Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!ece-csc!mcnc!rutgers!apple!bionet!agate!ucbvax!PINOCCHIO.BERKELEY.EDU!bzs
From: bzs@PINOCCHIO.BERKELEY.EDU (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Networks, who pays
Message-ID: <8811112252.AA25888@pinocchio.UUCP>
Date: 11 Nov 88 22:52:03 GMT
References: <8811112231.AB02677@multimax.encore.com>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 56


>\
>\Now many are saying networks are to computers what roads are to cars
>\(including the need to invest in infrastructure at a societal scale.)
>\
>\	-Barry Shein, ||Encore||
>	I tend to agree with the above.  But as long as we are here in the 
>beginning of things lets use some of our wisdom generated from "cars and roads"
>Let's NOT burden the taxpayers (i.e. you and me ) with another special
>interest group, that lobbies for Uncle Sam to pay for networks, as happened 
>with roads, etc.
> I would like to see something much more entrepreneurial and more
>fiscally sound, maybe a "network" company or coop etc.. ( I'm sure you all
>could come up with some good ideas)  

This sort of thing always sounds reasonable, but (and this is can be
kept focused as a "futures" issue) how does one build large societal
infra-structures where the profits and investments might be
prohibitive? Usually due to the long horizons involved.

I think the important point we (should have) learned from cars and the
roads is that until we invested in the highway infrastructure there
was no auto and trucking industry. There are other, similar examples.

It's a chicken and egg problem, why would a private concern want to
invest (say) 10 years and 10 billion dollars in building a highway
system? There are far easier ways to make a living over that same 10
year period. And until the industry appears it's often hard to feel
confident it will ever exist.

Would you draw up a business plan right now to spend a few billion
dollars and the next 10 years building computer networks because
someday you think it will pay off? Do you think you'd get approval on
such a thing from a corporate management or a bank?

Infrastructure has always been a problematic area for libertarian
economic theory. The best I've seen are proposals for "voluntary"
taxes to fund high-risk, high-cost, long-term ventures like space
programs, computer networks, public water and sewer systems, harbor
dredging, super-conducting super-colliders, basic research in general
etc.

I suppose we could always choose to stand still on these things.

>/*** Well now I quess, the socialists will flame me, but let's do

I don't think it's fair to call anyone who believes that taxes can be
used effectively and for the common good a "socialist", socialism is
generally used to denote who owns the means of production so I assume
you're only using it to taunt. Paying of some amount of taxes for
certain governmental services appears to remain a predominant view in
America (we just mostly want to pay less and get more, particularly
more for *our* favorite programs.) Let's leave the cheap-shots out of
the discussion.

	-Barry Shein, ||Encore||