Capitalism

Two faces of Michael Powell

This entry was posted in Capitalism Constitution Domestic Terrorism Economics Federal Government Internet Regulation Technology on by

Yesterday Michael Powell said the following (PDF) in remarks opening a forum on Voice over IP:

As one who believes unflinchingly in maintaining an Internet free from government regulation, I believe that IP-based services such as VOIP should evolve in a regulation-free zone.
No regulator, either federal or state, should tread into this area without an absolutely compelling justification for doing so.

This is the same guy that recently supported the implementation of the broadcast flag and willingly accepts it as his duty to use regulation to push the implementation of HDTV which may be nifty high quality but, nevertheless, should be left to find its own way in the market. We will either embrace it or ignore it.
Something that could bring the development of VoIP to a grinding halt is this push (requires free registration) by the FBI and the Justice Department to have the FCC assure that they will be able to eavesdrop on our VoIP calls:

The FBI and Justice Department want the FCC to classify Internet-based telephony as a traditional telecommunications service, which would subject it to federal laws requiring carriers or software companies “to develop intercept solutions for lawful electronic surveillance.”

It is time to just say no to these folks.
Via beSpacific here and here.
Update (12/3): For more on the FCC’s VoIP forum see The Knowledge Problem.

Immigration Failure

This entry was posted in Capitalism Drug Laws Economics Immigration US Politics on by

Current immigration law and enforcement appear to be an utter failure. Jeanne D’Arc points out that:

Between 1994 and 2002, we spent $20 billion militarizing our southern border and trying to keep out or send back immigrants, and it’s hard to see that as anything but a complete waste of money.

and looks at an alternative approach to discussing the issue:

I wondered if maybe there was another way to frame the issue: Should we continue to pour massive ammounts of money into a policy that clearly doesn’t work (and also kills people)? Should we give up? Or should we spend that money in ways that will improve life for people in Mexico so that they aren’t forced to come here to work? What good could we do with $20 billion over the next eight years?

Perhaps money will talk. This same approach is starting to make inroads against the drug wars.

Patriot Act in Action?

This entry was posted in Capitalism Constitution Domestic Terrorism Drug Laws Libertarianism Patriot Act on by

Looks like the feds are using the Patriot Act to watch and evaluate you in many ways:

When Rebecca Foster offered to serve on the board of her homeowners association, she figured the biggest sacrifice involved her time.
But because of the requirements of the Patriot Act, the Las Vegas resident feels her volunteerism could come with a steeper price — her privacy.
Foster first became perturbed two months ago when her association’s new bank sent each board member a letter. Community Association Banc, a division of First National Bank of Nevada, had requested the dates of birth and Social Security and driver’s license numbers for any board members with check-signing privileges on the account.
The personal information was necessary, the bank said in the Aug. 27 letter, “to look for any derogatory banking information” and “to check them against the government’s terrorist list.”

Just say no and use cash.
Via Hit and Run.

Taking Tests

This entry was posted in Capitalism Domestic Terrorism Education Libertarianism on by

Kevin White at Catallarchy is learning the basics of test taking:

Today we had an exam. This was very easy, once I accepted that the professor thinks a “certain way” and expects the highly subjective questions to be answered from that perspective.
This one caught my eye:

True or False: Business leaders have an obligation to see that everyone, particularly those in need, benefit from their firms’ actions.

The answer, in the real world, is so obviously False that it hardly bears discussion. However, within the class, the answer is so obviously True that one scarcely has to stop to consider it.

The basic lesson here applies both inside and outside the classroom. To be successful, and sometimes to survive, you need to understand the perspective of the professor or perhaps the inquisitor. Of course, that does not mean you have to agree with their perspective.