The Philosopher's Tinker Room


Why to I have to go through an ISP to connect to the internet?

I don’t understand why I can’t be my own internet service provider.  By that I mean, given that the internet is merely a computer network, why can’t I just plug my phone line into my computer’s Ethernet input and thus be connected to the rest of the computers on the internet the same way I could connect computers to a network in a home or office?  Maybe what we really need is to treat the internet as a utility and have the people own and operate it as such.

Is crosscheck a form of illegal redlining?

Just an idea in the form of a question.  I don’t know the answer, but I think that it could be a potential successful strategy to stop crosscheck by getting a court order to stop the program because it engages in the same sorts of discrimination as redlining.  But in the case of crosscheck the lines are based not just on geographic boundaries but also on other indicators, namely names.  But either way the intent is racial discrimination.

Well, from the little amount of research I have now done, it sounds like any redlining laws apply more specifically to just lending for home purchasing and home improvements — at least that is my limited understanding — I could be wrong about that too.

But maybe a better approach would be more towards looking at more general anti discrimination laws.  From the U.S. Justice Department’s web page about laws against discrimination based on national origin: “Federal laws prohibit discrimination based on a person’s national origin, race, color, religion, disability, sex, and familial status. Laws prohibiting national origin discrimination make it illegal to discriminate because of a person’s birthplace, ancestry, culture or language. This means people cannot be denied equal opportunity because they or their family are from another country, because they have a name or accent associated with a national origin group…”

Notice that last sentence of the quote about how people cannot be denied equal opportunity because they have a name associated with a national origin group.  That sounds exactly like what is being done with crosscheck where people are being singled out because their name sounds Asian, Latino or African American.  Perhaps then an appeal to the Justice Department would be in order.


Idea to form a web services cooperative

by Glen Wallace

Idea: a cooperative or union formed to own and operate a server farm and run web services for various organizations.  The cooperative would of course be not for profit, but owners who use it and contribute to the coop could be for profit businesses.  I think that for something utilitarian like a server farm and web services that require large initial funding requirements, and thus limited competition among private server farms and web services that would keep price points down, a cooperative or union would be an ideal way to keep those costs down instead of having to fork over unnecessarily large funds over to some corporate behemoth like Amazon for their Amazon Web Services.

Progressive populism should be pushed

First, propose lefty programs that would likely have widespread populist appeal — such as a program to eliminate all or nearly all federal income taxes for middle class workers by shifting the burden onto the top one percent along with some more novel sources such as taxing transactions on the Wall Street high frequency trading machines.  Then, when Republican’s inevitably block such programs, call them out for standing in the way of programs that would eliminate income taxes for the vast majority of the working public.  And when the political right inevitably comes back with a retort that such a shifting of tax burden would stifle growth, have your ideological toolbox ready with responses — in this case, point out how America saw some of its greatest economic growth and prosperity in the 1950’s when the top one percent were taxed very heavily compared to today.  Point out how the human drive and motivations that lead to economic growth and innovation are much more complex principles that can’t be reduced to the point where a comparison is made with the way humans relate to money the way lab rats relate to kibble.

Venus Project oversimplifying scarcity and human behavior

by Glen Wallace

I think Jacque Fresco of the Venus Project is oversimplifying the principle of scarcity and how that relates to how humans value any given good or services.  People don’t, wont and wouldn’t act in a way that would fit in so neatly into his idea of how people respond to an abundance of any material good.  When some thing that is needed or wanted by the public becomes abundant, there is always some subset of the population that wants that abundant thing in an improved form that is not so abundant.  People often are not satisfied with some thing being merely adequate in a utilitarian sense.  It varies with the product as to how satisfied the general population of consumers tends to be with some product being merely adequate to getting a job done.

It is not difficult to find examples for demonstrating how the principle of dissatisfaction with adequate works and comes into play in everyday consumerist life.  In fact, the difficult part is in finding examples of products where satisfaction with adequate is nearly universal.  Instead, just look at any group of consumers in any category of shopping and you discover a plethora of varying desires and ideas for what they are looking for in a product beyond merely getting the job done.

For a first example, think of any of the house shopping and house remodeling reality TV shows.  If you watch one of those shows, it wont take long to find either the potential buyer or seller or often both complaining about how a perfectly functional kitchen is outdated.  I watch such shows and I wonder to myself what are they complaining about as the kitchen usually looks perfectly fine to me.   And usually such kitchens are indeed perfectly functional but merely the style is no longer in vogue.  So in they come with all their drills, saws, pry bars and hammers and start ripping the thing apart, expending all sorts of human labor and money and time to get right back where they started from functional point of view.

And even for a product where a large majority of the population is satisfied with merely getting the job done, there usually is going to be some subset of connoisseurs that are unsatisfied with adequate and still want something special in the product.  An example there would be the ordinary CD player that has become so ubiquitous that you can find them built into the cheapest boom box and still sound pretty good.  Nonetheless, audiophiles insist that the sound of CD players can be significantly improved through circuitry and better DAC chips.  As a result a demand quickly emerged in the audio market sufficient for a great number of manufacturers building and selling boutique CD players for prices ranging from hundreds of dollars for a single unit to many thousands of dollars.  The demand for a product and a scarcity of the higher end product emerged despite a dearth of scarcity of the adequate, lower end product.

But from my understanding of Jacque Fresco, he seems to be claiming that people wouldn’t do in his vision of the ideal Venus Project world what people are indeed already are doing time and time again here in today’s everyday world.   Even if something is not scarce, people will continue to desire that same something in a deluxe form that some of those people believe is a better form, but is scarce in that deluxe form.  All this demonstrates two of my main concerns with the Venus Project and the Zeitgeist movement — First, there seems to be disconnect with the reality of everyday world and how people behave in this world and how they would behave in the worlds envisioned by those movements.  The people behind those movements seems to have become so fanciful in their ideas that they never seem to come up with a starting point in today’s world where the first ‘baby steps’ are taken that would move society towards their utopia and what those first steps would and should be.  The second concern is with the possibility that people might be told, by the powers that be in a Venus Project that has come to fruition, what they, the citizens, want or should want in terms of products.  Would the Venus Project political powers make it illegal to buy and sell scarce, hand crafted objects?

OK, now were delving into the area of where it might sound like I’m supporting the ideas of Hayek in his book ‘The Road to Serfdom’ — but I’m not, at least I am not a universal supporter of the so-called free market system of economics.   Indeed, I think a great deal of government intervention is needed to create an environment where smaller entrepreneurs are on a more even competitive plane with the larger corporations.   It is these smaller crafts people that improve the merely adequate product, that have a more difficult time absorbing many of the costs of doing business compared with the giant corporation.   So with government intervening to redistribute the wealth of the big business towards the small business, the freedom of both the budding entrepreneurs ability to bootstrap and start a small business and the shopping consumers ability to choose from a greater variety of products, is increased.  With Hayek’s brand of laissez faire economics, the economics of scale present inherent advantages to the large conglomerates that lead to monopolies and trusts that decrease the choices of the consumer, the worker and the budding entrepreneur.



Net Neutrality, What is it, Why is it Good and Why it’s not likely in jeopardy

by Glen Wallace

Bear in mind, the following is my understanding of what net neutrality is; however, I could very well be wrong.

What it’s not:  net neutrality does not effect your choice of internet service providers nor their ability to offer packages of varying speeds and data limit levels.  Nor does net neutrality effect your ability to choose web hosts if you want or need your own web page nor does net neutrality effect the hosts ability to offer various packages of hosting features involving things like server space, private or shared servers, monthly data levels, email accounts and so on.  We already have choices involving ISP’s and Hosts and the vendors providing those services already have the ability to offer different packages involving different services.  And, we already have net neutrality.

So, where’s the neutrality?  The neutrality that we already have and we want to keep involves the physical backbone of the internet and the computerized ‘switching stations’ through which all internet traffic must flow for connections and communications to be made between web sites and web viewers.   I put ‘switching stations’ in single quotes because I don’t think that is the correct technical term for the infrastructure part of the internet that I’m thinking of, but, regardless, I think the term gives a good picture of what that part does with the ones and zeros flowing through the internet.

Net neutrality enforces rules requiring the owners of those switching stations not to charge a toll on the data through those stations.  Of course the switching station owners would love to charge a toll as that would provide a bountiful of revenue corresponding to the bountiful flow of traffic on the internet.  But with net neutrality, there is no such toll, and as a result we have a great deal of freedom and variety in terms of what we can post, upload, view and read on the internet.

Now, bear in mind, I don’t think that an end to net neutrality would result in individual web site viewers paying a toll directly to the switching station owners.  I’m not certain, but I think the tolls would be paid by either the website owners or the hosting companies for those websites or a combination of both the sites and the hosts.  But of course, if one individual wants to create their own little website, the costs of doing so could become out of reach.  Similarly, Google, the owners of YouTube, might have to start being much more restrictive and selective for what they allow users to upload.  As it is now, YouTube makes it very easy to publish a video and anyone can do so as long as the video meets their reasonable community standards such as not being hate speech or harassing or copyright violating.

But if Google has to pay a toll for each and every video that gets uploaded and then has to pay another toll each time that video is viewed, it may have to start filtering and selecting only those videos that are conducive to creating the best ad revenue.  Similarly, Amazon and Netflix would likely have to charge considerably more for streaming their movies and shows.  Facebook might have to start charging membership fees.

As one might expect, charging tolls to websites could also have a quelling effect on freedom of speech across the whole political spectrum as video and written postings presence on the web may start to be based on the posters ability to pay or generate revenue for the website they’re posting on and not on the value the poster is bringing to the world with their post.

However, the reason I don’t think Net Neutrality is in too much jeopardy is because there is a confluence of the needs and wants of the populace and the needs and wants of some very powerful corporate financial interests.  As a matter of fact, I suspect that the primary reason that net neutrality has survived some past challenges, is more the result of corporate power than citizen activism.  I wish I could be confident that net neutrality is still here because of popular uproar in its defense, but it doesn’t seem like the interests of the plebs holds much sway in the halls and meeting places on capital hill. Just look at the corporate interests whose bottom lines would be squandered if net neutrality were to end and tolls would have to be paid: Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook and Netflix to name a few.

Well, you may be wondering, just who owns those switching stations if not any of the previous corporations named.  Once again, I could be wrong on this, so I wont name any names, but I believe it is the traditional phone company giants that own most of the ‘backbones’ of the internet, including those ‘switching stations’ I keep talking about.

One might wonder, how are the phone companies able to stay in business if they have to maintain and operate those switching stations if they don’t get to charge any tolls?  That I’m not sure of, but they seem to be doing alright under the current system of net neutrality.  What I believe is the case is that the big phone companies have been able to stay in business and do so quite nicely for many decades under a system of economics involving a relationship between private enterprise and the government known as ‘well regulated monopolies.’

Under certain circumstances, usually involving utilities, competition to provide a particular service is impracticable.  As a result, either the government itself provides the service or it all allows one business to provide the service as a monopoly.  But if a business provides the service such as a utility to the public, the business must be specially regulated so that it can’t take advantage of its advantageous position  as a monopoly and engage in such activities as price gouging.  As a result you have such government organizations as the FCC acting as an regulator and intermediary between the public and the private utility ensuring that both the public receives a reliable service at a reasonable cost while the provider is able to continue to pay the bills it needs to, to keep the service to the public running.

If the private service provider discovers that it needs more funds to pay for an essential part of that service — such as, for instance, a switching station, it can petition the regulatory body, such as the FCC, to allow them to tack on an extra fee to the bill of the consumer.  If the FCC finds the request reasonable, then the utility will be allowed to charge that fee.  Those of you who still have land line telephones or who remember those bill recall seeing a charge called something like the “federal access charge” — I think that is an example of one of those extra fees that the utility allowed the phone company to tack on to cover the costs of some of their physical infrastructure, whether it be the installation of telephone polls and lines out to remote parts of the country or some major upgrade of equipment.

Regardless there is ways of making sure utilities are adequately compensated to ensure continued reliable delivery of some necessary service.  And I think that indeed, especially in this era, the internet is a necessary service that should be regarded as a utility.  If those switching station owners were able to start charging tolls, that would effectively result in a legalized form of racketeering, where websites would be required to pay for their data to pass through the switching stations and be viewed on the web.

Some Thoughts on Democracy Libertarianism and Communism

Communism should be thought of more as an ideal rather than a system of governance. Democracy, on the other hand, is a system of governance used as a means to achieve the ideal of communism. Republicanism, or representative democracy, on the other hand, has shown itself to be an abysmal failure at achieving what it is supposed to achieve — a means to represent the wishes and needs of the people that are supposed to be represented. There are three fundamental causes for that failure of republicanism or representative democracy. First, it insulates the representatives from accountability by the constituents. Second, it facilitates easy control by the hidden powers of the representatives. Third, it encourages a psychological regression of the constituents back to their childhood into thinking of their representatives as parental figures. With direct democracy, all three of those causes of the failure of republicanism are eliminated — First, there is no insulation of accountability because the people are the government Second, the hidden powers would find it impossible to corrupt, control or eliminate the masses, and Third, with direct democracy there would be no escaping for the constituents from the realization that they are adults with the adult responsibility of running the country.

Some interesting comparisons can be made between the Communist Party and the Libertarian party insofar as they both focus on the property rights of workers wages regardless of the relevancy of those rights to the namesake ideals of either party. With the former, the capitalist owner is accused of stealing the portion of the workers wages that rightfully belongs to them and with the latter, the government is accused of stealing the portion of the workers wages that is taken away in the form of income tax. But in neither situation is either supposed violation of property rights necessarily detrimental to either communal living or freedom. Granted, I would strongly tend to side with the workers vs capitalist owners in any dispute, I can think of scenarios where meeting the Marxist requirement of giving the worker the material fruits of their labor does not progress towards the ideal of communal living. In the traditional household role of the husband going off to work and the wife staying at home, to tend the household and rear the children, the wife may not be getting any income at all. It is possible under those circumstances that the husband may refuse to give his wife any allowance, leaving his wife destitute. Additionally, there could also be instances of the disabled, infirm and elderly that are unable to work, in which case they would not be mixing their labor with any material that would lead to a finished product that they could reap an economic benefit from. Additionally, as we continue to march be leaps and bounds towards intelligent automation, we may be entering a period in human history where the treatment of workers wages becomes less relevant to the goal of achieving an ideal society. We may have to stop focusing on property rights, and start focusing on how to distribute those necessarily limited material resources in a manner where the ideal of freedom through communal living is maximized.

I’ve noticed that with contemporary libertarians that they seem to hold great value in protecting property rights regardless of how much that protection limits the freedom of those owning little to no property. Liberty, after all, is just the Latin word for freedom. But somewhere along the line, libertarians became much more focused on protecting property rights and opposing the government and taxes, while losing sight of their party’s and movements namesake ideal. There could be a scenario where just one person has the rights to nearly all the property in the land, leaving the masses destitute and in rank poverty, and the libertarians would insist that the one wealthy man should be allowed to keep all his property regardless of how much poverty robs the masses of their own freedom. The masses could be living under the tyranny of poverty, and today’s so called libertarians would be OK with that as long as nobody was taxed and everyone’s property rights were respected. Where is the liberty for the masses in such a scenario, and why would the libertarians be ok with so little freedom for so many?

Trump asks why we can’t just use our nuclear weapons

I was just watching MSNBC Morning Joe program where they were talking with a defense expert by the name of Hayden.  At the 5:57 point in the interview Joe said that in a meeting where Trump was consulting with an unnamed foreign policy expert, Trump asked three times “If we have nuclear weapons, why can’t we just use them?”  This creates just another reason why we cannot risk having Trump becoming President.  Among other things, his asking the same question three times in the same interview presents the possibility that Trump is facing the early stages of dementia.   Presumably the foreign policy expert answered the question every time, so why did Trump have to ask more than once.  Not only  should Trump have already known of the dangers of weapons that he would have the trigger to as President, but he also should have got it after having his question was answered the first time in the same interview.  Trump asking the same question three times in the same meeting is in itself a symptom of having great difficulty with his short term memory.  Combine his apparent reasoning difficulties with poor short term memory along with many instances of paranoia, another symptom of dementia, we must realize we need to stop being nice or polite and call out the wannabe emperor for having no clothes — he may be in the early stages of dementia and therefore not fit to be President.

What Trumps comments also show is that progressive voters voting for a third party candidates are engaging in risky behavior insofar as doing so could risk having someone who doesn’t appreciate the dangers of the very nuclear weapons he would have the prerogative to launch.  We are facing an exigent situation here that we haven’t faced in any recent previous presidential elections.  In the past three Presidential elections I have voted for either the Green Party or the Socialist Workers Party candidate — but not in this election.  This time is different.  In past elections I at least had confidence in the mental stability of the Republican candidates such as Mitt Romney.  Therefore I didn’t see such a grave risk if the Republican candidate were elected like I now see with Trump.  Given the risks involved not only should all progressives, and anyone else for that matter, be sure to vote for Hillary Clinton, Jill Stein should suspend her campaign and endorse Hillary as well.  Voting for anyone besides Hillary is playing with fire.  We are in an all hands on deck situation here to insure this ship of a country and world stays afloat long enough to have a chance to implement some sorely needed progressive reforms including but not limited to the ideas of Bernie and Jill Stein.  We may need to call our representative democratic system largely a failed experiment and implement a complete overhaul such as phasing in a direct democracy modeled after the one successfully run in ancient Greece.  But we need to be around to try those ideas.  Pleas, don’t be gambling by voting third party just because it is assumed your state is safe or because Hillary is hopefully high in the polls on election day.  Don’t gamble.  Vote to insure the mentally stable candidate is the one that will be in charge of the nuclear launch codes — Hillary Clinton.


Drug price increases unmask the failure of capitalism to assist medicine

Capitalism not only often does not assist the medical field, it is very often its worst enemy.  The recent case of a particular drug having its price raised so much as to amount to rank price gouging demonstrates the need to completely overhaul the entire economic structure of the medical field.  Outside of a clinical trial, patients are entirely at the mercy of the whims and fancies of for-profit pharmaceutical corporations to provide any medicine, at whatever price they feel they can get away with.  And yet, despite cases of such well publicized price gouging, the public seems to retain some fundamental misconceptions about the nature of medicine and its relationship with the realm of capitalism.  Charities continue to tout how your contributions are being used to help find a cure for some horrible disease.  But our system is set up so that the only necessary truth is that your medical charity contribution that goes toward research is only being used to assist Big Pharma in searching for their next money maker.  So, our only hope to find a cure is that some cure is found that will be more profitable for a drug company than the current inferior treatment they are now selling.  For if that ‘cure’ will not pad their bottom line to the capitalists satisfaction, there is absolutely no fiduciary reason for them to offer that cure to the public at all.  And if that pharmaceutical business is a publicly traded corporation, as they very often are, they have a legal responsibility to look after the financial interests of the shareholders and not the health of the public.

We need a medical system that is necessarily structured around making patient health the top priority.  That seems like a common sense philosophy, but we are not currently using such a philosophy.  Instead, the public is just operating under the assumption that the only way to incentivize and finance the quest to find better treatments and cures is to succumb to the mercy of the capitalist sharks.  What we forget is that the people on the front lines of that medical quest, are researchers and practitioners that generally don’t stand to gain financially by the introduction of any new drug or treatment.  Therefore, why not put those front-line medical people, who are motivated by a combination of genuine altruistic caring about the patients and a healthy competitive environment between researches striving to be the first to find that elusive ‘cure’?  How are we then going to finance such a system?  Well, I can’t think of a better and more popular use for the pooling of the public’s money in government coffers than to fund such research.  And if no drug company wishes to manufacture and sell a new found cure at a reasonable price?  Then we the people could take on that task as well and let such an organization as the NIH manufacture and sell at cost the new cure.

Wikipedia and the use of the Term ‘Pseudoscience’

I’ve written a number of comments in the discussion sections and elsewhere on Wikipedia regarding the editorial use of the term ‘pseudoscience.’  I first went by the username of Phiborjam until I forgot the password for that one and so I later started going by the username Quarky Gluon. Here are some of my posts:

In the ‘Recent Conjectures’ section, the first sentence states: “The field has attracted pseudoscientific authors offering a variety of evidence, including psychic readings.” The term ‘pseudoscientific’ is an ad hominem label that is epistemologically irrelevant to any arguments or reasoning made by the authors listed in the ‘Recent Conjectures’ section. The listed authors may or may not have provided any good scientific reasons for believing in their theories, but that can be assessed by anyone that reads their works. Phiborjam (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There is fine line between promoting an agenda and supporting a position. I think I’ve found in this article an excellent example of promoting an agenda. In this case there is clearly a group of editors bent on promoting the position that certain authors deserve the label ‘psuedoscientific.’ While promoting a position is supposed to be against the principles of Wikipedia, I’m starting to wonder if an exception is being made for those that are promoting the skeptics agenda. I thought the purpose of an encyclopedia, of which Wikipedia attempts to portray itself as such, is to present facts and information, and where necessary an explanation of those facts and information in a manner that the reader can acquire knowledge. However, drawing conclusions about the nature of particular individuals (authors) in one article based on a description of a practice(pseudoscience) presented in an entirely different article veers away from the objective presentation of information and into the presentation and promotion of a particular point of view. This is especially true with the case at hand given that no citation or evidence has been presented to support the position that any given author fits the category of ‘pseudoscientific.’ In fact there is a great deal of vagueness about who the editor is referring to as pseudoscientific. Does the term necessarily include all those authors listed in the section that the term is used? If so why is that not stated? I’m sure many different hypothesis, theories, conjectures whether accepted by academics or not have still attracted a large variety of characters that would fit into a myriad of different categories that are listed as entries on Wikipedia. Does that mean every time we find an author that an editor thinks fits category X that wrote about subject Y, an entry needs to be made stating that subject Y has attracted an author who is an X? To me this all seems like I’m fighting against childish name calling, especially when the authors in question I’m sure have never identified themselves as being, nor would they ever like being called, a pseudoscientific author. So let us leave the conclusions about authors, and any possible name-calling to the reader and keep this encyclopedia a professional, serious place for objective learning.Quarky Gluon (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)