Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!nuchat!sugar!ficc!jeffd
From: jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: Networks, who pays
Summary: competition!
Message-ID: <2220@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 14 Nov 88 19:18:45 GMT
References: <8811112231.AB02677@multimax.encore.com> <8811112252.AA25888@pinocchio.UUCP>
Organization: Ferranti International Controls
Lines: 49

In article <8811112252.AA25888@pinocchio.UUCP>, bzs@PINOCCHIO.BERKELEY.EDU (Barry Shein) writes:
> 
> >\
> 
> This sort of thing [provision of goods or services by the legitimate
  sector of the economy, as opposed to the governmental sector] 
  always sounds reasonable, but ...  how does one build large societal
> infra-structures where the profits and investments might be
> prohibitive? Usually due to the long horizons involved.

  Why do the pro-government types always claim that such goods or
  services - such as a computer network - would only be provided
  by a megafirm?  Obviously, no one firm could provide all we need
  in this field, just as none could provide all we need in the way
  of roads.  But a multitude of firms, competing and cooperating
  as their interests dictate, could.
> 
> 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 was also less pollution, and there were other means of 
  transport.  Government, at various levels, subsidized the auto
  and trucking industry and victimized these other modes.

> 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.

  Read THE MARKET FOR LIBERTY or THE MACHINERY OF FREEDOM, among
  others.

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

  The best way to stand still on any thing is to turn it over to
  the politicians and bureaucrats.  Do we want something as vital
  as computerdom's future monopolized by the folks who gave us
  Korea, Viet-Nam, Watergate, Lebanon, Grenada, etc.?

Jeff Daiell
(opinions my own!)


-- 

If pro is the opposite of con, what's the opposite of Progress?