How to Invest Outside the Government-Controlled System

That's pretty subjective, don't you think?

What's wrong with just saying "anything past those mountains is Enter At Your Own Risk" and let people decide for themselves if they want to go there.

That's the system we've been using up until now. It sucks, so we're going to do it differently.

 

^^^ Sorry for the gap fellas. It took me a few minutes to write this.

Based on your previous posts, I think you are highly knowledgeable about telecommunications (far, far more than I am).

However, yet again you are simply falling victim to the dogma surrounding what we have grown up with and that we all think is normal. I have no doubt that our current policing and judicial system does not provide the best value for money (note this is not saying that they don't do a good job - I have a lot of respect for our current system, but I can still believe that it is not the best use of resources and there are improvements that can be made).

In the absence of religious, genocidal or political wars (which are a significantly different thing) Mad Max style lawless badlands is a myth. The vast majority of people do not want to run around smashing stuff up arbitrarily (if they did we would need a significantly larger police force right now). If we did leave the west to its own devices they would probably be better off with better justice systems. There has been a lot of good research that shows that in the absence of any Government mandated policing and judicial system people will naturally devise their own emergent, self-ordering arrangements. Taking the Hollywood "Wild West" as an example, it turns out it wasn't ever the lawless place we have been led to believe:

The way farmers deal with each other, typically without recourse to the courts in the first instance, has been extensively analysed by economists and legal practitioners. A particularly well known study was conducted by Robert C Ellickson in 1991. In Order Without Law: How Neighbours Settle Disputes, Ellickson provides a detailed account of how farmers establish and manage property rights with virtually no formal legal actions. Ellickson's analysis is based on observations of cattle farmers in California but most farmers in Australia will endorse the conclusions drawn by Ellickson. The approach described by Ellickson can be categorised as follows:

Us anarcho-capitalists do actually have a fully-fleshed out moral philosophy which flows through every aspect of how societies work (or should work) and the best way for ordering societies. It may be insightful if you spend some time researching, you will probably be surprised at how much of what you think is normal is consistent and how much of what you think is normal is actually inconsistent and arbitrary. The basic tenet is simply "it is wrong to commit fraud, force or violence against another person or their property". This is such a simple, self-evident but very far-reaching statement that people have spent their whole careers researching its implications.

 

No, not subjective. A Govt without law enforcement is not a govt.

High-speed internet is desirable, not essential.

I'm not saying the current wifi system is good, but that doesn't mean you can't make out better, for less money than rolling out fibre to rural areas. It's not black and white.

Besides, we're not at odds with each other on whether govt should fund/build infrastructure, were at odds with what should be built.

 

I live less than 120kms from melbourne cbd ,no NBN for me just the same crappy systm ive got now
the whole idea of the NBN was to give the cuntry people the same service as the city .97% of people where suposed to be covered now its down to 77% . so maybe a few cuntry towns might get it but for people out of town you get f*ck all .
another big white elephant if ever I seen one

 

Yes.

It isn't a very sexy topic - frankly it's quite boring to most people - but yes, we tried all sorts of free market solutions, grants, incentives, local initiatives and a load of other stuff and the results just weren't that great at all.

Well then those people making the argument that its a poorly planned network don't really know what they're talking about. The private sector makes all the same mistakes that governments do with infrastructure projects but we just never get to hear about them.

Look at the number of public comments about this latest NBN "cost blowout" from people who actually work in IT that are along the lines of "wow, that's a tiny increase compared to a project I worked on that ended up costing the company 300% more".

 

No - it's plan as day fact.

low tolerance for plain stupity i'd guess

You're entitled to your opinion. Myself and the majority of the rest of the population strongly object to your opinion and will being forced upon the rest of us by coercive means with the threat of force if we dont agree to comply.

 

And you are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

That said, you haven't posted anything to indicate that your opinion is actually an informed opinion and so on that basis I'm inclined to ignore you.

I suspect the government felt the same way and that's why they didn't ask Yippe-Ki-Ya to create our country's IT policy.

 

AWESOME! I was hoping someone would raise this!

The important thing is that a private sector company CAN (and do) go broke if the expenditures outweigh revenues. AND in the case of private companies, they will be far more severe with such cost blowouts (where possible) and will change the parameters. (I have seen first hand companies reducing the production capacity of a new plant mid-way because of cost blowouts or to reduce the number of new connections until a later date etc.)

A Government operation will NOT be allowed to go bankrupt and its project will not be cut/altered until the cost pressures/inefficiencies are so great that politicians eventually make it one of their promises if they get elected. In the mean time more and more resources have been continued to be poured down a black hole. We all know about how slow a government operation is to respond and it is a direct result of the fact that they can coercively force more funds to be put into their pet project. A private company simply cannot do this indefinitely.

 

I'm pretty sure there was plenty of opposition too when the government built telecommunications infrastructure before phones became popular.

 

There was a lot of opposition to the building of the Overland Telegraph on the basis that is wasn't necessary and would be a waste of money.

That was in 1860s.

 

Happy to accuse yippi of unsubstantiated comments. But these are clearly unsubstantiated assertions as well that don't actually argue a point that is any way additional to those we have already been discussing.

 

But this assumes that both the private company and the government organisation are motivated and influenced by the same things.

A private operator might try to cut costs by using a cheap-n-nasty solution so they can pocket the difference whereas the government organisation might deliberately spend more over-engineering something because they recognise they'll need the capacity later.

How many companies can you think of where things are done with a 50 year time-frame in mind?

 

:lol:

well it's clear that you - and/or your pseudo intellectual comrades - are definately on the government's "panel of experts"...

I may not have the gift of the bullsh1t gab like you do but i certainly am aware of the fact that my liberties are being stripped away each and every day by you and your kind.

 

Wtf. Govts don't think 50yrs ahead. The Chinese govt has a five year plan which is about 2-3 years beyond ours.

 

lol - great points but you forgot to mention the all-important difference that private companies cannot force you (at gunpoint) to use/pay for their "products"/"services" like the government can and does...
i think that is the most important point here - freedom of choice - or in the case of government - lack of freedom of choice...

 

Beat me to it

 

Um government cost blowouts are rarely because of over engineering and more of incompetent management/scope creep etc.

NASA does under promise and over deliver but they are an exception when it comes to government departments. Pretty much nothing in Australia comes close to NASA in this regard.

+1. More likely Australia government saw other countries (mostly the Europeans) with very good internet access and a high level of HDI adopt good internet and decided to follow suit. The NBN just so happens to have some benefits as a by-product but I very much doubt they just one day decided to build fast internet for the benefit of the population and the freedom of speech/right to access information that come along with it (Conroy filter completely opposes this philosophy).

 

And - for anyone who thinks the NBN is forward looking and not a political tool, you need not look further than the use of the NBN as political leverage with the independents last election, or the preferential treatment of certain electorates for the NBN rollout so far.

Wasn't the NBN also rushed through at a time when the BER and Pink Batts 'stimulus' (wastage) programs were being initiated? It's all part of the same mess.

 

(As you noted before, I do have some knowledge of telecommunications. I happen to find the subject interesting. There are plenty of things I don't find interesting and can't offer an informed opinion on).

There was plenty of opposition to the Overland Telegraph because it was incredibly expensive. It cost a lot more that it was supposed to and there were delays in construction of certain parts (due to wet seasons, attacks by aboriginals, supply problems, etc).

It also had a hugely positive effect on South Australia's economy after it was completed.

You can get hold of all the history from any public library.

 

Jeremy Benthams philosophy of utilitarianism, it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong, a theory which

manifests itself in democraticaly elected governments and judicial codes or does it? Or do we have a plebiscite for every capricious notion.When the Luddites smashed the machines were they the greatest number, were they right to do so, when government bowed to industry to break the luddite techophobes was this utilitarianisan, an example of majority rule or of the rule might is right.

Did the Luddites fears of a dystopian future have any currency, were they clairvoyant. Surely this industialisation this technological leap forward would benefit the majority. Was the Luddite cause an anachronism a refusal to embrace logical technological progression.

I have no idea. but I do know the Luddites that werent executed were transported to.....Australia.



The criminal justice system does pursue dollar for value strategies thats why we have "targeted policing" and "hot spots". Deterrence is the greatest tool for law enforcement, currently only 1 in 1000 crimes are detected, prosecuted and punished. This is why you hear of so many bewildering cases of "why the hell didnt they prosecute"? Its a function of budgetry restraint, of all cases the D.P.P decide to prosecute higher than 98% result in conviction. It is the intention of the criminal justice system that the 100% certainty of Detection, Prosecution, Punishment and not leastly Proclamation(that why the police have media advisors,gotta get the story out there ) promotes the statistically best tool available, Deterrence.