Beautyon rightly pointed out certain contradictions I have with my thought process right now. I recognise that.

Here are my shortcomings:

Calling for internet access to be a 'human right' will mean I will eventually tend towards wanting government intervention in the market in the form of subsidies.

That would fuck with the market because the price discovery and capital creation process in the telecom market gets disrupted which in the long term would be counter-productive to the end goal I want, which is universal internet access.

It is clear that letting the free market do its thing is the best means towards that end, as has been seen in India, where the internet tariffs are among the cheapest in the world. It became so because corps invested in new telecom tech and competitively reduced prices.

Hence, declaring it a human right is not the ideal way to achieve the end goal of universal internet access which would necessitate collectivist intervention.

The better way is to progressively minimise government intervention in the telecom market.

nostr:nevent1qqsgdvknek42k6zxeagqecsskxpnfgahm2d38pqrwvnxf8nhwmdw32spz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfdupzqd8342ntz5yduzat8uyxcj74h0tm2ru9n9z3cmng4j24ljpku0xkqvzqqqqqqywtc53r

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Got a recommendation from him to read 'For a new liberty' by Rothbard in that exchange, which seems like an important book I'll have to read based on the first few pages I've read so far.

Oh wow, and he did it in a relatively non douchebag way. I once attempted to have a conversation with him but he became hostile immediately.

Long story short, topic was that some things should not be up for discussion.

Which I heavily disagreed with, proper discussion leads to growth.

Then he said language isn't ambiguous and I was trying to explain to him that it most definitely is. Words have totally different meanings to everyone, and all language is bascially a lie, though it is the best way to describe something to another person so they can understand what you're trying to communicate.

I was blocked soon after 😄

Oh he did get hostile later yeah, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he was interacting with me in good faith and wanted to point out what he thought were flaws in my reasoning, which I always welcome.

The outcome was that I got a really good book recommendation so I don't mind.

You're a better man than me haha.

I try to be as open as I can to grow from criticism but that dude is just insufferable.

Everything you say he perceives as the start of a fight, no matter how you formulate it.

I doubt I'd tolerate someone like that in real-life though. The fact that it's online allows me to think about the ideal response and check my impulses.

On a different note, Nostr in general feels so much more welcoming than Twitter to be honest. But idk if that's a good thing as it might indicate that it's an echo chamber.