Badnarik answers questions from Slashdotters

[shanek]

For those of you who are still open-minded about all your options this November, Michael Badnarik fielded 15 top-rated questions from Slashdot users:

http://politics.slashdot.org/politics/04/09/20/1423219.shtml?tid=11&tid=219

 

[geni]

An impressive numeber of soft question an few non answers to some of the real ones. Still He did have a go in a few areas.

His case about nuclear weapons makes the asssumption that any country with them will become sane and stable and will remain that way. The examples he used were either run by people who had thier own servival as a highpriority or ones that were pretty stable before hand.

Deciding that history in the US goes in 70 year cycles based on 3 data points is not very logical.

His claim that people whould not use an internet provider that resticed access to sites is incorrect. People will consider many other factors besides free speach when choosing a connection.

 

[shanek]

An impressive numeber of soft question an few non answers to some of the real ones.

Which ones do you feel were non-answers? And I thought this was an impressive array of questions, not at all what the major media usually slings to the candidates.

His case about nuclear weapons makes the asssumption that any country with them will become sane and stable and will remain that way. The examples he used were either run by people who had thier own servival as a highpriority or ones that were pretty stable before hand.

I don't think you can say that Israel, Pakistan, and certainly not Iran were that stable or survival-oriented before they got nukes.

His claim that people whould not use an internet provider that resticed access to sites is incorrect. People will consider many other factors besides free speach when choosing a connection.

He didn't say anything close to that. He said that people who don't want their internet access restricted will simply use a provider that doesn't do that. It's not necessary for everyone or even most people to desire unrestricted access in order for this to happen. He's saying there will always be an option for those who desire freedom. And as recent history has proven beyond any doubt, he's absolutely right.

 

[geni]

Which ones do you feel were non-answers? And I thought this was an impressive array of questions, not at all what the major media usually slings to the candidates.

Intellectual Property. The soft questions were

How can we change the system so people have the choice between multiple candidates and not just two?

What are you views and hopes for privacy and security for the citizens of the internet age, and how do you proactively aim to safeguard and give back our rights that have been eroded away. (INDUCE act, PATRIOT act, et al)

I don't think you can say that Israel, Pakistan, and certainly not Iran were that stable or survival-oriented before they got nukes.

Iran doesn't have nukes yet. Israel has had a pretty high level of internal stability and is very much commited to it's own servival.
Pakistan does seem to filp flop in and out of democracry quite a lot but as the USSR showed the sytem rather than the government is far more important when it comes to stability.

He didn't say anything close to that. He said that people who don't want their internet access restricted will simply use a provider that doesn't do that. It's not necessary for everyone or even most people to desire unrestricted access in order for this to happen. He's saying there will always be an option for those who desire freedom. And as recent history has proven beyond any doubt, he's absolutely right. [/B]

In fact it hasn't. While running an internet servie provider is pretty simple and there are never going to be any shortage of those running a company that owns the lines of comunications is not. In a free market it would be quite posible for the companies who own these to make useage of them conditional on certian actions. BT already censor their net provider (all though considering the sites they are blocking acess to no one is complaining much). why not extent this regulation to the companies that chose to hire your lines.

 

[shanek]

Intellectual Property.

That wasn't a non-answer. "I haven't reached a conclusion yet" is a perfectly valid answer. What do you want him to do, take a position he doesn't (yet, at any rate) agree with just to get votes?

The soft questions were

How can we change the system so people have the choice between multiple candidates and not just two?

What are you views and hopes for privacy and security for the citizens of the internet age, and how do you proactively aim to safeguard and give back our rights that have been eroded away. (INDUCE act, PATRIOT act, et al)

It must be a matter of perception. I didn't see those as soft questions, and apparently neither did a lot of the Slashdot moderators (who will never be accused of being Libertarian shills). Of course, both of those issues are of important to Slashdotters.

In fact it hasn't. While running an internet servie provider is pretty simple and there are never going to be any shortage of those running a company that owns the lines of comunications is not.

But there's not much of a way the people owning the communications lines can enforce any kind of restrictions against content, and even if they were stupid enough to do so, they would rapidly lose business to the ones that didn't. This is a non-issue.

Besides, the coming prevalence of wireless communications is making this model obsolete anyway.

BT already censor their net provider

BT is a government monopoly, not a free market corporation.

 

[geni]

BT is a government monopoly, not a free market corporation.

BT was sold of years ago. It's been a no goverment comapny for years

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

For those of you who are still open-minded about all your options this November, Michael Badnarik fielded 15 top-rated questions from Slashdot users:

http://politics.slashdot.org/politics/04/09/20/1423219.shtml?tid=11&tid=219

Darn. I was hoping someone would have asked him why he actually believed that Hawaii had seceeded from the union.

I did notice this tidbit:

The real proliferation problem is the possibility that terrorists will acquire nuclear weapons.

So does he not think that if American citizens are allowed to carry personal nukes (which he supports) that that would constitute a "real proliferation problem"?

Maybe those were "top rated questions" #16 & 17?

 

[geni]

But there's not much of a way the people owning the communications lines can enforce any kind of restrictions against content, and even if they were stupid enough to do so, they would rapidly lose business to the ones that didn't. This is a non-issue.

Yes there. the companies that own the lines say to companies that if you use our lines you will have to not tranmit certian types of information. Last I check most countries had only one network of telephone lines so you are a bit stuck. Sure there are exceptions (bt doen't own all the lines in the UK for example) but if you want unversal coverage you are going to have to go through the big companies.

As for wireless when is the wireless equiverlant of the transatlantic lines due to arrive?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

BT is a government monopoly, not a free market corporation.

False.

 

[shanek]

BT was sold of years ago. It's been a no goverment comapny for years

I stand corrected. Is it still a monopoly?

 

[shanek]

Yes there. the companies that own the lines say to companies that if you use our lines you will have to not tranmit certian types of information. Last I check most countries had only one network of telephone lines

due to government monopolies. You're making Badnarik's point for him.

As for wireless when is the wireless equiverlant of the transatlantic lines due to arrive?

Um, they've been there. They're called "satellites."

 

[LW]

due to government monopolies. You're making Badnarik's point for him.

And given that those monopolies exist now, how exactly will they go away in libertarian paradise?

 

[geni]

I stand corrected. Is it still a monopoly?

Technicaly it never was (for example it's posible I'm not using it's lines now I don't think youu'll like what I am using though http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JANET).

It is the organisation with pretty much universal landline coverage in the uk. Other companies do have their own sets of lines but nowhere near as extensivly.

 

[geni]

Um, they've been there. They're called "satellites."

cost a fortune and don't provide the same bandwith.

 

[shanek]

And given that those monopolies exist now, how exactly will they go away in libertarian paradise?

The monopolies exist now because of the government. That's the only way monopolies can exist.

 

[shanek]

Technicaly it never was (for example it's posible I'm not using it's lines now I don't think youu'll like what I am using though http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JANET).

Let me put it this way: Is there any way you can use the telephone service and not pay a dime to BT, either directly or indirectly?

 

[shanek]

cost a fortune and don't provide the same bandwith.

They're faster than the transoceanic cable. Of course, CPIP is probably faster than the transoceanic cable...

 

[LW]

The monopolies exist now because of the government. That's the only way monopolies can exist.

So, if one day all monopolies are simply revoked, new alternatives will spring out like mushrooms after an autumn rain.

I don't think it works that way. See, the companies that now have the monopolies would still control the market and in some areas it would be extremely difficult for new companies to take even a small share of the business. In practice, you would get all the cons of a monopoly without any regulation to keep it in reins.

Since you won't believe me in this, I'll give a practical example: in Finland the railroads are owned and operated by a governmentally owned company Valtion Rautatiet (VR). It is a government sponsored monopoly. Now, if one day the monopoly was revoked, VR privatized, and every company allowed to practice rail traffic, what would change?

Well, nothing. Since VR owns the railways it would be impossible for a competitor to offer cheaper transportation as VR could charge them whatever it wanted for rail usage. Building a new railroad network would be insanely expensive and take at least several decades to complete. One main problem would be routing the new tracks through existing towns: there simply is no vacant space on the surface and tunneling is extremely expensive. If the tracks were laid into vacant places, then there would be no customers and no profits.

So, I rephrase my question: Given that we currently have companies that have monopolies in infrastructure-heavy business areas, is there any reason to suppose that they will not continue to be de-facto monopolies in the libertarian paradise?

 

[geni]

Let me put it this way: Is there any way you can use the telephone service and not pay a dime to BT, either directly or indirectly?

Irdium mobile? internal phone call in hull (where bt do not own the lines don't ask me why). Mobile phone within one network. Other than that your pretty much stuck with bt

 

[Rob Lister]

Well, nothing. Since VR owns the railways it would be impossible for a competitor to offer cheaper transportation as VR could charge them whatever it wanted for rail usage. Building a new railroad network would be insanely expensive and take at least several decades to complete. One main problem would be routing the new tracks through existing towns: there simply is no vacant space on the surface and tunneling is extremely expensive. If the tracks were laid into vacant places, then there would be no customers and no profits.

Just a quibble but I think you picked a very bad example. On another point, your last sentence within the example is probably, if not decidedly, incorrect. If tracks were laid into vacant places then those places would not long remain vacant. You don't appear to be from the U.S. but there are probably examples in your region as well: An excellent example of this can be seen at any out-of-the-way interstate interchange or off-ramp. Whole comunities spring up around them. Another historic example is that of the original transcontential railroad. Huge cities grew along the routes. The same can be said for any major river. The system has huge feedback.