Ideologies

Laws, rules, and other processes for governing behavior and thought, in order to be consistent (required for them to be logical) must go from general to specific.

That is:
First, lay out [general] conditions and definitions:
eg.

Murder is defined as the premeditated killing of a human being
premeditated is defined as …
killing is defined as …
human is defined as …

Then move to consequences / moral statements

eg.

Murder is morally wrong because to believe that murder is right introduces inherent contradictions as outlined by Stephan Molyneaux in his work … (visit freedomainradio.com for a rational secular morality)
The consequences for murder should be sanctions upon the murderer as outlined in such and such penal code

Enforcing this generalized system means that individual cases are first evaluated on whether the cause is correct, and then on what action must be taken.
For example:

Imagine a rule that says:
“All organizations that enforce racial or religious discrimination are barred from receiving federal money from the United States of America.”
Many people would nominally agree with this rule, but it’s irrelevant for this discussion whether one does.
Accept for the moment that such a rule exists, and subsequent definitions for organization, discrimination, recieving, and federal money.
If such a rule existed, we might apply a line of reasoning like the following:

The KKK is an organization.  [Check the definition of organization - any useful definition would probably cover the KKK]
The KKK enforces racial and/or religious discrimination.  [I guess we'd have to check the definition of enforce, as well as historical actions taken by the KKK]
Therefore the KKK must be barred from receiving federal money from the USA.

not an unreasonable result… Lets try another one:

Nations are organizations of people.  [we'd have to check the definition of organization above to be sure, but this is not unreasonable]
Israel is a nation. [It claims it is... and there are a lot of nations in the middle east whose leaders and people wish it wasn't]
Israel enforces religious discrimination.  [It's proud of the fact that any Jew can become a citizen, but other religions are not equally protected]
Israel is _therefore_ an organization that enforces religious discrimination.
Israel, therefore, is barred from receiving federal money from the United States of America.

This line of reasoning could of course be used to block federal money from being sent to any huge number of intolerant states.

Okay.  What’s the problem?  Why am I bothering to address this issue?
Many people put the cart before the horse in many situations like this.  Rather than first laying out rules and systems (an ideology) for who or what is worthy of support (engineering practices, nations, laws, etc.), people instead put their support behind whatever is personally convenient, and then try to form an ideology behind that.

This would lead to self contradictory ideologies, if people were okay with that.  Unfortunately, people justifiably have an aversion to self contradiction and instead start inserting implied ‘except for’ clauses into their rulesets.  The ultimate ‘except for’ clause is god, of course, but many have ‘except for’ clauses that basically say ‘except for when that would cause me personal inconvenience or would imply that I’m a hypocrite.’
These convoluted, changing, and often self-contradictory ideologies get names slapped on them like conservatism, liberalism, marxism, libertarianism, socialism, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

A side effect is that these ad-hoc ideologies become so convoluted that experts can and do argue about the relative merits of all these ideologies without arriving at any conclusions… Which makes great TV.

The complete obfuscation allows anyone to apply pretty much whatever label they feel like to themselves without even realizing they’re advocating a hypocritical position.

Are there ideologies that are consistent out there?

Probably.  There are a few that I’ve seen that seem internally and externally consistent.  Their primary feature is a lack of support for any sort of institutionalized coercive mechanism.

Net Neutrality – A Dialog (Part 3)

Nato: if you do some analysis on the market

and you say that the lost traffic and revenue

amount to about 3 billion dollars a year

(say)

then you can afford to spend (say) 2 billion dollars on setting up a new net-neutral network

and still make a billion in profit

annually

your first year

or you could spend 5 billion

and make no money your first year

and make a billion your second year

either way

if there is a market like that

where net-neutral traffic is better than non-neutral traffic

there is a lot of money to be made

and the US is full of investors

and network techs

and visionaries.

Jason: see you gotta look from the other half of the market… let’s say you know you’ll lose 3 billion in traffic if your tier works way X… and you know someone can set up a network for that… then you set up your tier to work way Y which only loses 1 billion which is not sustainable.

then you get to keep the money from your tiering… prevent others from coming to market… and all your users get a sucker internet

but you’ve saved the bottom line… good going machiavelli

that’s what I mean… average amount of shit… corporations aren’t stupid they just have to make sure not to push it too far… but they’ll still push as far as they can… which you say is good

I think it’s bad

Nato: if your tiering only costs you a billion

then you’re pretty good at meeting the demands of the market

but wouldn’t a more efficient solution be to create a tiering that costs you zero?

Jason: nope because you make money for teiring

any little bit you can do makes you money

so there’s a balance…

Nato: okay… but it’s on the margin

right

there is a balance

Jason: how much tiering can you do

Nato: if there’s only a hundred million to be made a year

then that means that you’re really not obstructing traffic much

and that means that any solutions

will necessarily be smaller

patches

the market will solve the problem

but larger problems

attract larger solutions

smaller problems will attract smaller solutions

if there’s a million bucks to be made there

then someone is going to want that money

Jason: the market will create a minimal solution… I want something closer to maximal solution

Nato: it is damn hard to create a company that meets customer needs

think about how much work we’re talking about doing on dendrite

to make it so it’ll actually meet the needs of the customers

then imagine throwing away some big chunk of that

to our competitors

by dropping functionality

we’re capitalists

we’re trying to make a solution that captures the maximum market share

with the minimum of expense

it’s a trade.

we’ll have less functionality initially

sure

but if we don’t pick up the ball

somone else will

the same way that we’re picking up the ball that others have dropped

Jason: your analogy isn’t complex enough… there are two markets

the selling internet… and selling access to other’s sites

you need to find what will get you the most amount of money

that’s what your maximizing.

to make money on the “site access” side you have to create a tier

you have to have a way to get money from them

Nato: that’s one solution

Jason: doing that will make your other market a little more sad

but not enough to offset the net gain

Nato: is there another solution?

if we can find another solution

that doesn’t upset our current customers

then we get to have our cake and eat it too

Jason: there is no other market solution… the market goes to the average right look at a supply and demand curve… the average is where you go

Nato: I’m not talking about a market solution

Jason: there’s no other optimal solution… for making money

Nato: I’m talking about a technological solution

some way for traffic to get from point A to point B

without intervening point C

having to absorb any of the costs

of transport

Jason: dude even if there was it works out the same… setting up the transport will cost something… and that’s where it starts

then you want more… because your optimizing money not happienes

so you tier

and then we’re back where we started

Nato: the problem is

that right now we’re in a prisoners dillema

as long as everyone just absorbs those costs

then we’re all happy

but as soon as someone decides that they don’t want to absorb the costs

then they get the benefit

to the detriment to everyone else

so our current system is inherently unstable.

Jason: nah.. it’s easily balanced using market forces

the market just sucks

Nato: is it?

Jason: yeah… they found a new market

and they’re gonna capitalize on it

Nato: what do you mean?

what new market?

Jason: that market has negative pressure on their other market

the one for providing access to sites

Nato: I’m totally confused

Jason: that market is new

because before the internet was neutral

you couldn’t control the packets (because you couldn’t read them)

technology has advanced so that you can

Nato: ah

Jason: so there’s a new market… that has negative pressure on an old market, but the new market is more profitable so…

Nato: well

Jason: there will be a shifting… making a shittier market for us

Nato: it may be profitable in the short term

yeah

Jason: my point is in that way the market sucks

Nato: well

a market exists

it sucks that the only apparent resolution is a solution that costs us all

but it will mean that those people who cause internet congestion

will be the ones who bear the costs

Jason: but that’s common… that markets cost us all… look at the automobile market… it’s not in their interest to put out EVs so they won’t

costing everyone

Nato: spammers who send out billions of emails

will suddenly find themselves hammered with bills

or their spam won’t get delivered

Jason: no way… spammers use other people’s internet

people will just get better at policing their networks

Nato: those people will certainly have an incentive to lock it down then wont they

yeah

Jason: which will lessen slightly but deffinitely not stop spam

Nato: well

there’s a tipping point

I’d wager

where once it gets to be too hard to hack the network

and the spam filters get too good

then the costs associated with spamming

get higher than the financial reqards.

for more and more spammers.

Of course it’ll be on the margin

and there will always be unwanted emails

but this will actually cause spam quantities to drop.

(non neutral networks, I mean)

not to mention viruses

and other crap traffic

Jason: yeah… who really cares about all that other legitimate traffic ;) j/k

Nato: Is the hardware that reads packets any more expensive than the other hardware?

I imagine it costs something more

maybe 10%?

Jason: nah… it’s the software only and that’s a one time expense

Nato: aha!

I figured it out

okay:

the actual costs of operating the networks are not getting any higher

so if they start charging for throughput…

tiered services…

they’ll find that they have to drop their hosting and service prices

your regular dsl service will get cheaper

and your hosting fees will get cheaper

because the costs that were previously being borne by those services

are instead actually going to be borne by the agents causing them.

and competition will take care of the rest.

Jason: ahh… then it turns into a healthcare problem

right now I’m willing to pay extra so that we can get a large swath of content

but if we go to individual paying that large swath will disappear… just like healthcare, because people won’t pay for other people

I see it now

huh.. I wasn’t on this side during the healtcare debate

it’s different… gives me another perspective

Nato: it suddenly actually makes network providing a much more sophisticated complicated system

adds another variable into the pricing mix.

lets them drop prices on certain services to attract new customers

Jason: I still don’t want it to happen… but I see why you advocate it… I’m forcing everybody to pay for the crapton of content

instead only rich (as in full of money) content will be available… just like with healthcare only the rich can get it

or the average I guess you’d say

cause that’s where the market goes… to the average…

Nato: I’d disagree, but that’s for another chat, I think.

Net Neutrality – A Dialog (Part 2)

Nato: if that happens

they are destroying the reason that people visit the internet

they are killing their customers

Jason: just making it less useful

not killing them

and they won’t complain loud enough

Nato: the reason people visit the internet is because its infinitely useful

that’s why companies get internet connections for their employees

Jason: bull! They’ll visit it if it’s only a little useful, and you know it.

Nato: that’s why people buy DSL

it’s all on the margin

Jason: yeah… about all those websites with information

they’ll have to go

or finda way to make you pay for info

because they can’t just leave out to broadcast

what I am saying is you’ll get the internet version of microsoft’s product

Nato: if there are costs, it is immoral to force someone to bear those costs.

it might be the case that the internet will suck more.

but I think a lot of people will want it to not suck

and therefore there are huge incentives to figure out how to make it keep working.

Jason: there’s no alternative so people will just take it

if you buy a car you have to buy gas for it to be useful

that’s a cost that you shouldn’t have to pay to use your system

so by your logic it’s immorral for car companies to sell cars

Nato: what?

Nonsense.

Jason: find me the difference

Nato: if you buy a car…

car companies are selling a transportation solution

if you want to use it

it is known beforehand that you have to buy gas

Jason: you know there is a cost to using it… fuel… the companies know there is a cost to providing internet

Nato: it would be immoral to force car companies to buy gas for all their cosutmoers

Jason: that you have to provide it

ok… if that’s what you feel that’s up to you… the internet is a useful resource… and allowing tiered internet… will make it minimally useful

Nato: the companies own equipment… that equipment costs money to maintain.

Jason: that’s what corporations are good at… making the minimal usefulness

and if you’re cool with that… good

they get payed in subscribers

Nato: take a breath dude

I am

I think we’re both getting worked up.

Jason: dude… you are telling me you want to make the internet less useful… how is that better than now

Nato: It’s more moral

it’s like slavery.

slavery is really usefull

Jason: that’s bull… they know what they are getting into to run the network

Nato: it is immoral to force someone to provide for free a service that costs them money.

the fact that they did so for so long

is irrelevant

I’d love it if they kept doing it

but it’s immoral to force them to.

hopefully what will happen

is that small networks will spring up all over the place

that are free

and open source

wireless mesh networks

things like that

that provide an alternative to the corporo-fascists telcos

Jason: you can’t pass the traffic that way… you’ll only be able to get to local areas

it’s like what would probably have happened if america didn’t build roadways

Nato: the nice thing about IP is that it scales up

lots of mesh networks make big networks

Jason: we’d only have local traffic

Nato: well

if our local mesh network were disconnected from any other networks

that would be true

but if someone sets up a link to another network

then we’d be connected to them

that’s how networks work

Jason: yeah… along that person’s link

what incentive do they have to do that?

getting paid??

it’s either that… or just to be nice

Nato: you want to have as many links as possible

dude

it’s a mesh network

lots of people like you would set ‘em up

and me

and joel

Nato: and everyone who is for net neutrality legislation

Jason: yeah but if your system is the only one along a certain node… all traffic passes through you

making it so you can’t get out anywhere

like a one lane road that you set up out of the kindness of your heart

Nato: if you’re the only node at that point

and there’s congestion

then there’s a lot of incentive to set up another link

it’s a fricking network

don’t pretend you don’t know how networks work

Jason: incentive?

what incentive

you keep saying that word

Nato: everyone on that network wants more access

right?

that link is clogged

so if someone opens up another link

then their neghbors will make them pies

and throw a party

or whatever the hell it is

that people do to express their gratitude at being granted something they want

the main thing is

Jason: you’re forgetting we’re born into entitlement here… you and I might express gratitude (maybe) but I don’t think it would be widespread

Nato: that’s fine

then the person charges access

to everyone who didn’t send them a thank you note

whatever

the point is

that it’s immoral to force someone to provide something for free

and that emergent systems are more capable than top down solutions

almost always

Jason: it was emergent… until corporations wanted their piece of it.

early on the links were set up by universities who wanted access

Nato: well hell!

current universities would still provide access for free, right?

Jason: what’s to stop that from happening again… and every time everyone loses access

it will seriously take many years for access to work through again because it has to use a different channel

Nato: here’s what happens:

the emergent network is more popular than the corporate network

and the corporation goes out of business

or changes their business model

Jason: like microsoft… but that’s taking for fucking ever

Nato: but few future companies will make the same mistakes microsoft did

all we can do is speed things up

make the emergent netoworks more powerful NOW

rather than later

so that when

inevitably

the corporo-fascists

get their way

we’ve already got an alternative

and they’re irrelevant

but legislating it

is a temporary solution

at best

and an immoral one.

if anything

it will accelerate the confluence of corporate and governmental power

because suddenly

the government has decided it can legislate in a domain

that it has ’till now left relatively untouched

Jason: ok… I see your point… It’s not ok to force them to pay… they should be given the choice… if we give them the choice I’m pretty sure I know where it will go, because I know how the bottom line will be effected… and it means letting go of a really good resource that we’ll have to build up again from scratch

but seriously

we know they won’t do the right thing because it’s not the right thing in the market

I guess it’s possible google’s dark fiber is for use with this alternative network

seeing a corporate stranglehold they may have anticipated them

Nato: one can hope so

and one can hope they’ll keep being not evil.

Jason: well interestingly google’s bottom line is pro neutrality… so as long as they keep being corporate they don’t even have to worry about the not being evil part

ha… if google has sufficient fiber it could enter the telco market… if the other telco’s decide on teiring it up google’s positioned to wipe them out

Nato: yes

Jason: how funny… you gotta wonder if the telcos see it coming? I mean they’re still heading headlong into it

Nato: that is ideally what would happen

people who try to provide shitty services

get penalized

Jason: the market is just way too hard to get into… only a google or someone that big could do it

Nato: the thing is

that if there are large market incentives

then there are large investors

and smart people

who will find a way

Jason: only if setting up the alternative is cheaper than the shit

so you get a certain amount of shit with markets

before switch happens

but you could have no shit… but the market doesn’t work that way… it gives you an average amount of shit

This discussion is continued here:

http://humanegg.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/net-neutrality-a-dialog-part-3/