Ron Paul disinformation going around

[FrankRep]

Is Ron Paul for or against Network Neutrality?
----------------------



Wait a minute I must be confused as to what "Network Neutrality" is?

Is Ron Paul for allowing networks to choose who can access their network?


Yes. They are private companies. Ron Paul believes in the free market.


I didn't realize Network Neutrality and Internet Regulation were the same thing. The words are misleading.


Ron Paul is AGAINST Internet Regulation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c76yeqQY2ms

[ctb619]

he doesn't say anything about the Net Neutrality legislation in that video

[leipo]

He is against Net Neutrality. Get your facts straight.
Net Neutrality is a form of goverment regulation so why wouldn't he be against it.

[Syren123]

Net Neutrality is NEWSPEAK for internet censorship along the lines of the Fairness Doctrine.

[FrankRep]

he doesn't say anything about the Net Neutrality legislation in that video

He is against the government regulating the Internet, therefore, he supports Net Neutrality. He just doesn't use the jargon.

UPDATE:

I misunderstood what Net Neutrality is. Sorry.

UPDATE

[noxagol]

He is against any regulation of the internet by the federal government. He is against Net Neutrality and he is against enforcing the alternative (I forget what they are calling it). The free market should decide it.

[ctb619]

He is against the government regulating the Internet, therefore, he supports Net Neutrality. He just doesn't use the jargon.

wrong....Net Neutrality is government intrusion and regulation

[Noog]

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm?#Technology

Second line...

[Lord Xar]

hahaha... what is going on here...

a couple said the same thing but one said he was FOR , and one said AGAINST!!!

I think people don't understand what "net neutrality" is..

[aknappjr]

People are trying to say that Ron Paul is AGAINST Net Neutrality. This is a lie!

Ron Paul is FOR Net Neutrality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c76yeqQY2ms


Is this email real? Is Trapper Michael real? Trapper Michael needs to understand what Net Neutrality is.

http://imgkit.com/guest/netneutrality.png

Traditionally what is referred to as "Net Neutrality" is government regulating the internet, saying that in effect all packets are created equal and that companies can't prioritize packets (spam is treated the same as video, ect. and competitors sites must be given the same priority as the telecom. company). Net neutrality is a term that sounds good (just like a War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Terrorism) but will lead to less growth, more government censorship and regulation, higher taxes, and less freedom.

[BuddyRey]

Do you guys even know what Net Neutrality is about?!?! Without it, telecom companies will be able to DICTATE to you what sites you can visit, and which ones you cannot, according to whomever pays them more money for easier access. Without Net Neutrality, free speech and the open exchange of informational resources would be completely severed. Supporting corporate control of the last remaining bastion of free media is not only misguided, but unconscionable.

[Paulitician]

From what I understand, net neutrality keeps certain internet providers from censoring the the type of information they think their customers shouldn't be exposed to (certain websites, videos or whatever). However, since Ron Paul is against it, that means that certain providers could pull the switch the plug on, say a website like youtube. However, in a free market, such a provider wouldn't exist because costumers would complain and demand a change or flock to another, more free internet provider. Net Neutrality is regulation in a sense, but it can be seen as a good thing to some. It's not a good philosophy for some like Ron Paul because it undermines the free market (and private compainies). Again, that's the extent to which I understand it. I may be wrong, maybe one of you can correct me.

[nexalacer]

Net Neutrality was the nickname of a BILL that implemented internet REGULATION.

It's fucking doublespeak and all of you people who use the damn words in this manner are giving it credence. Call it what it is, don't use their doublespeak. A rose by any other name is but a rose and internet regulation by any other name is a fucking scam!

Ron Paul is AGAINST internet REGULATION.

[nexalacer]

Do you guys even know what Net Neutrality is about?!?! Without it, telecom companies will be able to DICTATE to you what sites you can visit, and which ones you cannot, according to whomever pays them more money for easier access. Without Net Neutrality, free speech and the open exchange of informational resources would be completely severed. Supporting corporate control of the last remaining bastion of free media is not only misguided, but unconscionable.

Corporate control is better than government control! With corporate control, you can find a new provider. With government control, you're fucked! Do not fall into the hype. The government would LOVE for everyone to believe this shit so they can gain control of their greatest ENEMY, the Internet. Give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile!

[FrankRep]

Wait a minute I must be confused as to what "Network Neutrality" is?

Is Ron Paul for allowing networks to choose who can access their network?

[ctb619]

Wait a minute I must be confused as to what "Network Neutrality" is?

Is Ron Paul for allowing networks to choose who can access their network?

Yes. They are private companies. Ron Paul believes in the free market.

[FrankRep]

Yes. They are private companies. Ron Paul believes in the free market.


Okay okay, I'm just torn on the issue, but I can deal with it. Crap.

I just worry that two networks will get into a feud and block each other. That would suck.

[BuddyRey]

Corporate control is better than government control!

How about public control? That's better than either one, and , unfortunately, only government legislation can procure it.

In fact, we shouldn't even need legislation beyond the 1st Amendment, which guarantees a free press. How can we have a free press when bottomless-walleted fatcats can control and censor it? Some would call that free market, but I would call it Fascism.

[nexalacer]

Wait a minute I must be confused as to what "Network Neutrality" is?

Is Ron Paul for allowing networks to choose who can access their network?

You are confused. The BILL was about not allowing internet providers to provide high speed tunnels for customers who paid more money. This practice made a lot of people scared because it was sold as the internet providers "telling us what we can and can't see! oh noes!~!~@!~!@!!!", but it was more the internet providers saying "we want to create higher bandwith tunnels for people who want to pay more." So of course, the worriers, as always, didn't want to solve the problem for themselves by choosing providers that AREN'T doing activities that they don't like, so they went to the government to ask for "protection". The response was this bill, which gave the government the first step towards internet regulation.

The most foolish thing is we haven't learned anything from history. We are now stuck with fewer choices in internet providers because of the first rounds of communications regulations that occurred with the arrival of radio, the telephone, and the TV. If we do the same fucking thing again with the Internet, we deserve whatever gulags or big-brother type activities our future masters plan for us.

DO NOT let the government and their ombudsman, the media, tell you that a little regulation is OK to protect us from the BIG BAD CORPORATIONS. These corporations are their fucking friends, and once the government has the power of regulation, the corporations will use all their lobbying power to introduce REAL limitations on the power of the Internet.

DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE!

[Syren123]

How about public control? That's better than either one, and , unfortunately, only government legislation can procure it.

In fact, we shouldn't even need legislation beyond the 1st Amendment, which guarantees a free press. How can we have a free press when bottomless-walleted fatcats can control and censor it? Some would call that free market, but I would call it Fascism.

No kidding. And what is WORST is the barriers to entry into both internet providing and media of all types - not just because of money but because of corporate sponsored government regulation. It's bs. If a small startup can't even enter the market because of oppressive govt regulation, you are completely hosed and that is what we have.

Edited to say that Nexlacer explained the problem with much clarity and eloquence so disregard my elementary explanation!

[Thomas_Paine]

Okay okay, I'm just torn on the issue, but I can deal with it. Crap.

I just worry that two networks will get into a feud and block each other. That would suck.

That's NOT how free markets work.

[nexalacer]

How about public control? That's better than either one, and , unfortunately, only government legislation can procure it.

In fact, we shouldn't even need legislation beyond the 1st Amendment, which guarantees a free press. How can we have a free press when bottomless-walleted fatcats can control and censor it? Some would call that free market, but I would call it Fascism.

public control = government control. The only legislation needed to fix this problem, and it's DESPERATELY needed, is removal of ALL regulations of communications so that there is free entry in the cable, telephone, radio, and ISP markets. If not for the govenment intervention in the first place, we wouldn't be in this damn mess.

And you're right, it IS fascism for the press to be controlled by the government, but guess what? That is done precisely through the regulation that you are praising when talking about the Net Neutrality (i.e. Internet Regulation) bill.

[Thomas_Paine]

You are confused. The BILL was about not allowing internet providers to provide high speed tunnels for customers who paid more money. This practice made a lot of people scared because it was sold as the internet providers "telling us what we can and can't see! oh noes!~!~@!~!@!!!", but it was more the internet providers saying "we want to create higher bandwith tunnels for people who want to pay more." So of course, the worriers, as always, didn't want to solve the problem for themselves by choosing providers that AREN'T doing activities that they don't like, so they went to the government to ask for "protection". The response was this bill, which gave the government the first step towards internet regulation.

The most foolish thing is we haven't learned anything from history. We are now stuck with fewer choices in internet providers because of the first rounds of communications regulations that occurred with the arrival of radio, the telephone, and the TV. If we do the same fucking thing again with the Internet, we deserve whatever gulags or big-brother type activities our future masters plan for us.

DO NOT let the government and their ombudsman, the media, tell you that a little regulation is OK to protect us from the BIG BAD CORPORATIONS. These corporations are their fucking friends, and once the government has the power of regulation, the corporations will use all their lobbying power to introduce REAL limitations on the power of the Internet.

DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE!

Excellent observations and analysis.

[FrankRep]

I can see your points, this is just me shaking off the propaganda I've heard.

[Paulitician]

There is so much pro-government propaganda out there in the media, in the schools etc. it's hard to look at issues from a different prespective. In this case, regulation need not be the answer.

[BuddyRey]

public control = government control. The only legislation needed to fix this problem, and it's DESPERATELY needed, is removal of ALL regulations of communications so that there is free entry in the cable, telephone, radio, and ISP markets. If not for the govenment intervention in the first place, we wouldn't be in this damn mess.

And you're right, it IS fascism for the press to be controlled by the government, but guess what? That is done precisely through the regulation that you are praising when talking about the Net Neutrality (i.e. Internet Regulation) bill.

Why do we have to choose between being screwed by government or being screwed by corporations? Isn't there some other option out there???

What I actually meant by Fascism was businesses controlling the free press of the net. This idea scares the Hell out of me. Why can't there be some healthy medium out there between the evils of socialist government control and "free market" plutocracy???

[ctb619]

I know, how about a dictatorship of the proletariat?

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Always be cautious of things with words like "Equal" and "Neutral" in the title. They are good words used to trick people into bad things.

When martial law is declared, it will have a nice name. Like, the "American Justice and Equality Creating a Better Future for our Children and Jesus Kitten Love" bill. It will be 9000 pages long, it will be given 15 minutes for review before the vote, and it will pass unanimously without being read or debated upon.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Why do we have to choose between being screwed by government or being screwed by corporations? Isn't there some other option out there???

What I actually meant by Fascism was businesses controlling the free press of the net. This idea scares the Hell out of me. Why can't there be some healthy medium out there between the evils of socialist government control and "free market" plutocracy???


Why would a business screw its customers? AOL tried it, and look at them now.

[BuddyRey]

Always be cautious of things with words like "Equal" and "Neutral" in the title. They are good words used to trick people into bad things.

When martial law is declared, it will have a nice name. Like, the "American Justice and Equality Creating a Better Future for our Children and Jesus Kitten Love" bill. It will be 9000 pages long, it will be given 15 minutes for review before the vote, and it will pass unanimously without being read or debated upon.

Normally, I'd agree with you. But I've mulled over this issue long enough to figure out that I don't want Time Warner telling me what blogs I can visit, or which online stores I can buy from. Mercantilistic oppression is not free market, no matter how hard the authoritarian scumbags clamoring for control over our ISP's try to convince us it is.

[nexalacer]

Why do we have to choose between being screwed by government or being screwed by corporations? Isn't there some other option out there???

What I actually meant by Fascism was businesses controlling the free press of the net. This idea scares the Hell out of me. Why can't there be some healthy medium out there between the evils of socialist government control and "free market" plutocracy???

Here you go again using the "free market" in a place where THERE IS NO FREE MARKET! Do you fear your grocery store? Do you fear your hardware store? Do you fear your lasic eye-surgeon? Do you fear your clothing, automobile, or sports equipment stores? No, because these are FREE MARKETS (well, as much as they can be with a currency controlled by the government and a private bank, but that's another post). Look, you have to understand that businesses do not have the power to screw you. They don't have armies and they don't have laws, and these are the things they'd REALLY need to effectively screw you. If they try, in a free market, you'd find a competitor.

However, our press and our communication is all regulated by the government. This was put in place with pleasant sounding tales of our "big brother government coming to protect us from the EVIL CORPORATIONS," but it was all a lie. It was put in place to have more control over your life, not because of some conspiracy, but simply because of the truth that power corrupts, and people in positions of power will do whatever they can to increase that power.

In reality, this regulation gives the corporations a way of using state power to screw you because they are able to bribe officials, lobby congress, and buy whatever else they can to get the government to allow them to have a bigger profit, including restricting market access for the "sake of the consumer."

You may say, "yah, but the laws are already there so we have to use the government to protect us from the current laws!" This is insane! Why would we ask the entity that led us to this problem for protection from the problem?! The laws were not written in stone, the simple solution is repeal them. Don't let the government have anymore say in these markets and the businesses will not have the power to screw you when they no longer have the big-bad government to back up their greedy desires.

There can't be a healthy medium between socialist governmental control and "free market plutocracy" because they are both arms of the same beast. They are both results of the use of governmental violence to get what we desire. The former for the desires of the "workers", the latter for the desires of the "masters." We must absolve ourselves from government violence completely if we want to have the free world we talk about. We don't have to choose between being screwed by corporations (government-sponsored businesses) or governments. We can choose the free market, where WE have choices in our decisions because there ARE choices as there is in any market that allows free entry.

I know you were a long time Democrat, but you've got to take this chance away from their propaganda to see how it has been used to fool us into giving all of our power to the government. The government does NOT and NEVER has protected the people because the government is not a real entity. The government is simply a group of fallible human beings, just like the rest of us, yet they've been given the temptation of power that comes with a monopoly on violence. With this temptation, comes the desire to increase said power, and as history has shown, it has happened with EVERY SINGLE GOVERNMENT known to man.

The founders knew this, that's why they built a system that was supposed to limit the power the government. Yet, as always, the fallible human beings that came in later generations did their damnedest to remove said controls, and now we have the reemergence of leviathan, but today our Democrat friends like to give the beast a fuzzy, hug-able demeanor so it can sooth their bourgeois guilt by saving the world. Guess what? The leviathan has never saved the world, and today is not going to be any different. It will do as it has always done, and devour society for the sake of the wealth and power of the few until it collapses and we start the foolish cycle over again.

I say stop now. Stop feeding the leviathan. Stop giving it more fodder with which to crush us, its food source. Don't let it regulate. Don't let it legislate. And eventually, when people are ready, don't let it be born.

[hells_unicorn]

Why do we have to choose between being screwed by government or being screwed by corporations? Isn't there some other option out there???

What I actually meant by Fascism was businesses controlling the free press of the net. This idea scares the Hell out of me. Why can't there be some healthy medium out there between the evils of socialist government control and "free market" plutocracy???

Because the choice between the two exists in only one place, your own mind. There is nothing plutocratic about a free market, plutocracies are begotten by government favoritism and collusion.

P.S. - Public and Government are interchangeable, when you state the former you imply the latter, if you don't mean to imply the latter than don't use the word found in the former. Publics only exist insofar as there is an actual metaphysical entity to enforce the dictum, that is what a government is, because a public doesn't actually exist metaphysically, it's a conceptual construct.

[nexalacer]

Normally, I'd agree with you. But I've mulled over this issue long enough to figure out that I don't want Time Warner telling me what blogs I can visit, or which online stores I can buy from. Mercantilistic oppression is not free market, no matter how hard the authoritarian scumbags clamoring for control over our ISP's try to convince us it is.

This reminds me of something else: Time-Warner is a problem, but it's just a leaf on the tree of the overall problem. Stop focusing on trimming the leaves and cut out the fucking root: governmental interference in our economic lives.

[nexalacer]

Because the choice between the two exists in only one place, your own mind. There is nothing plutocratic about a free market, plutocracies are begotten by government favoritism and collusion.

P.S. - Public and Government are interchangeable, when you state the former you imply the latter, if you don't mean to imply the latter than don't use the word found in the former. Publics only exist insofar as there is an actual metaphysical entity to enforce the dictum, that is what a government is, because a public doesn't actually exist metaphysically, it's a conceptual construct.

Well said.

[BuddyRey]

Here you go again using the "free market" in a place where THERE IS NO FREE MARKET! Do you fear your grocery store? Do you fear your hardware store? Do you fear your lasic eye-surgeon? Do you fear your clothing, automobile, or sports equipment stores? No, because these are FREE MARKETS (well, as much as they can be with a currency controlled by the government and a private bank, but that's another post). Look, you have to understand that businesses do not have the power to screw you. They don't have armies and they don't have laws, and these are the things they'd REALLY need to effectively screw you. If they try, in a free market, you'd find a competitor.

All the examples you just gave are examples of a genuine free market system. Grocery stores, hardware stores, etc. ENHANCE our access to different options and encourage us to exercise our rights to freedom of choice. What would happen if businesses bought up the internet would lead to the exact OPPOSITE of a free market system. If this happened, it would be "my way or the highway" as far as the telecoms are concerned, especially in those areas in which there are only one or two ISP's to choose from.

The internet has done just fine for fifteen years without any changes in ownership. Do you honestly mean to tell me you think businesses could improve on the situatiobn or make the net any better or freer than it is right now???

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

The internet has done just fine for fifteen years without any changes in ownership. Do you honestly mean to tell me you think businesses could improve on the situatiobn or make the net any better or freer than it is right now???


"Give us your freedom, and we will make you safe"



And yes, the internet could be a LOT better. In about 10 years, we are going to look back at the internet and say "Dang, 6meg downstream connection? It was like watching paint dry."

[hells_unicorn]

All the examples you just gave are examples of a genuine free market system. Grocery stores, hardware stores, etc. ENHANCE our access to different options and encourage us to exercise our rights to freedom of choice. What would happen if businesses bought up the internet would lead to the exact OPPOSITE of a free market system. If this happened, it would be "my way or the highway" as far as the telecoms are concerned, especially in those areas in which there are only one or two ISP's to choose from.

The internet has done just fine for fifteen years without any changes in ownership. Do you honestly mean to tell me you think businesses could improve on the situatiobn or make the net any better or freer than it is right now???

Can you provide me with the explanation as to why the internet would work differently from one of the mentioned store settings? You've only stated it works differently, you didn't give a how or why, only a vague "telecoms could do this or that?" sort of deal.

I suggest you take a long look at Marx's so-called theory on private business interests monopolizing the market (his reasoning sounds more like Black Magic than Philosophy) and then actually point to a specific example where this occurred WITHOUT government involvement/collusion.

[nexalacer]

All the examples you just gave are examples of a genuine free market system. Grocery stores, hardware stores, etc. ENHANCE our access to different options and encourage us to exercise our rights to freedom of choice. What would happen if businesses bought up the internet would lead to the exact OPPOSITE of a free market system. If this happened, it would be "my way or the highway" as far as the telecoms are concerned, especially in those areas in which there are only one or two ISP's to choose from.

The internet has done just fine for fifteen years without any changes in ownership. Do you honestly mean to tell me you think businesses could improve on the situatiobn or make the net any better or freer than it is right now???

My god man, what do you think brought us the high speed internet we're using now?! Did you use the internet 15 years ago? I did, at my buddies house on his 2400 baud modem. It was pretty much crap. It didn't develop into the usefulness today WITHOUT business' innovation.

And the Internet cannot be "owned" because it is built on a large "network" of servers. What can be owned is the ACCESS though, but that can only be monopolized by the telecoms, as you fear, with government intervention. Do you read the whole post? I know it's a lot of words, but man, you're in so deep, it takes a lot of words to help pull you out.

Why would internet service providers in a real free market not enhance our access to different options and encourage us to excercise our freedom of choice? If there were new competitors allowed to freely enter with new ideas on how to provide internet service, we'd have tons of new options and we could freely choose whichever suited us best. You talk like telecoms are a different sort of business in their nature, so that THEY ALONE would hold power over you like none have before!!~~~~!~!~! The places where they DO have this power are places where the government-sanctioned monopolies have used government power to restrict market entrance. Do you seriously believe there would be no other competitors if people were allowed to freely compete with the current telecoms that were created by the government?

You must take a rational approach to this, you are letting your fear of corporate power control your thinking and that's blocking you from the fact that corporate power is always a product of government intervention.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Net Neutrality operates on the assumption that businesses don't want their customers to be happy with their product.

[BuddyRey]

My god man, what do you think brought us the high speed internet we're using now?! Did you use the internet 15 years ago? I did, at my buddies house on his 2400 baud modem. It was pretty much crap. It didn't develop into the usefulness today WITHOUT business' innovation.

And the Internet cannot be "owned" because it is built on a large "network" of servers. What can be owned is the ACCESS though, but that can only be monopolized by the telecoms, as you fear, with government intervention. Do you read the whole post? I know it's a lot of words, but man, you're in so deep, it takes a lot of words to help pull you out.

Why would internet service providers in a real free market not enhance our access to different options and encourage us to excercise our freedom of choice? If there were new competitors allowed to freely enter with new ideas on how to provide internet service, we'd have tons of new options and we could freely choose whichever suited us best. You talk like telecoms are a different sort of business in their nature, so that THEY ALONE would hold power over you like none have before!!~~~~!~!~! The places where they DO have this power are places where the government-sanctioned monopolies have used government power to restrict market entrance. Do you seriously believe there would be no other competitors if people were allowed to freely compete with the current telecoms that were created by the government?

You must take a rational approach to this, you are letting your fear of corporate power control your thinking and that's blocking you from the fact that corporate power is always a product of government intervention.

I'm not trying to make a case for government control as much as I am calling for government protection of a public resource. I'm admittedly not an economist (far from it, in fact), but sn't it a perversion of logic to say that corporations are only empowered by government intervention, which is abhorrent to you, yet corporate control is ultimately good for the economy? If corporations = government meddling, then aren't both ultimately worthy of our disdain?

[nexalacer]

I'm not trying to make a case for government control as much as I am calling for government protection of a public resource. I'm admittedly not an economist (far from it, in fact), but sn't it a perversion of logic to say that corporations are only empowered by government intervention, which is abhorrent to you, yet corporate control is ultimately good for the economy? If corporations = government meddling, then aren't both ultimately worthy of our disdain?

You're missing the key to unlocking this puzzle, and I blame myself for not making it clear enough.

Government protection is government intervention. Government ACTION is government intervention. I do say that corporations are empowered by government, because corporations exist with government charter. That does not mean business has to exist by the allowance of government. In fact, corporations are a NEW development in human history, a creation of the Mercantilism of the 16th and 17th centuries. Business has existed since the division of labor that came from the first agricultural innovations. Business is not worthy of our disdain, as business is what provides us with the goods necessary to make our lives fuller. That is not to say I'm a fan of all the goods that are currently available, because I think a lot of the garbage is a PRODUCT of the consumerism that our dysfunctional economy demands to survive.

But the point, is we need goods and services to be available for sale in the market to keep us from hunter-gatherer subsistence living. These goods are sold by businesses and there is nothing immoral about producing something and making a profit off of your labor, time, and ingenuity. In fact, far from being immoral, I say this is the height of virtue. Our current mess is the abuse of this virtuous system with the immoral influence of the state. The state's influence is immoral because it is an abuse of a monopoly on legitimate violence that the state holds. The state's existence is immoral because it goes against the only universal moral creed: what one produces through his own virtuous labor (that is labor without the use of violence) is solely the property of said producer. Government violates this through taxes, the theft of virtuous product in order to provide goods or services to another. We have to get the state out of our economics to get back to the virtue of true business, of the true free market.

Maybe you misunderstand my posts praising the free-market as posts praising corporations. Do not misunderstand me: Corporations are an immoral blight on our society. However, they do not deserve complete blame, as they are only acting on human nature's natural attraction to incentives. The incentive is provided by the use of power by the government. We must stop the incentive, stop allowing the government to give favors/incentives to corporations so that they do shady practices. The incentives are what keeps the oil industry from getting us off of fossil fuels even though they know peak oil is imminent. The incentives are what keep speculating investors from driving the booms and busts that crush working people. The incentives are what keep shady CEOs, CFOs, and accountants from embezzling their workers' futures in companies such as Enron.

Stop the incentives. Get government out of economics.

P.S. I forgot to say, you mentioned in another thread that you don't study economics because of an aversion to left-brained, mathematical thinking. I suggest you take a look at the Austrian school of economics. They do have some left-brained, mathematical stuff, of course, but it's all based upon a foundation that comes from a social scientists approach to economics. The left-brained, mathematical stuff is all developed to be obtuse so that those of us who don't want to take the time to truly understand it can continue to get fleeced by the governmental intervention model.

[BuddyRey]

You're missing the key to unlocking this puzzle, and I blame myself for not making it clear enough.

Government protection is government intervention. Government ACTION is government intervention. I do say that corporations are empowered by government, because corporations exist with government charter. That does not mean business has to exist by the allowance of government. In fact, corporations are a NEW development in human history, a creation of the Mercantilism of the 16th and 17th centuries. Business has existed since the division of labor that came from the first agricultural innovations. Business is not worthy of our disdain, as business is what provides us with the goods necessary to make our lives fuller. That is not to say I'm a fan of all the goods that are currently available, because I think a lot of the garbage is a PRODUCT of the consumerism that our dysfunctional economy demands to survive.

But the point, is we need goods and services to be available for sale in the market to keep us from hunter-gatherer subsistence living. These goods are sold by businesses and there is nothing immoral about producing something and making a profit off of your labor, time, and ingenuity. In fact, far from being immoral, I say this is the height of virtue. Our current mess is the abuse of this virtuous system with the immoral influence of the state. The state's influence is immoral because it is an abuse of a monopoly on legitimate violence that the state holds. The state's existence is immoral because it goes against the only universal moral creed: what one produces through his own virtuous labor (that is labor without the use of violence) is solely the property of said producer. Government violates this through taxes, the theft of virtuous product in order to provide goods or services to another. We have to get the state out of our economics to get back to the virtue of true business, of the true free market.

Maybe you misunderstand my posts praising the free-market as posts praising corporations. Do not misunderstand me: Corporations are an immoral blight on our society. However, they do not deserve complete blame, as they are only acting on human nature's natural attraction to incentives. The incentive is provided by the use of power by the government. We must stop the incentive, stop allowing the government to give favors/incentives to corporations so that they do shady practices. The incentives are what keeps the oil industry from getting us off of fossil fuels even though they know peak oil is imminent. The incentives are what keep speculating investors from driving the booms and busts that crush working people. The incentives are what keep shady CEOs, CFOs, and accountants from embezzling their workers' futures in companies such as Enron.

Stop the incentives. Get government out of economics.

P.S. I forgot to say, you mentioned in another thread that you don't study economics because of an aversion to left-brained, mathematical thinking. I suggest you take a look at the Austrian school of economics. They do have some left-brained, mathematical stuff, of course, but it's all based upon a foundation that comes from a social scientists approach to economics. The left-brained, mathematical stuff is all developed to be obtuse so that those of us who don't want to take the time to truly understand it can continue to get fleeced by the governmental intervention model.

I have to be honest, your entire post went well over my head, so I don't hold out much hope in my ability to understand the Austrian economists.

All I know is this; government control or corporate control, it's the same boot up your ass with different colored laces. Eight years of crony capitalism under Bush was enough to convince me that free markets without regard for humanist ideals of equality and free access are just as bad as any dystopian State-run economies Pol Pot or Stalin could have dreamt up.

At the end of the day, I'd rather trust elected politicians than unelected CEO's. Is this a flawed worldview? Possibly, but it's not one I haven't arrived at through personal observation and my own interpretation of common sense. Even if Ludwig Von Mises himself were to rise from the dead and shower me with glittering sophistries, I've seen the pitfalls of capitalism without conscience and I don't want any.

For goodness' sake, even Hurricane Katrina victims are being denied their insurance payoffs, because nobody in a position of power will bring the axe down on robber-baron insurance companies. I agree with you that governments are wrongfully enabling corporations to rape and pillage, so why shouldn't we encourage conscientious leaders to rise up and STOP the collusion?

Net Neutrality is one of the only instances in which I would not only prefer direct government intervention, but demand it. It's our 1st Amendment Right to a free press, and enforcing the Bill of Rights is government's job, not that of big businesses.

[ctb619]

Eight years of crony capitalism under Bush was enough to convince me that free markets without regard for humanist ideals of equality and free access are just as bad as any dystopian State-run economies Pol Pot or Stalin could have dreamt up.



again, these aren't real free markets, true free markets have great regard for "humanist ideals" because the individuals make the decisions, not the oligarchs or technocrats

[nexalacer]

I have to be honest, your entire post went well over my head, so I don't hold out much hope in my ability to understand the Austrian economists.

/snip

Net Neutrality is one of the only instances in which I would not only prefer direct government intervention, but demand it.

And here is the WHOLE problem with America today. People have no understanding because our school system has taught them nothing, and even worse, has not taught them to think so they can't come to understanding for themselves. Then these same people, who think we live in a democracy, go around demanding government intervention in places where they have no understanding of the horrifying repercussions. You have dashed so much hope for a non-destructive end of this world of government excess, you have no idea. :(

[BuddyRey]

And here is the WHOLE problem with America today. People have no understanding because our school system has taught them nothing, and even worse, has not taught them to think so they can't come to understanding for themselves. Then these same people, who think we live in a democracy, go around demanding government intervention in places where they have no understanding of the horrifying repercussions. You have dashed so much hope for a non-destructive end of this world of government excess, you have no idea. :(

I certainly didn't mean to dash any hopes, and if I did, I apologize, because intellectually, I suspect you're probably right about all of this. But emotionally, I just can't let go of a deep-seated distrust for big business. I attended private school for most of my life, so the public schools aren't to blame in my case. I think it's just a natural consequence of having grown up in a working class family and seeing the devastation unregulated industry can cause.

I know it's redundant, but I must again cite the Hurricane Katrina victims. If business is such a beneficent and humanitarian entity, then why are these people still without financial aid and homes? Government didn't cheat them out of their insurance payoffs. I wish most Wall Street fatcats had hearts of gold, but they just don't. The Founders would be taken aback by the notion that an era mired in such unmitigated greed and profligacy as our own could actually be realized.

[katao]

I certainly didn't mean to dash any hopes, and if I did, I apologize, because intellectually, I suspect you're probably right about all of this. But emotionally, I just can't let go of a deep-seated distrust for big business. I attended private school for most of my life, so the public schools aren't to blame in my case. I think it's just a natural consequence of having grown up in a working class family and seeing the devastation unregulated industry can cause.

I know it's redundant, but I must again cite the Hurricane Katrina victims. If business is such a beneficent and humanitarian entity, then why are these people still without financial aid and homes? Government didn't cheat them out of their insurance payoffs. I wish most Wall Street fatcats had hearts of gold, but they just don't. The Founders would be taken aback by the notion that an era mired in such unmitigated greed and profligacy as our own could actually be realized.

BuddyRey - I have watched this good discussion and would highly recommend one book that I think could help. If you read nothing else, please read 'Healing Our World' by Mary Ruwart. I promise, it is easy to understand and will change your outlook forever. It does have a bit of a spiritual slant (not religious), but even if you're atheist or dislike organized religion (I fall into the latter category) the book is amazing at helping to explain the principles behind the discussion in this thread.

Normally I would suggest buying the book from her website: http://www.ruwart.com/Pages/Healing/ or from Amazon, but may I suggest instead reading the online version for free at http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/ and donating the money to Ron Paul's campaign. :)

[cac1963]

My understanding is that telcos and ISPs want to charge content providers (google, yahoo, youtube, etc) for the content that travels through their servers, over and above the fees already being charged to both the content providers (for their internet pipes) and consumers (for their internet access). Net Neutrality arose to try to block ISPs from charging these additional fees, and the reasoning was that smaller content providers would not be able to afford the extortion to keep their content easily accessible and would drive them out of business.

However, I have a hard time believing that Yahoo and Google and MSN, and all the other major content providers would succumb to such demands from the telcos. And if the telcos start choking off yahoo and google in an attempt to extort the money from them, not only are they providing incentives for Yahoo/Google to abandon the telcos in search of alternatives, but every Jim and Carol out there who can't access their gmail or yahoo mail because of it will start abandoning their current ISPs in favor of those who don't extort their customers. And there are already a few ISPs popping up with the sole purpose of providing unadulterated access to all content on the internet, in response to the belief that the telcos will implement their extortion policies. In the end, I believe such policies would be the death knell for the telcos, as far as the internet is concerned.

Edit: the only way the telcos could implement such policies is by collusion, because one telco who refuses to go along with the extortion plan provides the escape hatch for all those refusing to pay up. And once you have collusion, you then have grounds for racketeering charges.

[wgadget]

wrong....Net Neutrality is government intrusion and regulation

Wow, doncha just love the way government propagandizes things with their stupid TITLES alone..? Dang.

Patriot Act
Net Neutrality
etc.
etc.

All so misleading to the sheeple.

[inibo]

I have not read every post in this thread so I might have missed something, but I'd like to talk a little bit about this from a practical perspective.

I am a support engineer for a small (approximately 20 employees) Internet Service Provider in Washington, DC. The company I work for is very successful. We offer a a range of access solutions including ADSL, SDSL, T1, EFM and Fiber Optics.

One of the reasons we are successful is we are innovators. We are able to engineer solutions using a variety of technologies. In many cases we are doing things that no one else in our market does. We are able to do this because relatively speaking we operate in an unregulated environment. Our only real limitations are our brains, the capabilities of the technologies we employ and the extent that we satisfy the people who pay for it: our customers. When we do things right our customers love us and give us money; when we screw up they punish us--usually by taking their business elsewhere.

The net result is we a able to provide things like 30mbps Internet access over a single copper pair, i.e, a single voice line, at the price people were paying for a T1 (1.5mbps) only a few years ago.

If we were having to worry about Subparagraph B of Section 14 of some regulation written by a political hack who doesn't know the difference between a serial port and a parallel port we could not do what we do. The moment that sort of thing enters into the equation our customers would suffer, my employer would suffer and I would not be bringing home a decent paycheck.

Government regulation of my industry by the cretins who work on Capital Hill would only bring about one kind of neutrality: bad service at a high price guaranteed for all.

[FrankRep]

When talking to people I suggest we use terms like, "Government regulating the Internet" because this is more truthful than "Net Neutrality."