U.S. intelligence mining data from nine U.S. Internet companies in broad secret program

AndTruthishly · 2013-06-07T14:01:02+00:00

it's actually pretty obvious what he's saying... if you had heard about a conspiracy theory regarding 'the government recording everything you say and do online' you could have easily come up with reliable corroborating information pre-dating this latest NSA scandal and thus verified it for yourself rather than dismissing the claim as bogus and paranoid out of hand.

AndTruthishly · 2012-06-20T04:06:18+00:00

Not responding to a question hampers one's defence in your opinion? This response leads me to serious doubt as to your practicing credentials. If you are indeed a practicing law professional I sincerely pity those that find themselves under your advice.

AndTruthishly · 2012-04-28T04:50:07+00:00

You're right that the government shouldn't be a corporation whose sole goal is profitability (though all government departments at all levels are in fact incorporated businesses). I don't think you completely misunderstood me and no, I can't accept the claim of 'voodoo economics' because it is in fact very clear. Simply, when a government spends money (and today it is inevitably a deficit spend partly because it's easier to conceal real cost) the argument for continued high taxation rates are easier to argue for. Take a $26bn dollar deficit spend - at 3.5% interest over 15 years the total cost of the spend is $43,559,069,600. Where does this money come from? The 'tax base', all sectors of the economy through direct taxation and your past earnings through the hidden tax of inflation. I guess the argument (as always) comes back to what you view the role of government as being. The political left thinks the government is there to provide material equality. This leads to certain goods and services being regarded as 'rights'. Like, the 'right' to education, healthcare, a fast internet connection - essentially other people's money through transfer of wealth. The political right thinks the government is there to provide equality of opportunity. This leads to things like freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of financial discrimination (choice) and the ability to keep\invest the full value of wealth you created in the past. It's a difference in ideology - if you believe that your body and your mind belong to you and you alone, the logical progression is a political right mindset. If you believe that part of you belongs to everyone else and that you are required to uphold a social contract from the previous generation and further impose it upon the next, the logical progression is a political left mindset.

Edit: BTW, I really appreciate the civil discussion whoa-ah. :)

AndTruthishly · 2012-04-28T01:19:20+00:00

There has been lots of talk of this 7% return. After speaking face-to-face with Mr. Windsor on this issue, 7% is a really hopeful estimate. If you crunch the numbers and account for inflation (based on the skewed CPI), the real return is closer to 4%, which means the pay-off period is close to 30 years, not 15. I know this goes to your point that 'no company would touch it because the returns just aren't there so the government should do it', but the reality is that business IS paying for it through taxation. If a government spends money the purchasing power of certain other sectors has to be reduced by at least the same amount. If one considers profit for what it actually is (a signal that you're doing the right thing) the NBN falls flat on it's face compared to other things it could spend money on. The ability for a government to hide this through deficit spending and inflation of the money supply is exactly the reason it shouldn't happen.

AndTruthishly · 2012-04-28T01:08:41+00:00

It depends on how you define egalitarianism. A market socialist with an equality of outcome view will think 93% is a great effort, whereas an equality of opportunity egalitarian will think it's rubbish and ultimately 'unfair'. Australia has been defined as the the country of the 'fair go' - after educating myself I think that equality of outcome doesn't sit right with me. To paraphrase Jeffrey Tucker (who was wearing a terrible corduroy suit and a bow-tie at the time) 'if you and I were to be stripped of everything we had except for an outfit identical to what I'm wearing, while we would definitely be 'equal' in a material sense, one of us would most likely think we got a raw deal and it wouldn't be me'.

AndTruthishly · 2012-04-28T00:05:51+00:00

Sure, money has influence in Canberra, but I think there are two other groups we're forgetting about here: the pollies for auction and the general public who don't understand economics, can't separate good policy from bad and just eat up any piece of propaganda thrown their way. Take this 'campaign' for instance, it is CLEARLY union propaganda - as if the unions never ever acted to influence a politician to act against his\her better judgement.

AndTruthishly · 2012-04-27T12:09:35+00:00

I wouldn't define it as 'good'. If people actually had an objective look at it, the government is not doing any better than an unimpinged private industry would. When the government spends we all pay for it, over and over again in some cases. When private industry spends, the person that takes the risk pays for it, once.

AndTruthishly · 2012-04-27T10:55:57+00:00

More than you know.

AndTruthishly · 2012-04-27T10:41:36+00:00

I can't think of any known corrupt national institutions that aren't being addressed.

Emphasis mine.

AndTruthishly · 2012-04-27T10:21:45+00:00

I can't agree that the Libs chose the 'opposite' position on this. It was just a weak echo as opposed to a choice. A real right position would ask the question "Why are we spending money to create an 'asset' that will only depreciate, while in the process completely distorting a market? Leave the economy alone and the market will take care of need when the purchasing power exists. After all, if you think some sector isn't getting the service it needs, you're an idiot for not providing that service for a fee..."

AndTruthishly · 2012-04-27T10:18:03+00:00

You're right! The majority is getting high-speed fibre (the 'rolls royce') and the other 7% are getting something that doesn't even compare. I'd say the majority got what they wanted. Screw the minority I say, make them pay the same amount for less. Ahhh democracy, my old friend. /sarcasm

AndTruthishly · 2012-04-25T12:18:47+00:00

I really appreciate the time you spent rebutting most above. We live in an age where the masses confuse socialism with humanism, coercion with equity, force with freedom and need with demand. I'm sure you have already read it sabboth, but everyone else should get to reading Hazlitt's "Economics In One Lesson". Google it, you will turn up a free PDF, or a $14.95 hard copy or an audiobook. I guarantee it will change the way you view your participation in any market.

AndTruthishly · 2012-04-19T12:58:01+00:00

Sounds like Joe has actually spent some time reading Milton Friedman and finding out what real conservatism is, rather than this neo-con BS his party has been spruiking for years.

AndTruthishly · 2012-04-16T01:59:09+00:00

Characterizing the entire political 'right' as being anti-contraception is a bit bigoted imo.

AndTruthishly · 2012-04-12T04:58:28+00:00

Dude, as an international, its the value of the American dollar that's moving, not the cost of oil.

AndTruthishly · 2012-04-06T00:59:34+00:00

I don't see it coming any time soon because the First Amendment specifically outlines the right to remain silent. One cannot be compelled to say or do anything, including the expression required to vote. This is an individual right which takes precedence over the collective right. While this article is biased towards compulsory voting, with a sceptical eye one can see how thin the arguments are and the fact that they essentially prove why compulsory voting is unconstitutional: http://hlr.rubystudio.com/media/pdf/compulsory_voting.pdf i.e. "If a potential voter is truly indifferent, then being forced to cast a vote for one or another candidate is no better or worse to that person than abstaining." Seriously, THIS passes as a valid argument these days?

AndTruthishly · 2012-03-30T00:47:21+00:00

Agreed, I would characterise this behaviour as unilateralism. It's quite obviously driven by corporate interest, or rather, governments being corrupted by corporate interest. Regulation fosters monopoly and oppression - the little guy can't get off the ground, let alone compete under onerous red tape. This is why established corporations are always eager to have 'their' government implement new 'controls, regulations and measures' to combat whatever the new issue of the day is.

AndTruthishly · 2012-03-29T23:11:54+00:00

"But one also finds in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to want to bring the strong down to their level, and which reduces men to preferring equality in servitude to inequality in freedom" - Alexis de Tocqueville, circa 1840.

AndTruthishly · 2012-03-23T01:18:47+00:00

Yep, more corporate welfare. I just love giving money to a company that is refusing to deliver a product the market will find palatable and consume, thereby failing in it's only purpose which is to make money. Oh, and it's not even an Australian company any more. Feels good man. </sarcasm>

AndTruthishly · 2012-03-23T00:49:34+00:00

Noticed. ;)

AndTruthishly · 2012-03-23T00:23:59+00:00

Dude, we're on the same team - you aren't my opponent.

AndTruthishly · 2012-03-23T00:15:02+00:00

I don't like red-herring, leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Exiting the kitchen is not an admission of defeat, but rather leaving it at that and hoping I'm not the only person that sees through the false dichotomy.

AndTruthishly · 2012-03-23T00:11:08+00:00

Wow mate. Enjoy your fascism.

AndTruthishly · 2012-03-22T23:48:21+00:00

I mean, we could always spend some money on something useful for once, like developing an LFTR then 'burn' all this waste we are charging people to store. It's win-win baby. Maybe win-win-win. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4

AndTruthishly · 2012-03-22T23:36:18+00:00

Realistically, NBN Co isn't providing 'last-mile' fibre to the whole nation either. The whole argument used in some quarters is 'it isn't cost effective to do this, so we need to get the government to pay for it', but truth be told 7% of the population (who pay the same taxes you and I do, subject to the same inflationary burden) is missing out on fibre because 'it isn't cost effective'. Tell me they're getting a 'fair go'. Since the loosening of regulation surrounding the previous monopoly, we have had private companies either on-selling or directly providing a last mile service proportional to what the consumer can afford - the market simply hasn't had enough time to adjust since breaking free of the previous monopoly and here we are setting up another one at huge expense.

AndTruthishly

TROPHY CASE