Why shouldn't ISPs (aka private businesses) be free to offer

>>1450296
Minimum government interference regarding ISP's sure worked out well what with comcast buying out all competition and then providing shitty overpriced services because they know their consumers have no other choice. Can't wait till you burgers shoot yourself in the foot again, I'll be here enjoying my cheap, fast and datacap-less internet because my little shitty pocket country at least has a regulatory body that keeps the big ISP boys from doing whatever the fuck they please.

>>1450304
>the big ISP boys from doing whatever the fuck they please.
You still didn't explain why they shouldn't be able to do whatever they want. You not liking it is not a good enough reason as no one is forcing you to buy it. If you don't like their product then figure out a different way to get on the internet and become your own personal ISP or something, but why should the government force ISPs to be at your mercy instead of simply figuring out a way to make as much money as possible?

File: a.png (108KB, 302x418px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 302x418px

>>1450296
The 'should' problem involves morality and cannot be answered in simple words. What determines something should be considered acceptable or not? A rule must be specified to determine the morality of actions.

On the topic of net neutrality:
Most people do not care and are not affected by this change. They will not find a difference if popular websites like Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, etc. are enabled by default since these are the only websites they use.

>then the ISPs who advertise and sell net neutrality will out compete the ISPs who aren't.
Please specify the 'sell net neutrality' here. Does it mean that the company sell full access package or it sticks to net neutrality philosophy?
Providing it is the first case, it will not happen. If one ISP offer lower price to users for browsing websites from basic packages (and much higher price for full access to compensate it), other ISPs will follow (if competition exists, which is not the case in some places in the US).

>>1450311
>You still didn't explain why they shouldn't be able to do whatever they want.

Oh my god, are you an ancap or something?

>become your own personal ISP

Of course you fucking are lmao.

>>1450319
>Providing it is the first case
*second case

The problem is that ISPs are granted monopolies by local governments so it's hard for competition to happen.
You'd think then that the solution is obvious: get more involved with local government.
Nah, it's easier to complain on the internet and want the feds to intervene because bloating the federal government even further is the best solution.

File: 1498940255624.jpg (27KB, 225x350px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 225x350px

>>1450319
>The 'should' problem involves morality and cannot be answered in simple words. What determines something should be considered acceptable or not? A rule must be specified to determine the morality of actions.
Morality doesn't exist. The only thing stopping ISPs from doing what they want is internet users rallying for the government to hold them back because they think the internet is some sort of human right.

>>1450342
Well due to the nature of politics and culture if a large group of people think the Internet is a human right and most of the rest of the people don't care then the Interenet will be thought of as a human right.

>>1450304
This! This is a prime example of capitalism and free market cuckery doing more harm than good. The price ideologically blinded clowns pay for putting ideology above pragmatism.

>>1450311
>You still didn't explain why they shouldn't be able to do whatever they want.
Because it's bad for the population/people/you, absolute faggot.

File: 1498852283545.jpg (78KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 960x720px

>>1450311
>You still didn't explain why they shouldn't be able to do whatever they want.

Because I'm part of the collective known as a "country" and it says in my country's constitution "that the power is derived from the people, for the people". That being the case, it's perfectly fine to expect the government to protect my interests and the interests of other individuals such as myself so we don't have to rely on the rather naive hope that "that the free market will fix it".

>>1450342

>morality doesn't exist

Sure it does, it's a set of rules a community agrees on which define what is "bad" and "good". Selling lead baby pacifiers and using unscrupulous anti-competitive practices to fuck over the consumer is generally looked down upon which is where the government is supposed to step in.

>>1450296
>If net neutrality is so good, then the ISPs who advertise and sell net neutrality will out compete the ISPs who aren't.
There is only one ISP in my area.

>>1450395
>Sure it does, it's a set of rules a community agrees on which define what is "bad" and "good".
That's not what morality is. Morality is an incoherent supernatural belief that some things have objective virtue and lack of.

>>1450401
>Morality is an incoherent supernatural belief

No, we have laws, and if you break them you will pay.

It's like you people think AT&T and Comcast made the internet all by their proprietary selves.

>>1450403
laws =/= morality

Morality is a religious concept and if you think it actually exist you're retarded.

Are you trying to play some sort of a game of devil's advocate? Genuinely do not understand how one wouldn't mind having their personal freedom strapped away for the name of capitalism

>>1450424
>Genuinely do not understand how one wouldn't mind having their personal freedom strapped away for the name of capitalism
Funny how you don't consider the ISP's personal freedom.

>>1450401
>That's not what morality is. Morality is an incoherent supernatural belief that some things have objective virtue and lack of

The most basic definition of morality is that it's a system of values and rules of conduct. You're conflating it with the idea of an universal morality.

>>1450428
They are already rich and powerful enough. If you want to let them oppress and dominate you, your choice. Don't drag me in with you.

netorare

File: akarishrug2.jpg (155KB, 447x364px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 447x364px

Morality- rules of right conduct concerning matters of greater importance. Violations of such can bring disturbance to individual conscience and social sanctions.

Law- rules which are enforced by society. Violations may bring a loss of or reduction in freedom and possessions.

>>1450438
The right solution is to become strong by yourself and aim to become the ruling class instead of having another entity to 'protect' you from them.

I love when Comcast makes me bend over for my monthly anal rape! Can't wait for more! I appreciate that their are no other choices so I have to bend over if I want internet!

>>1450430
Morality originates from religion and has to be objective. You're basically agreeing with me but still wanting to assert that morality exist somehow when it doesn't. There is no right and wrong, just your own interests vs. other's interest.

>>1450457
Laws are designed to maximize the citizen's agency. Morality on the other hand comes from religion and is to appeal to God.

>>1450457
>The right solution is to become strong by yourself and aim to become the ruling class instead of having another entity to 'protect' you from them.
I would agree with you if everyone was dealt the same deck in life. Besides, there are 7 billion people on earth, not everyone can be a winner. Are you saying those that aren't powerful shouldn't have anyone to protect them and it's okay for them to suffer?

>>1450480
>morality originates from religion

No it fucking doesn't. Well, a lot of western morality is derived from christianity, and morality has been traditionally enforced by organized religions, but morality isn't inherently a facet of religion.

> You're basically agreeing with me but still wanting to assert that morality exist somehow when it doesn't. There is no right and wrong, just your own interests vs. other's interest.

I'm just trying to point out the fact that just because something is a social construct doesn't mean it doesn't exist like you seem to imply.

jesus christ almighty this thread is poser city

>>1450493
Morality cannot be a social construct, it has to be objective (which is of course impossible, which is why I originally described it as incoherent). What you're describing is social preferences, and that is not morality.

Like I said, the world is personal interests vs. personal interests, there are no rules.

File: a.jpg (222KB, 688x720px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 688x720px

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

File: 1472157605575.jpg (62KB, 1425x77px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 1425x77px

>>1450503
You're wrong.

File: 1436715178000.gif (544KB, 500x436px) Image search: [Google]

544KB, 500x436px

>>1450503
How does it feel being so far up your own dogma that you can't even realize the blatant contradiction between being pro-competition and not believing in morality?

File: peterSingersBasement.jpg (301KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 1000x1000px

>>1450512
>or it can derive from from a standard that a person believes should be universal
Sounds like religion/rulecuckotry. A person who thinks like this is probably predisposed to being a religious person.

>>1450525
How does me being a moral nihilist mean I can't have preferences and likes?

File: 1380697092809.jpg (42KB, 479x720px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 479x720px

>>1450540
>moral nihilist

>>1450549
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism

Oh great, the libtards are pushing their net neutrality agenda again?

>>1450553
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism
>One form of moral nihilism is expressivism. Expressivism denies the principle that our moral judgments try and fail to describe the moral features, because expressivists believe when someone says something is immoral they are not saying it is right or wrong. Expressivists are not trying to speak the truth when making moral judgments; they are simply trying to express their feelings. "We are not making an effort to describe the way the world is. We are not trying to report on the moral features possessed by various actions, motives, or policies. Instead, we are venting our emotions, commanding others to act in certain ways, or revealing a plan of action. When we condemn torture, for instance, we are expressing our opposition to it, indicating our disgust at it, publicizing our reluctance to perform it, and strongly encouraging others not to go in for it. We can do all of these things without trying to say anything that is true."[1] p. 293.

>>1450579
Moral nihilist: 1 Rulecucks/Religion-lite: 0

Op has a point.i will no longer participate in any net neutrality movement.

>rulecucks

Go back there.

>>1450582
Philosophy is not a football game

>>1450583
OP is a Comcast shill and so are you

No I am the shill here. You guys are being genuine.

File: 1448285660579.jpg (71KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1280x720px

>>1450540
Because it predisposes you to being for whatever benefits yourself, rather than being for something which benefits multiple people including yourself. Ergo, it runs contrary to the idea of representative democracy - which is supposed to, by definition, represent the beliefs and protect the interests of multiple groups of people. Everyone has their biases, however, it really goes beyond what a bias is when you'd rather see the interests of a few people be satisfied instead of the interests of a plurality of peoples being realized.

Not to mention those two philosophies are ideological opposites and to subscribe to both just means you're just some kind of über-Pragmatic Machiavellian who's only pro-self interest. In other words, you're just a fascist.

>>1450588
Why is he a shill? If you don't like Comcast then switch to another provider.

>>1450416
No, nothing to do with religion. Stop being an idiot. If our society decides that something is wrong then that is our morality. If you would take off your fedora for a second then you would understand it.

>>1450591
>who's only pro-self interest.
Well duh. Everyone is.
>>1450596
See:
>>1450553
>>1450579

>>1450593
That's the problem, genius. Comcast, AT&T, and Time Warner all have virtual monopolies. That is, there is _no_ competition because only one service provider is ever available in a given area. Not to mention third-party local providers can't compete because they don't generate the revenue to be able to offer extremely low pricing.

>>1450607
>>>1450593 (You)
>That's the problem, genius. Comcast, AT&T, and Time Warner all have virtual monopolies. That is, there is _no_ competition because only one service provider is ever available in a given area. Not to mention third-party local providers can't compete because they don't generate the revenue to be able to offer extremely low pricing.
So just pay extra for the other providers, poorfag.

>>1450605
Keyword, only.

By and large, people will prioritize the interests of an entire group of people but be biased towards what benefits themselves. However, most people do not seek out what benefits themselves exclusively.

>>1450610
I don't think you understand the costs involved in laying down copper and fiber-optic lines. The only alternative to Charter, in my area is a fiber-optic-based ISP. Their lowest offering is in the several hundreds range, compared to the several tens which Charter offers. Ergo, there is no competition you absolute cuckold.

>>1450628
>However, most people do not seek out what benefits themselves exclusively.
Seems that way at first, but..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism

>>1450633
So because some people disagree with >>1450628 that means he's wrong, wikipedia scholar?

>>1450640
Psychological egoism is absolutely true though. It's undeniable.

File: 1450847440348.jpg (78KB, 550x550px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 550x550px

>>1450633
From the same article you linked:
>The helpful action is merely instrumental to these ultimately selfish goals.

Now, I mentioned " what benefits themselves exclusively.", did I not? Your pseudo-intellectualism proves nothing.

>>1450664
It seemed like you were arguing for a pure form of altruism though.

>>1450676
I literally said a few posts prior, "Everyone has their biases". If you thought otherwise, your just a fool.

>>1450593
>switch
Oh fucking great,do I just look in the magic market where those kikes don't try to fuck over innocent consumers?
There isn't,you absolute nitwit.No other choices but to let them screw you over,most job interviews re-fucking-quire some sort of online presence or account. No job? No internet. No internet? No job,simple as that.

>>1450686
Unfiltered internet is a privilege, not a turkey.

Tell me about americans, why do they like the corporate dick so much?

>>1450691
Because the ruling class has hammered it down for years that anything benefitting the common people at the expense of the rich is abhorrent.
Seriously, you can't even have a conversation with an American without them calling everything Socialism like it's a bad thing or starting to talk about how things like health care only benefit lazy people.

>>1450682
I'm not even sure what we disagree on. What exactly do you have against moral nihilism?

>>1450690
Please explain this idiomatic expression.

>>1450691
Because conservative ideology has bastardized the idea of fiscal responsibility to mean "deregulate all the things". Furthermore, they falsely equate the idea that corporate earnings positively correlate with a better standard of living. They also equate those earnings with the "health" of the economy, which typically means deregulating thereby exasperating existing market bubbles leading to financial crashes. What's more, most honestly believe that their financial hardship is the result of the economic liberalization, despite the fact that neo-conservative policies tend to be the result of their hardship which they themselves vote for.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy where conservatives blame their financial situation on policies they "vote" for.

>>1450697
I don't intrinsically have anything against moral nihilism other than it's implications, which in and of itself is contradictory to nihilism. Basically, I disagree with the notion that "because there is nothing inherently wrong with doing X, I'll do X despite the popular notion that X is wrong". What's more I plainly disagree with your apparent laissez-faire idea of capitalism, since not only does it not work, it only serves to negatively affect the consumer.

>>1450713
>Basically, I disagree with the notion that "because there is nothing inherently wrong with doing X, I'll do X despite the popular notion that X is wrong".
If you personally don't have a problem with X, why would you not do X just because someone else doesn't like X?

Shit like this makes me glad I don't live in Murrica. Enjoy the ISP cartel fucking you in the ass, peeps.

>>1450721
Because this isn't a matter of leaving the school bully free range to beat up kids after school. This is matter where the decisions you make will ultimately affect the lives of millions of people, and to treat this as as light a topic as you do is doing a disservice to the core ideals of republican democracy, whereby officials should strive to protect their interests of their constituency provided it isn't morally abhorrent or negatively affects the country in some way.

>>1450739
What does this have to do with moral nihilism? What are you even talking about?

File: 1450981735854.jpg (30KB, 457x381px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 457x381px

>>1450757
Honestly, you really are a pseudo-intellectual, you can't even extrapolate the consequences of the philosophies you claim to believe in let alone comprehend it when others *cough, cough* me *cough, cough* explain those implications to you. What's more you claim to believe in entirely contradictory philosophies; You cannot be inherently believe in fair market competition when you believe that morality does not exist.

Besides, what I'm saying has everything to do with moral nihilism as the topic you choose to make this thread about is inherently political, and from that it shouldn't be unexpected that someone might not only counter your ideas on philosophy, but also muse on it's political repercussions - which, might I add is the entire point of this thread as determined by the OP.

You truly are slothful.

File: m6yz9ktmFs1rnepbwo.gif (150KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 500x333px

>>1450775
Because larger corporations far exceed the spending power of local businesses and can thus outperform them in every regard. Bell was broken up because it could simply afford to buy up the competition, and the same was true for Standard Oil (the oil company which made the Rockefeller's as rich as they are). But, instead, today rather than buying up competition the major companies choose not to compete by not offering services in the same area, giving each a virtual monopoly on the industry, but a literal monopoly in each area they operate.

>>1450783
That's not an argument. I can tell you that I think that pixies and unicorns exist and that there's one behind you right this very instant, despite the fact that belief is absolutely false. Just because you "have preferences", doesn't mean you can dictate policies which may aversely affect millions of people.

>>1450770
I still personally value fairness even though I do not believe there is any real truth to the sentence "fairness is good".

File: m6yz9ktmFs1rnepbwo67.gif (217KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 500x500px

>>1450790
>I still personally value fairness
If that were the case, then there would be no reason for you to be against net neutrality as the concept itself values fairness above inequality. Your not a "moral nihilist", your just a sociopathic opportunist.

>>1450792
>your just a sociopathic opportunist.
He's actually just a teen who started reading philosophy pages on wikipedia.

>>1450792
How is it fair for the government to force practices on ISPs that causes them to make less money just because you want a higher quality internet?

>>1450799
Because ISPs force unfair practices on their customers to give them worse Internet.

Where did liberals even get the idea that ISPs are going to charge for streaming, gaming, etc. separately?

File: 1204030936518.jpg (14KB, 249x250px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 249x250px

>>1450794
That too.

>>1450799
Prove to me this instant net neutrality is making less money than if there was no net neutrality. I'll be waiting.

>>1450799
It isn't fair; it's better.

>>1450804
Internet that the customer isn't forced to buy. If you don't like the product then stop buying it. Why are you entitled to a neutral internet, and why should ISPs be forced to serve it to you?

>>1450812
The Internet is a fundamental tool in the modern era. If you're too stupid to understand this there's no point to arguing further.

File: Desu 143.png (233KB, 500x373px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 500x373px

>>1450806
It's not that they ever will but that it sets a legal precedent which would allow them to. Ergo, if tomorrow a court ruled that guro isn't art, anyone in possession of guro could either be forced to pay a fine or serve jail time until a higher court overruled this initial ruling.

>>1450812
We've (I've) been over this countless times, you bumbling idiot. For what alternative when none exist at a price any normal person could pay? Furthermore, if communication via mail and phone is deemed a human right (they are), why should the internet be treated as such too, especially when the UN has already labelled the internet as such.

>>1450807
>Prove to me this instant net neutrality is making less money than if there was no net neutrality.
If that's true, then what are you worried about? If they won't make more money by making deals with internet companies, then nothing much will change once the FFC change is made.

File: 1481961694240.png (579KB, 971x600px) Image search: [Google]

579KB, 971x600px

ctrl f: cuck
1 of 5 matches

>>1450822
Read the sticky on /pol/ and find out which logical fallacy you just broke. (Hint: you made the claim, not me)

>>1450820
>For what alternative when none exist at a price any normal person could pay?
I don't care.
>Furthermore, if communication via mail and phone is deemed a human right (they are), why should the internet be treated as such too, especially when the UN has already labelled the internet as such.
Human rights are memes. Phone services still cost money by the way.

Based spammer.

>>1450838
Marisa is... a squirrel?!!

>>1450818
All the ad hominem attacks against me in the world could end up being true and morality still would not exist.

File: 1482626743033.jpg (353KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

353KB, 640x480px

>>1450843
Marisa is many things

File: Desu 93.png (117KB, 274x257px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 274x257px

>>1450834
>I don't care.
Boohoo, I thought you "personally value fairness"?

>Human rights are memes.
Oh boy, a /pol/tard. I shouldn't have expected otherwise anyway. "To make an omelette, you've got to break a couple eggs", huh?

>Phone services still cost money by the way.
Phone services cost money, shipping mail costs money, watching TV costs money? You point is, genius?

>>1450863
>Boohoo, I thought you "personally value fairness"?
Since when does fair mean things should he cheaper simply because poor people can't afford it?
>Phone services cost money, shipping mail costs money, watching TV costs money? You point is, genius?
What was your point exactly? You seemed to think of the internet being a "human right" means you are entitled to a neutral internet?

>>1450888
>Since when does fair mean things should he cheaper simply because poor people can't afford it?
Higher prices vs. lower prices == lower prices >> high prices. If two companies are vying for a market by a races to the bottom in terms of the best services for the lowest prices, this satisfied your idea that the "freemarket always works itself out". But, can't happen when there already exist virtual monopolies within the industry. If there are monopolies, then your "freemarket" isn't going to do jack to fix it, which means there will never be fair competition and everyone gets screwed.

Comprendre?

>You seemed to think of the internet being a "human right" means you are entitled to a neutral internet?
Right, go to the post office and buy a stamp. Notice how they're all the same price for the weight of the package and class? Great. Now the obvious implication is that data on the internet be treated the same regardless of what being sent.

>>1450927
>which means there will never be fair competition and everyone gets screwed.
Fair to who exactly? If someone has a monopoly in an industry then tough shit.
>Notice how they're all the same price for the weight of the package and class? Great.
I can purchase faster shipping though.

File: top141-TRANSL.jpg (125KB, 548x800px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 548x800px

>>1450959
>If someone has a monopoly in an industry then tough shit.
So you're not pro-competition, then?
>I can purchase faster shipping though.
Did I not mention class?

The more you type, the more you seem like an pseudo-intellectual teenager trying to playing with the grownups. Too bad school is out, since we'll all have to deal with your ilk until September. Go outside and enjoy your summer, or at least read an actual thesis on philosophy or economics.