By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - State attorneys general line up to sue FCC over net neutrality repeal

KLAMarine on 15 December 2017
VAMatt said:
vivster said:

People seem to love being oppressed considering the amount of governments we have in this world.

I wonder what a good replacement would be. Oh yes, big for-profit companies that can do whatever they want to increase their revenue. They will certainly take good care of us.

That's *an* alternative.  But, its pretty unlikely.  Right now, government and big business are one in the same. Eliminate government and you eliminate the crony capitalist system that allows big companies to pass off their losses on to taxpayers, protects them from competition, and shields them from liability and it would seem to me that businesses would have a lot less power over the lives of the average person than they do now.  

Currently, there are governments working to combat lootboxes EA and other companies are trying to implement.

 

Seems to me governments are not as bad as you make them seem...



Around the Network
Rocketjay8 on 15 December 2017

It isn't over yet! We still have a chance!

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/we-can-get-the-fccs-decision-to-kill-net-neutrality_us_5a32df48e4b02bd1c8c60545



Mystro-Sama on 15 December 2017
VGPolyglot said:
Mystro-Sama said:

So essentially what you want is no government?

Well, I don't know if no government is possible in a system with people conversing with each other, but I assume he wants a stateless society.

Both of which wouldn't work. lol



TallSilhouette on 15 December 2017
Aeolus451 said:
More than likely, republicans will create their own version of net neutrality that's actually good for individuals and businesses alike

You mean like their healthcare and tax plans?...



Aeolus451 on 15 December 2017
TallSilhouette said:
Aeolus451 said:
More than likely, republicans will create their own version of net neutrality that's actually good for individuals and businesses alike

You mean like their healthcare and tax plans?...

Yeah. Better for everyone instead of a few or some.



Around the Network
StarOcean on 15 December 2017
Mystro-Sama said:
VAMatt said:

I'm sure it is not.  But, NN is government control.  I oppose government control, and I especially oppose government lobbying (or, in this case, suing) for more government.  

So essentially what you want is no government?

They don't know what they want. They just think pretending to be psudo-anarchist is 'cool' 



TallSilhouette on 15 December 2017
Aeolus451 said:
TallSilhouette said:

You mean like their healthcare and tax plans?...

Yeah. Better for everyone instead of a few or some.

The healthcare act that would no longer cover preexisting conditions and cause tens of millions to lose their healthcare was better for everyone? The tax plan that raises taxes on lower incomes in the long run while removing their deductions and adding 1.5 trillion to the national deficit is better for everyone?



Aeolus451 on 15 December 2017
TallSilhouette said:
Aeolus451 said:

Yeah. Better for everyone instead of a few or some.

The healthcare act that would no longer cover preexisting conditions and cause tens of millions to lose their healthcare was better for everyone? The tax plan that raises taxes on lower incomes in the long run while removing their deductions and adding 1.5 trillion to the national deficit is better for everyone?

An appeal towards emotions?  It's better for people in general. It's not about one little group. It's the whole that matters. Is it a net positive for most people? Good. I'm fine with that.



TallSilhouette on 15 December 2017
Aeolus451 said:
TallSilhouette said:

The healthcare act that would no longer cover preexisting conditions and cause tens of millions to lose their healthcare was better for everyone? The tax plan that raises taxes on lower incomes in the long run while removing their deductions and adding 1.5 trillion to the national deficit is better for everyone?

An appeal towards emotions?  It's better for people in general. It's not about one little group. It's the whole that matters. Is it a net positive for most people? Good. I'm fine with that.

Stating statistical consequences of said plans is an appeal toward emotions? Tens of millions of people is one little group? A literal deficit is a net positive?

???



Aeolus451 on 15 December 2017
TallSilhouette said:
Aeolus451 said:

An appeal towards emotions?  It's better for people in general. It's not about one little group. It's the whole that matters. Is it a net positive for most people? Good. I'm fine with that.

Stating statistical consequences of said plans is an appeal toward emotions? Tens of millions of people is one little group? A literal deficit is a net positive?

???

ou're only stating "consequences" in a way that a appeals toward emotions. Oh poor people. Oh sickly people. *shrugs Even if we're actually talking about tens of millions of people, it's relatively small compared to the overall population. I doubt that it's tens of millions of people though. Most of the people that would happen to would have to pay a bit more for coverage or get it through their employer. It's not end of the world. They want to get rid of that because it's putting the extra cost on healthier people. People should pay for their own shit in principal and in most cases. The left in the states has no business talking about deficits. Trump pulled the US out of the paris accord which saved the US at least 2.5 trillion dollars.