I'm enjoying this conversation/debate :) Feel free to email me, if the reply delays get too long.
1. All interventions in the market are social engineering, it may not be intentional, but subsidizing/taxing certain behaviors encourages/discourages them.
2. I'm all for getting fiber to every door step. I'm just disagreeing with the approach. There is no reason that individuals couldn't form a co-op, or some other nonprofit, or even for profit company together to provide their internet.
3. I'm going to disagree with the national defense thing on two points.
A. The government's sole purpose is defend your rights, national defense is defending your rights from foreign enemies.
B. The government has a monopoly on force (except for certain self-defensive purposes).
The community has a vested interest in infrastructure, but if you actually look at what goes on with it is ridiculous. The mass pike was supposed to have tolls removed years ago, but through all sorts tricks they manage to keep the tolls. The big dig, also in boston, cost Billions of dollars for a tiny tunnel.
So my final points:
1. Without competition and voluntary interaction we don't actually know what the value of something is -- high speed is important to some, while for others 56k is enough for them.
2. For almost anything people propose the government should do, a private nonprofit could be created to carry out the same task.
3. Organizations and nonprofits are more driven by results than politicsl they don't want to merely show that they're taking action.
4. Nonprofits/Foundations deal with many critical issues that most people don't realize/know about. For example, the Ford Foundation with regards to Russian studies & American foreign policy/defense.
5. It is very hard to compete against the government since they don't have to make a profit, can alter rules to their advantage, and lastly they don't pay taxes :)
I think you're making a case against government intervention in the market, and my argument is that government has a role in defining the market. It's a different concept.
As for government protecting rights -- right on. But this gets to whether you view connectivity as an arbitrary service or product or something else. I think the problem we have is that the old metaphors are not descriptive enough. Access to the computer, the internet, and the electric grid are extensions of my person, not external entities. Of course the amount that I have of these things are dependent on my actions, but access to them should not be.
That's not an argument in favor of the government regulating or providing anything, btw. the market can and should provide value based on need -- once I have free and open access.
Computers and connectivity are extensions of our brains, and should not be controlled, even passively, by government. By ensuring connectivity and processing ability, the government is actually getting out of the way of citizens performing their daily lives, not intruding in on them.
We see the same "bad metaphor" problem with Digital Rights Management. If you view the computer as some sort of super record player that folks plays songs on, then perhaps the government has a say in what happens there? (because it is somewhat of a performance) But if you view computers as an extension to people's brains, as they surely are becoming, then controlling what goes on seems silly at best and evil at worst.
You're making a very common mistake here. If the barrier to entry in a new market is prohibitively expensive then there is no free market, just a de facto monopoly. By having the local government own the infrastructure and then lease the lines to ISPs who provide actual service, you get competitive rates in service while anyone and everyone can use the common lines.
I think there might be a slight miscommunication on time scales. I don't believe that any monopoly, except those granted by the government, can maintain its status as a monopoly forever. I believe that in 10 - 15 years the monopoly will lose its grip on the market. It may still be a major player, but it won't be calling the shots. So there is a barrier to entry, eventually someone will enter the market; unless of course the monopoly is losing money or was subsidized by some other entity in which case those using it are getting a good deal -- it cost more than they spent.
1. All interventions in the market are social engineering, it may not be intentional, but subsidizing/taxing certain behaviors encourages/discourages them.
2. I'm all for getting fiber to every door step. I'm just disagreeing with the approach. There is no reason that individuals couldn't form a co-op, or some other nonprofit, or even for profit company together to provide their internet.
3. I'm going to disagree with the national defense thing on two points. A. The government's sole purpose is defend your rights, national defense is defending your rights from foreign enemies. B. The government has a monopoly on force (except for certain self-defensive purposes).
The community has a vested interest in infrastructure, but if you actually look at what goes on with it is ridiculous. The mass pike was supposed to have tolls removed years ago, but through all sorts tricks they manage to keep the tolls. The big dig, also in boston, cost Billions of dollars for a tiny tunnel.
So my final points: 1. Without competition and voluntary interaction we don't actually know what the value of something is -- high speed is important to some, while for others 56k is enough for them. 2. For almost anything people propose the government should do, a private nonprofit could be created to carry out the same task. 3. Organizations and nonprofits are more driven by results than politicsl they don't want to merely show that they're taking action. 4. Nonprofits/Foundations deal with many critical issues that most people don't realize/know about. For example, the Ford Foundation with regards to Russian studies & American foreign policy/defense. 5. It is very hard to compete against the government since they don't have to make a profit, can alter rules to their advantage, and lastly they don't pay taxes :)
I think I addressed your points above.