[12764] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: EFF and the big bad T (tax) word [same old stuff]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stanton McCandlish)
Sat May 28 05:00:25 1994
From: Stanton McCandlish <mech@eff.org>
To: bruce@phantom.com (Bruce Fancher)
Date: Fri, 27 May 1994 13:47:34 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: bruce@phantom.com, frezza@radiomail.net, djw@eff.org, com-priv@psi.com,
alt-politics-datahighway@cs.utexas.edu, freedom@phantom.com
In-Reply-To: <9405270024.AA00639@mailhost.phantom.com> from "Bruce Fancher" at May 26, 94 08:24:27 pm
>
> [Stanton McCandlish] has written:
And Bruce, et al., have failed to answer:
> |
> | > 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.
> |
> | This is an extreme generalization. I also believe it to be unsupportable.
> | I can falsify it easily. Let's take away the power of the supreme court
> | to rule that a law is unconstitutional. Let's also remove the power of
> | Congress to impeach. Do you think we'd have a better government then?
> |
>
> [stuff deleted]
>
> As I said before, Government exists to protect us from force and fraud.
> Neither of which has anything to do with the NII.
That is only one theory of government. Right or wrong, it is not the one
subscribed to by our goverment. I think it would be a lot better if it
was. But why is it so difficult to get across the message that *no matter
what anyone thinks or likes*, the govt. will regulate, and considers part
of its mission to regulate? No amount of wishful thinking is going to
change reality. EFF knows this, and we see regulation coming. We call
for specific and minized regulation that doesn't in any way hamper
existing non-monopoly providers, and which will force the monopolists out
into the open field of competition for the first time in 6 decades, while
heading off pre-emptive attempts to stick regulatory fingers in new pies.
> I refuse to accept that. There are already 20 to 30 million US citizens
> online through Compuserve, BBSes, Internet Providers, etc. This would
> not be the case if the Government had regulated it 10 or 15 years ago.
You just aren't listening.
-=> THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYONE BUT REGULATED MONOPOLY CARRIERS <=-
Not CIS, not BBSs, not NetCom, not the WELL.
Please re-read the above 2 lines of text at least 10 times.
> Even if regulation is inevitable, that doesn't change the fact that the
> regulation that the EFF advocates is seriously flawed and demonstrates a
> lack of understanding of not only market principles, but also of the
> technology involved.
See this paragraph again:
> | coming. You can see it from miles away. Given that, please show me
> | anyone advocating that the inevitable regulation be shaped in a way that
> | is better, and actually getting any kind of results.
Put your money where your mouth is. Unless and until you can provide a
workable, realistic and sure-to-be-implemented strategy, I don't feel the
need to defend EFF's position any further. You are just complaining, and
criticising with no basis and no better alternative. No offense meant, but
I can only call 'em as I see 'em. Show me your Better Way, show me that
is practical, and show me that it has a snowball's chance in hell of being
implemented.
> Point taken. We're all wasting too much time with this. I'll shut up
> until I can put up.
Good deal.
--
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
