| Newsgroups |
gmane.org.telecom.india-gii |
| Message-ID |
<[email protected]> |
To those who think of network neutrality as
means to achieve social justice or equality, I have two answers here : A
short answer and A long answer:
First the Short Answer:
Why people are wrong in supporting Net Neutrality, the idea that network
owners
do not have right to use consumption of bandwidth as a basis to
discriminate between customers, whether paying or non-paying?
Network Rationing or Network Management is a natural right of
network owners and they do it all the time:
Moral Issue:
I have a lot of respect for a people who use PERSONAL (not other peoples
) money, time, and
resources to fight for justice and equality. But, I cannot see how a
morally
sound and conscientious person can demand government to forcibly transfer
money and opportunity from one group of people to another by taxing,
legislating, and outlawing natural rights (like speech) of the people.
Government is a part of the problem, it breeds corruption:
Socialist/Welfare/Equality policies create corruption in government by
attracting special interest and voting blocks. Pretty soon the rich and
politically connected groups take control of the system to transfer of
wealth
from middle class to rest. Some people call it crony capitalism. Rich and
powerful benefit by shifting the risks and costs on taxpayers, keeping the
larger share of opportunities (favorable contracts, appointments,
regulation, legislation, govt spending etc. ) and profits to themselves.
The middle class
suffers silently.
LONG ANSWER:
More broader treatment of the subject of the desire of Social Justice
and government.
Vilified as a "Robber Barron" by the American Leftists of his time, Jason
Gould was a visionary who had pulse on the mind of the the "working class"
and "social-justice-n-equality" people. He quite prophetically said more
than 150 years ago, I guess, in a response to some strike by his workers.
"I can hire one half of the working class people to kill the other half."
Well, Jason Gould did not mean to really kill the workers. Why would he
want his workers to perish ? Industries need workers in abundant supply to
keep the factories and business running. Thanks to the American Companies,
the workers have been in need all the time. The workers were needed 500
years ago, they are needed today. Only the names have changed. It was then
called Slavery. These days it is called H1-B visa or some other name.
If and when the America
decides to give legal status to millions of people illegally in this
country, it will be called Amnesty of illegals. And these workers (the
illegal ones) do not want to go to back to their home countries. To the
illegals, it is far better to be an illegal person in America. They are
getting pretty much everything that they cannot get in their home
countries. The only additional thing they will get from legalization is
the
ability to come back into this country after going out to see friends and
family back home. At the end of the day it is about the economy. It is an
secret that everyone knows.
Ever wondered why the communist and the socialists have not been able to
achieve the unity of working class they have been dreaming of for centuries?
Why is workers unity a mirage?
The amount of hatred that goes around among the working class people is
more than amount of hatred between the rich and the working class.
Actually, I would say quite a large of workers are quite loyal to their
employers. I have personally experienced several situations where a rich
person trusts his servant or worker more than he trusts some of his family
members.
In a short one line statement, Jason elegantly explained how the "Social
Justice Industry" works all the world over and underscored the
existence of
"Battered Woman Syndrome" among the working class people towards the rich.
If slavery was such a bad thing, why did slavery take thousands of years to
end? The answer is simple. Slavery worked for quite a large number of
people. Slaves had a better life inside slavery than outside. Slavery
provided them with food, shelter, and protection, and an identity. Slaves
were precious to their masters.
I do not have a strong position for or against slavery and I bring this
only
to express my strong dislike for the people who distort reality out of
ignorance.
The social justice industry:
In the social justice industry many players operate independently to
support
one another towards the goal of producing a common product -- the
perception
of social justice and equality. Millions of people receive subsistence from
social justice industry. Ultra rich people invest billions of dollars to
fund and sustain leftist causes. Are they fools? I do not think so. And
believe me or not, one of the largest export to the world from America
lately
have been leftist Ideas - Net Neutrality, Income inequality, Global
Warming, Peak Oil, Over Population (Indian people love Two children
Theory),
Solar/Wind Energy etc., even though sometimes these exports cause a
friction, particularly when the leftist cultural ideas, like feminism, rub
the social values of conservative and traditional people overseas.
American
companies benefit from having leftist government overseas. If you do not
believe me, ask Apple Inc., or GE, the darlings of American left.
Leftist ideas start from the cries of inadequate and deficient people. In
adequacy is a part of personality. A person can be very successful and
still
feel inadequate. To them world is inherently unjust and fundamentally
unfair. Suffering from a victim-hood and not happy with their plight, they
live a discontent life. The bitterness turns into envy. They attract
attention of genuinely compassionate and merciful people, some of whom
leave
them soon after they are able to see through their cause and demands. But,
quite of few stick with them (leftists), possibly because they (the
sympathizers) agree that the world natural order is fundamentally
unfair and
unjust. Over time, group of this kind of people grow big enough to become a
force in the society. Guess what happens when a group of people grows big
enough in numbers to make a political and economic difference? It attracts
politics and it attracts money. Lure of votes, attracts politicians, and
lure
of profits from this group of people attracts business. Big money and big
politics come together to bring information handlers into the system.
Information handlers, the media and the academics becomes part of the game.
This is why I have so little respect for the information handlers, the
journalists and the humanities and arts teachers, who only go to school to
collect salary on the pay day. Have you seen many competent person joining
journalism or teaching? Anyway, the partly lasts till it lasts. Pretty
soon
the inadequate people realize that the politicians and the big money have
been taking them for ride.
A new revolution starts. Names change, players change, but the game
remains
the same, and the tricks remain the same. Over the last 100 years, the
governments has grown big and taken over the duties and responsibilities
that
the slave masters were once morally and socially obligated towards their
workers and slaves. Put differently, the big money and the slave masters
have
outsourced (and shifted costs) to government what were once their
responsibilities.
If Jason Gould were to come alive today, probably he would say this:
I will hire one half of the social-justice-warriors to kill the other half.
Sincerely,
Ratnendra Pandey
On 1/4/2016 11:33 PM, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote:
>
> Plus these aren't real efficiencies. Slavery, monopoly, colonialism
> are all examples of paying one's way by reaching into somebody else's
> pocket. Sure it's efficient to own everything and charge what one
> pleases but it's illegal.
>
> I also see the argument initially was monopolies aren't to be feared
> because they eventually end, and now it's morphed into them being
> efficient. Shifting sands...
>
> I think the list has had enough of this.
>
> On 05-Jan-2016 12:51, "Atanu Garai" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Srini RamaKrishnan
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> If social justice is dispensed with, a lot of efficiencies are
> possible. This efficiency metric was the defense of the cotton
> farmers in the American South to hold onto slaves, and the
> British and other colonial empires' to subjugate their colonies.
>
> Social justice isn't a bad thing as you seem to believe. I
> feel there's a hidden position you are protecting, hence the
> sharp agenda you are advancing. Obviously then, nothing I say
> will convince you otherwise. I will refrain from engaging
> more, except to say the breakup of the Bells happened in 1982,
> and had nothing to do with the telecom act of 1996.
>
> https
> <http://www.financialexpress.com/article/industry/companies/telcos-to-oppose-ban-on-differential-data-tariffs/186754/>://
> <http://www.financialexpress.com/article/industry/companies/telcos-to-oppose-ban-on-differential-data-tariffs/186754/>en.wikipedia.org
> <http://www.financialexpress.com/article/industry/companies/telcos-to-oppose-ban-on-differential-data-tariffs/186754/>/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System
> <http://www.financialexpress.com/article/industry/companies/telcos-to-oppose-ban-on-differential-data-tariffs/186754/>
>
> This talk of inefficiency in social and public sector programs
> assumes somehow private/ corporate sector is more efficient. Which
> aspects of private sector are more efficient? For one example you
> can give, there are thousands of exceptions. If we are keen to
> consider social sector programs only by RoI, they make excellent
> value proposition. Institutes of technology where India made some
> investment of tax payer's money fifty years ago had given
> excellent return today. Only such ROI happens after a much longer
> period.
>
> --
> Atanu Garai
>
_______________________________________________
India-gii mailing list
India-gii-IAPFreCvJWP2/[email protected]
https://lists.india-gii.org/mailman/listinfo/india-gii