most actively assume their responsibilities, and, consequently, where the morals of admittedly imperfect human beings are constantly improving; where trade, assemblies, and associations are the least restricted; where labor, capital, and populations suffer the fewest forced displacements; where mankind most nearly follows its own natural inclinations; where the inventions of men are most nearly in harmony with the laws of God; in short, the happiest, most moral, and most peaceful people are those who most nearly follow this principle: Although mankind is not perfect, still, all hope rests upon the free and voluntary actions of persons within the limits of right; law or force is to be used for nothing except the administration of universal justice.

 

[ChristoMax]

Lukacsmw[/url]":21zlluv8]

EDNYLaw[/url]":21zlluv8]

THavoc[/url]":21zlluv8]

Lukacsmw[/url]":21zlluv8]

THavoc[/url]":21zlluv8]

Lukacsmw[/url]":21zlluv8]

Read this and maybe you'll have a different opinion:

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

That's all I can say. We are at an impasse. The idea that rights derive from Government is absurd to me. I would hate to live in your world where everything is granted by your all-high masters and you exist merely because they allow it. Wonderful thought - sleep well. Maybe tomorrow they'll decide you shouldn't exist.

Because God said so. That's the argument?

I think I'll pass on commenting how poor that argument really is since I'm sure Ed can do it better than I can.

Dude - just read past the first two sentences. That's the only time he brings up God. He was a theorist in the 1800s when God was much bigger. The rest of his argument stands without God. But you can substitute "The Universe" or "Existence" or "The Great Turtle" however you want if it makes you feel happy. The fact is, Life, Liberty and Property derive from a greater power, not from Governments. Governments are created to secure Life, Liberty and Property.

Yeah, apparently you didn't actually read the link then.

A search for the word 'God' comes up with 20 matches.

That's a LOT more past the first two sentences!

Life Is a Gift from God
The Socialists Wish to Play God

"Each of us has a natural right — from God — "
"Would not this be in accord with the concept of individual responsibility which God has willed in order that mankind may have the choice between vice and virtue, and the resulting punishment and reward?"
"Moreover, even where they have consented to recognize a principle of action in the heart of man — and a principle of discernment in man's intellect — they have considered these gifts from God to be fatal gifts."

There's three quotes that are not part of the first two sentences.

Please try again with your logic fail. You're doing so well at it today.

Oh god (no pun intended), I didn't even bother reading that link. But here's a question, I'm posing to you because you called him on that BS, if "god" gifted these rights, isn't that literally the same thing as government granting rights? I mean, ok god =/= government, I get that (I don't believe in god, so I don't particularly care about the comparison), but if rights are granted from source A (deity) or source B (government), in the end isn't that the exact same thing? Although one is definitively provable and the other is imaginary, but looking past that.

No it is not the same. Government granting means it can be taken away. A higher authority (God, the Universe, existence, you name it) means it can't be taken away. Every attempt to take it away is, literally, a violation of those rights.

God giveth, God can taketh.

 

[tim305]

EDNYLaw[/url]":22198haa]

tim305[/url]":22198haa]

EDNYLaw[/url]":22198haa]

fgoodwin[/url]":22198haa]

EDNYLaw[/url]":22198haa]

villanim[/url]":22198haa]

If broadband providers cannot charge the likes of Netflix or Amazon for the large chunks of bandwidth they consume, then you and I are ultimately going to pay for it.

This, this right there, is why you need to stop speaking and read. How is Netflix or Amazon at fault? It's their users that are requesting the packets, Netflix isn't pushing it's content to every IP address in the world by default.

Does UPS charge Amazon and you for a package delivery? Does a grocery store charge Doritos for having Doritos on the shelves? (emphasis added)

Ever heard of stocking fees (also called "slotting fees")?

If not, I invite you to look them up. Newspapers and magazines charge advertisers and readers -- is that harmful to readers?

There's no reason to fear two-sided markets.

Well, my bad. But the UPS analogy is still valid. But, in general, two opposing parties do not pay a middleman for the exact same thing. That's called double dipping. It's just not typically how business is done. Also, in the grocery store example, I'm sure that has more to do with placement of the product than just putting it on the shelf. The former is closer to advertising costs and the latter is closer to extortion.

Edit: And yes, there is a great reason to fear the two sided market. It hurts consumers and drives up prices while adding exact zero benefit. It's literally a company's wet dream. Invest not a single cent more but double your revenues. Where does that extra revenue come from? The increased price of the product the consumer ultimately purchases. So yes, fear it, loathe it, hate it, destroy it. A two-sided market does nothing to help the economy except drive up prices for absolutely no additional benefit.

Except the Internet has always been a two sided market. Everybody pays for their connection, whether they are a content provider or a consumer. 20 years ago, long haul was the expensive part, so the backbone providers were generally the middlemen getting paid from both sides. But content providers with money to spend stimulated the build out of high capacity private networks and distributed cacheing to bypass the backbones. This capital investment has driven costs down so much that now the last leg fan out to individual homes is the most expensive part of the path. At the same time residential IPS's have consolidated and built their own internal backbones. So, now it is most likely that the inflow of money from each end of a connection meets somewhere within the residential ISP. E.g., simples example would be if the content provider uses the residential ISP as their own ISP, or when 2 people on the same ISP have a Skype call. Both ends pay the same middleman. That's just how it works.

It has? So this Netflix extortion has been a part of the internet since Netflix's inception? No. The 2 sided market doesn't generally exist. It's getting paid twice to do the same thing. I pay my ISP, Netflix pays theirs. That's not a 2 sided market. But, I pay my ISP and Netflix pays my ISP, that is a 2 sided market and that is what is wrong.

Does UPS get paid by the sender and the sendee? Does an attorney (but for fee shifting statutes, and I assure you there are very few) get paid by the plaintiff and the defendant? Do you pay for cable and does cable get paid by the networks? In each of those situations, the middleman isn't adding any value for one of the payors. They're merely doing their contracted job and getting paid twice. That's not a sustainable model where there is literally any other competition.

What about if 2 users of the same ISP connect to each other on Skype? Does one of them get a free connection? Or, you just think Netflix is special?

Actually, your UPS example is a good one. If you order something from a catalog, you pay the postage to send your order in. Then the company you ordered from pays UPS to ship the product. Both of you need to pay, but whoever is sending the biggest volume pays the most.

 

[EDNYLaw]

ChristoMax[/url]":3ljdkf24]

Lukacsmw[/url]":3ljdkf24]

THavoc[/url]":3ljdkf24]

Lukacsmw[/url]":3ljdkf24]

THavoc[/url]":3ljdkf24]

Lukacsmw[/url]":3ljdkf24]

Read this and maybe you'll have a different opinion:

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

That's all I can say. We are at an impasse. The idea that rights derive from Government is absurd to me. I would hate to live in your world where everything is granted by your all-high masters and you exist merely because they allow it. Wonderful thought - sleep well. Maybe tomorrow they'll decide you shouldn't exist.

Because God said so. That's the argument?

I think I'll pass on commenting how poor that argument really is since I'm sure Ed can do it better than I can.

Dude - just read past the first two sentences. That's the only time he brings up God. He was a theorist in the 1800s when God was much bigger. The rest of his argument stands without God. But you can substitute "The Universe" or "Existence" or "The Great Turtle" however you want if it makes you feel happy. The fact is, Life, Liberty and Property derive from a greater power, not from Governments. Governments are created to secure Life, Liberty and Property.

Yeah, apparently you didn't actually read the link then.

A search for the word 'God' comes up with 20 matches.

That's a LOT more past the first two sentences!

Life Is a Gift from God
The Socialists Wish to Play God

"Each of us has a natural right — from God — "
"Would not this be in accord with the concept of individual responsibility which God has willed in order that mankind may have the choice between vice and virtue, and the resulting punishment and reward?"
"Moreover, even where they have consented to recognize a principle of action in the heart of man — and a principle of discernment in man's intellect — they have considered these gifts from God to be fatal gifts."

There's three quotes that are not part of the first two sentences.

Please try again with your logic fail. You're doing so well at it today.

The argument is irregardless of God. That you exist with the rights to Life, Liberty and Property. That the rule of law is established to secure those rights. And that it can be equally perverted to destroy those rights because of the feebleness of men.

Dude, the guy's whole argument RELIES on the concept that we are granted these rights because of GOD. They aren't inherent, they are given to us by a supernatural being. Inherent and given to us by a divine being are two incompatible concepts. If you're going to use a random source to make your point, at least try to stay consistent with what that argument is.

Ha, that is a ridiculously good point... and completely kills his argument. Either your rights are granted by some entity or they are inherent in you. Point in your favor, by far.

 

[Lukacsmw]

EDNYLaw[/url]":1pnmmy1o]

Lukacsmw[/url]":1pnmmy1o]

THavoc[/url]":1pnmmy1o]

Lukacsmw[/url]":1pnmmy1o]

THavoc[/url]":1pnmmy1o]

Lukacsmw[/url]":1pnmmy1o]

Read this and maybe you'll have a different opinion:

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

That's all I can say. We are at an impasse. The idea that rights derive from Government is absurd to me. I would hate to live in your world where everything is granted by your all-high masters and you exist merely because they allow it. Wonderful thought - sleep well. Maybe tomorrow they'll decide you shouldn't exist.

Because God said so. That's the argument?

I think I'll pass on commenting how poor that argument really is since I'm sure Ed can do it better than I can.

Dude - just read past the first two sentences. That's the only time he brings up God. He was a theorist in the 1800s when God was much bigger. The rest of his argument stands without God. But you can substitute "The Universe" or "Existence" or "The Great Turtle" however you want if it makes you feel happy. The fact is, Life, Liberty and Property derive from a greater power, not from Governments. Governments are created to secure Life, Liberty and Property.

Yeah, apparently you didn't actually read the link then.

A search for the word 'God' comes up with 20 matches.

That's a LOT more past the first two sentences!

Life Is a Gift from God
The Socialists Wish to Play God

"Each of us has a natural right — from God — "
"Would not this be in accord with the concept of individual responsibility which God has willed in order that mankind may have the choice between vice and virtue, and the resulting punishment and reward?"
"Moreover, even where they have consented to recognize a principle of action in the heart of man — and a principle of discernment in man's intellect — they have considered these gifts from God to be fatal gifts."

There's three quotes that are not part of the first two sentences.

Please try again with your logic fail. You're doing so well at it today.

The argument is irregardless of God. That you exist with the rights to Life, Liberty and Property. That the rule of law is established to secure those rights. And that it can be equally perverted to destroy those rights because of the feebleness of men.

And you've just tipped your hand. Man is born with nothing more than he is born with, that is, himself. That's it. You have the right to be secure in your own body (recently), beyond that you have no rights. You think you have the right to property? Since when has anyone just freely given you property? Rights are granted and enshrined, end of story.

By the way, irregardless isn't a word. The word you're looking for is regardless.

Sir, you have the right to your own property, not to someone else's. A right doesn't mean someone has to give it to you. For instance, we have the right to bear arms, doesn't mean the Government will give me a gun.

Rights are granted, just not by the Government.

 

[EDNYLaw]

tim305[/url]"s0net6l]

What about if 2 users of the same ISP connect to each other on Skype? Does one of them get a free connection? Or, you just think Netflix is special?

Your question doesn't make sense. User 1 pays his ISP, User 2 pays his ISP, Skype pays their ISP. No ISP is getting paid 2x for the same service. User 1 pays for his service, User 2 pays for his service, Skype pays for their service. That seems perfectly legitimate to me.

Each entity is paying for his own individual service, Skype isn't paying User 1 or 2's ISP for the privilege of letting the users connect to Skype.

 

[EDNYLaw]

Lukacsmw[/url]":a1hj72xl]

Sir, you have the right to your own property, not to someone else's. A right doesn't mean someone has to give it to you. For instance, we have the right to bear arms, doesn't mean the Government will give me a gun.

Rights are granted, just not by the Government.

So rights are granted then? You say by God or Whatever (I say complete bullshit) and I say by government. Which one is demonstrably provable? I can point to the actual document written by people who we can prove wrote it, granting me my rights. Can you do the same?

 

[Lukacsmw]

EDNYLaw[/url]":datl67j0]

Dude, the guy's whole argument RELIES on the concept that we are granted these rights because of GOD. They aren't inherent, they are given to us by a supernatural being. Inherent and given to us by a divine being are two incompatible concepts. If you're going to use a random source to make your point, at least try to stay consistent with what that argument is.

Ha, that is a ridiculously good point... and completely kills his argument. Either your rights are granted by some entity or they are inherent in you. Point in your favor, by far.

Well, I guess I shouldn't have used this source as an example because none of you seem capable of divorcing the word "God" from the subtext of the argument. No, the argument does not rely on God. it relies on the idea that our rights exist from something that is higher than Government, and Government (and the Rule-of-law by extension) is a construction of man to secure those rights.

 

[Lukacsmw]

EDNYLaw[/url]":8jkxescq]

Lukacsmw[/url]":8jkxescq]

Sir, you have the right to your own property, not to someone else's. A right doesn't mean someone has to give it to you. For instance, we have the right to bear arms, doesn't mean the Government will give me a gun.

Rights are granted, just not by the Government.

So rights are granted then? You say by God or Whatever (I say complete bullshit) and I say by government. Which one is demonstrably provable? I can point to the actual document written by people who we can prove wrote it, granting me my rights. Can you do the same?

Sure - produce it. Show me the document that says you have the right to life. I'd love to see it.

 

[mikesmith]

Lukacsmw[/url]":1jn5m5le]
Well, I guess I shouldn't have used this source as an example because none of you seem capable of divorcing the word "God" from the subtext of the argument. No, the argument does not rely on God. it relies on the idea that our rights exist from something that is higher than Government, and Government (and the Rule-of-law by extension) is a construction of man to secure those rights.

Actually you're the one that seems to be unable to divorce your irrational desire for what you want to be and what actually is.

 

[EDNYLaw]

Lukacsmw[/url]":3epailoi]

Well, I guess I shouldn't have used this source as an example because none of you seem capable of divorcing the word "God" from the subtext of the argument. No, the argument does not rely on God. it relies on the idea that our rights exist from something that is higher than Government, and Government (and the Rule-of-law by extension) is a construction of man to secure those rights.

But the entire problem with that argument is it's not factually based. It relies on mystery, fantasy, magic, etc... You can't prove it. I can incontrovertibly prove my point, you can't prove yours.

 

[Peevester]

Right. See if the native fauna thinks your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness means a dang thing outside of a social context. From inside their stomach.

 

[EDNYLaw]

Lukacsmw[/url]":2n9m3thh]

EDNYLaw[/url]":2n9m3thh]

Lukacsmw[/url]":2n9m3thh]

Sir, you have the right to your own property, not to someone else's. A right doesn't mean someone has to give it to you. For instance, we have the right to bear arms, doesn't mean the Government will give me a gun.

Rights are granted, just not by the Government.

So rights are granted then? You say by God or Whatever (I say complete bullshit) and I say by government. Which one is demonstrably provable? I can point to the actual document written by people who we can prove wrote it, granting me my rights. Can you do the same?

Sure - produce it. Show me the document that says you have the right to life. I'd love to see it.

Sure, it's called NYS Laws, United States Code, US Constitution, or any statute really. Do you want links or am I good to just say, "Google them?"

 

[tim305]

EDNYLaw[/url]":2stka1ul]

tim305[/url]":2stka1ul]

What about if 2 users of the same ISP connect to each other on Skype? Does one of them get a free connection? Or, you just think Netflix is special?

Your question doesn't make sense. User 1 pays his ISP, User 2 pays his ISP, Skype pays their ISP. No ISP is getting paid 2x for the same service. User 1 pays for his service, User 2 pays for his service, Skype pays for their service. That seems perfectly legitimate to me.

Each entity is paying for his own individual service, Skype isn't paying User 1 or 2's ISP for the privilege of letting the users connect to Skype.

I was talking about if they connect directly peer-to-peer, so Skype is not involved except for providing the software they are using. Then, if User 1 and User 2 are on the same IPS, that ISP is getting paid twice for the same thing, which violates your sacred double dipping rule, just like if one of the users was Netflix. But, why should it make a wit of difference whether User 1 and User 2 are on the same double dipping ISP or 2 single dipping ISP's?

 

[Lukacsmw]

EDNYLaw[/url]":2j8xrbdb]

Lukacsmw[/url]":2j8xrbdb]

EDNYLaw[/url]":2j8xrbdb]

Lukacsmw[/url]":2j8xrbdb]

Sir, you have the right to your own property, not to someone else's. A right doesn't mean someone has to give it to you. For instance, we have the right to bear arms, doesn't mean the Government will give me a gun.

Rights are granted, just not by the Government.

So rights are granted then? You say by God or Whatever (I say complete bullshit) and I say by government. Which one is demonstrably provable? I can point to the actual document written by people who we can prove wrote it, granting me my rights. Can you do the same?

Sure - produce it. Show me the document that says you have the right to life. I'd love to see it.

Sure, it's called NYS Laws, United States Code, US Constitution, or any statute really. Do you want links or am I good to just say, "Google them?"

No...those all are laws that say you cannot kill. They do not state you have the right to life. Rights derive from a higher authority.

 

[ChristoMax]

Lukacsmw[/url]":23sl3jtb]

Sir, you have the right to your own property, not to someone else's. A right doesn't mean someone has to give it to you. For instance, we have the right to bear arms, doesn't mean the Government will give me a gun.

Rights are granted, just not by the Government.

Wait, why wouldn't I have the right to your property?

Oh yeah, government.

Without government it would be survival of the fittest, and if I wanted your shit, it would be mine. Good luck with your "inherent" right to property.

 

[EDNYLaw]

tim305[/url]":1758joph]

EDNYLaw[/url]":1758joph]

tim305[/url]":1758joph]

What about if 2 users of the same ISP connect to each other on Skype? Does one of them get a free connection? Or, you just think Netflix is special?

Your question doesn't make sense. User 1 pays his ISP, User 2 pays his ISP, Skype pays their ISP. No ISP is getting paid 2x for the same service. User 1 pays for his service, User 2 pays for his service, Skype pays for their service. That seems perfectly legitimate to me.

Each entity is paying for his own individual service, Skype isn't paying User 1 or 2's ISP for the privilege of letting the users connect to Skype.

I was talking about if they connect directly peer-to-peer, so Skype is not involved except for providing the software they are using. Then, if User 1 and User 2 are on the same IPS, that ISP is getting paid twice for the same thing, which violates your sacred double dipping rule, just like if one of the users was Netflix. But, why should it make a wit of difference whether User 1 and User 2 are on the same double dipping ISP or 2 single dipping ISP's?

But the ISP isn't getting paid twice to do the same thing. User 1 is paying to connect to the internet. User 2 is paying to connect to the internet. In fact, unless they're on the same network, I don't even see how it's possible to go about this without each having paid for separate internet access.

 

[Z1ggy]

Lukacsmw[/url]":3jy80sjm]

EDNYLaw[/url]":3jy80sjm]

Lukacsmw[/url]":3jy80sjm]

EDNYLaw[/url]":3jy80sjm]

Lukacsmw[/url]":3jy80sjm]

Sir, you have the right to your own property, not to someone else's. A right doesn't mean someone has to give it to you. For instance, we have the right to bear arms, doesn't mean the Government will give me a gun.

Rights are granted, just not by the Government.

So rights are granted then? You say by God or Whatever (I say complete bullshit) and I say by government. Which one is demonstrably provable? I can point to the actual document written by people who we can prove wrote it, granting me my rights. Can you do the same?

Sure - produce it. Show me the document that says you have the right to life. I'd love to see it.

Sure, it's called NYS Laws, United States Code, US Constitution, or any statute really. Do you want links or am I good to just say, "Google them?"

No...those all are laws that say you cannot kill. They do not state you have the right to life. Rights derive from a higher authority.

and what is that higher authority?

 

[THavoc]

Lukacsmw[/url]":cikqu8y7]

Well, I guess I shouldn't have used this source as an example because none of you seem capable of divorcing the word "God" from the subtext of the argument. No, the argument does not rely on God. it relies on the idea that our rights exist from something that is higher than Government, and Government (and the Rule-of-law by extension) is a construction of man to secure those rights.

Something higher than the Government? The Moon or are you talking about the Sun?

What exactly is higher than the Gov but is not God? I didn't see anything else mentioned in that 'article' other than God, TWENTY TIMES.

Again, thank you for the logic fail. You apparently are very very good at it.

 

[ChristoMax]

Lukacsmw[/url]":2aiwxaym]

EDNYLaw[/url]":2aiwxaym]

Lukacsmw[/url]":2aiwxaym]

EDNYLaw[/url]":2aiwxaym]

Lukacsmw[/url]":2aiwxaym]

Sir, you have the right to your own property, not to someone else's. A right doesn't mean someone has to give it to you. For instance, we have the right to bear arms, doesn't mean the Government will give me a gun.

Rights are granted, just not by the Government.

So rights are granted then? You say by God or Whatever (I say complete bullshit) and I say by government. Which one is demonstrably provable? I can point to the actual document written by people who we can prove wrote it, granting me my rights. Can you do the same?

Sure - produce it. Show me the document that says you have the right to life. I'd love to see it.

Sure, it's called NYS Laws, United States Code, US Constitution, or any statute really. Do you want links or am I good to just say, "Google them?"

No...those all are laws that say you cannot kill. They do not state you have the right to life. Rights derive from a higher authority.

Correct, it's called society.

Edited to bold point.

 

[Lukacsmw]

Lukacsmw[/url]":39qes2l3]

EDNYLaw[/url]":39qes2l3]

Lukacsmw[/url]":39qes2l3]

EDNYLaw[/url]":39qes2l3]

Lukacsmw[/url]":39qes2l3]

Sir, you have the right to your own property, not to someone else's. A right doesn't mean someone has to give it to you. For instance, we have the right to bear arms, doesn't mean the Government will give me a gun.

Rights are granted, just not by the Government.

So rights are granted then? You say by God or Whatever (I say complete bullshit) and I say by government. Which one is demonstrably provable? I can point to the actual document written by people who we can prove wrote it, granting me my rights. Can you do the same?

Sure - produce it. Show me the document that says you have the right to life. I'd love to see it.

Sure, it's called NYS Laws, United States Code, US Constitution, or any statute really. Do you want links or am I good to just say, "Google them?"

No...those all are laws that say you cannot kill. They do not state you have the right to life. Rights derive from a higher authority.

And even the Constitution supports this concept. For instance, you do not have the right to free speech in the Constitution. It says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." It does not confer the right to free speech. That right is implied as already existing. What it does, is it restricts the Government's ability to curtail that right. So where then is the actual right to free speech enshrined? Where is the right to life enshrined?

 

[EDNYLaw]

Lukacsmw[/url]":27gl0300]

EDNYLaw[/url]":27gl0300]

Lukacsmw[/url]":27gl0300]

EDNYLaw[/url]":27gl0300]

Lukacsmw[/url]":27gl0300]

Sir, you have the right to your own property, not to someone else's. A right doesn't mean someone has to give it to you. For instance, we have the right to bear arms, doesn't mean the Government will give me a gun.

Rights are granted, just not by the Government.

So rights are granted then? You say by God or Whatever (I say complete bullshit) and I say by government. Which one is demonstrably provable? I can point to the actual document written by people who we can prove wrote it, granting me my rights. Can you do the same?

Sure - produce it. Show me the document that says you have the right to life. I'd love to see it.

Sure, it's called NYS Laws, United States Code, US Constitution, or any statute really. Do you want links or am I good to just say, "Google them?"

No...those all are laws that say you cannot kill. They do not state you have the right to life. Rights derive from a higher authority.

Nope. It's literally the flip side of the coin. That higher authority is government. We've decided that people have a right to life. Therefore, to protect that right, we've said, without having to affirmatively state someone has the right to life, that robbing someone of that right is illegal.

Now, there are certain rights that are affirmatively granted because they are not so obvious, such as the Freedom of Speech. But, there are plenty of rights that are not affirmatively granted. You have the right to not be punched in the face, but did you need to be explicitly told that? Isn't it easier to assume you have the right and codify the things that violate it?

I'm sorry you cannot divorce the idea of rights from a higher power. I don't know what to tell you except for the fact that modern society must be doing something right for you to feel so secure in your rights that you think you're magically endowed with them. I suspect that if this was a mere 2000 years ago, you'd feel very different.

 

[ChristoMax]

Lukacsmw[/url]":i9h7xw7b]

Lukacsmw[/url]":i9h7xw7b]

EDNYLaw[/url]":i9h7xw7b]

Lukacsmw[/url]":i9h7xw7b]

EDNYLaw[/url]":i9h7xw7b]

Lukacsmw[/url]":i9h7xw7b]

Sir, you have the right to your own property, not to someone else's. A right doesn't mean someone has to give it to you. For instance, we have the right to bear arms, doesn't mean the Government will give me a gun.

Rights are granted, just not by the Government.

So rights are granted then? You say by God or Whatever (I say complete bullshit) and I say by government. Which one is demonstrably provable? I can point to the actual document written by people who we can prove wrote it, granting me my rights. Can you do the same?

Sure - produce it. Show me the document that says you have the right to life. I'd love to see it.

Sure, it's called NYS Laws, United States Code, US Constitution, or any statute really. Do you want links or am I good to just say, "Google them?"

No...those all are laws that say you cannot kill. They do not state you have the right to life. Rights derive from a higher authority.

And even the Constitution supports this concept. For instance, you do not have the right to free speech in the Constitution. It says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." It does not confer the right to free speech. That right is implied as already existing. What it does, is it restricts the Government's ability to curtail that right. So where then is the actual right to free speech enshrined? Where is the right to life enshrined?

Your grasp of the 1st amendment and it's implications is tenuous, at best.