[12719] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: EFF and the big bad T (tax) word [same old stuff]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bruce Fancher)
Fri May 27 02:26:08 1994
From: bruce@phantom.com (Bruce Fancher)
To: mech@eff.org (Stanton McCandlish)
Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 13:06:37 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: frezza@radiomail.net, djw@eff.org, com-priv@psi.com,
alt-politics-datahighway@cs.utexas.edu
In-Reply-To: <199405252239.SAA24996@eff.org> from "Stanton McCandlish" at May 25, 94 06:39:18 pm
[Stanton McCandlish] has written:
|
| > Oh so you want to help yourself to the general tax base in order to subsidize
| > your goals of info-equity. EVEYRBODY gets to pay. Fine. That answers
| > question 1). Now, answer questions 2) through 6) regarding how this money
| > is to be distributed, I believe they still apply.
|
| Again and again you misinterpret. How is implicitly supporting the
| sensible use of tax revenue *which will be spent on libraries and schools
| anyway* to fund future-net access for said schools and libraries, in any
| way equatable with "want[ing] to help [ourselves] to the general tax base
| in order to subsidize [our] goals"?
|
| 1) we don't want to help ourselves to anything. Please demonstrate how we
| would personally make use of any of said tax revenue.
| 2) we aren't advocating subsidy for our goals. We accept no government
| funding. We are advocating sensible subsidy of educational goals to get
| online.
|
| Clearing up these obfuscations, I think it's time for some quid pro quo:
| Bill, do you believe that funding schools and libraries from the general
| tax base is somehow bad? Can you suggest a realistic alternative? Can
| you answer this question without lapsing into a lot of fantasy-land
| rhetoric about how great life would be if we had a functional privatized
| school and library system, no taxes, and no government - that is, can you
| answer the question and proprose a viable alternative that is practical in
| current real life? Somehow I doubt you can. I'm sure you can tell us a
| grand vision that would work in a perfect world. But let's face it, a
| child can do that.
|
Whether or not a "fantasy-land" completely free of Government meddling is
achievable is not the point. Even if you can't eliminate Government
entirely, it's always better to reduce it than expand it.
The OP2.0 calls for a continous redefinition of what "Universal Access"
it. It also calls for the Government to interfere with private industry
to ensure thatt the NII is built "based on specific, enforceable
commitments that the electronic superhighways will meet public goals and
realize the potential of digital technology."
The only way this can happen is with a permanent bureaucracy (what other
kind is there?) to make these kinds of decisions.
"The emerging information infrastructure will affect our civilization as
deeply as did Gutenberg's printing press."
-OP2.0
It seems to me that the printing press did just fine without a bunch of
hand-wringers forming a committee to explore its democratic potential.
| Secondly, and charitably presuming you can actually do this, why aren't
| you doing it? Put your money where your mouth is. Start an organization,
| or better yet for the libertarian/objectivist camp, a corporation, to pull
| this off. You can't honestly believe that flaming away on usenet and
| mailing lists will actually change anything whatsoever or make any
| progress toward your goals. This is all a waste of time, and you know it.
|
Be careful what you wish for. You might just get it. <GRIN>
| > <If you showed any capacity or interest in engaging in a serious discussion,
| > I would answer you questions in detail>
| >
| > I am deadly serious. Are you?
|
| Somehow I don't believe this. I'm not even sure you believe this.
|
| --
| Stanton McCandlish * mech@eff.org * Electronic Frontier Found. OnlineActivist
| "In a Time/CNN poll of 1,000 Americans conducted last week by Yankelovich
| Partners, two-thirds said it was more important to protect the privacy of
| phone calls than to preserve the ability of police to conduct wiretaps.
| When informed about the Clipper Chip, 80% said they opposed it."
| - Philip Elmer-Dewitt, "Who Should Keep the Keys", TIME, Mar. 14 1994
|
