3 votes

Disappointing "Technology Revolution" manifesto from Campaign for Liberty

I have to say, I'm very disappointed by this statement. It doesn't make the best case, it doesn't oppose the root problem that well meaning net neutrality supporters hope legislation will solve, it doesn't address major technical issues with respect to wireless networking, and it comes off sounding as if it's in favor of unlimited copyright and against the public domain. I know what he means is that access to the internet is not a "right", like access to healthcare or food is not a "right". I know because I'm familiar with the libertarian doctrine and style of rhetoric, but most people aren't. This release is going to cause epic damage to Ron Paul's support on the internet. I can't help but feel disappointed.

The Technology Revolution: A Campaign for Liberty Manifesto:
http://www.campaignforliberty.org/profile/14524/blog/2012/07...

Buzzfeed Article with scribed copy of Manifesto:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/the-pauls-new-crusade-inte...

Commentary from Cory Doctorow:
http://boingboing.net/2012/07/06/rand-and-ron-paul-denounce-...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Michael Nystrom's picture

Ironic to read this in light of Ron Paul's current actions

Technology revolutionaries succeeded not because of some collectivist vision that seeks to
regulate “fairness”, “neutrality”, “privacy” or “competition” through coercive state actions, or that views the Internet and technology as a vast commons that must be freely available to all, but rather because of the same belief as America’s Founders who understood that private property is the foundation of prosperity and freedom itself.

Note that the C4L link is no longer working.

Seems they decided to ditch their "manifesto" after it went over like a Led Zeppelin with people who actually understand the internet.

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.

ya he's a villain for making money by selling books now

he's guilty of not giving you a share i suppose? and why ban my old account, i was having a good time flaming you ron paul haters. what i used to bash over the back side of your heads was my donation count, it wasn't anything scary, c'mon. well, the upside is when the nazis come the banned accounts will be reviewed last

i promise you if i ever get to the inside of the campaigns next time i will urge them to give you a seat at the table first thing. men's jealousy is a scary thing

court protects your property freedom to ban unwanted guests (like me), but ron paul can't even bring his case to the court. a portion of your ads or merchandise or whatever might be related to paul so you feel threatened. difference being you built this site from scratch, they didn't while asking for 250k and selling everything under the sunlight under paul's name. the least paul can do is to take his name off the merchandise of that site and with his portraits.

he owns his name and image and has every right to do so. i doubt he is suing to directly take over the domain. he is most likely just saying "don't put my name on products" and the site owner can still do whatever he wants with the domain. no helping me, no helping you, that kind of thing, happens in reality all the time.

Like the roots of banking you must dig deeper to the roots..

Like the roots of banking you must dig deeper to the roots of Internet control; root name and resource servers, and how address space is provisioned is the key.

I think Ron knows some of this but wants us to figure it out as he is not a technical expert where on the other hand many of us are.

If anyone wants to send me a private message through the DP and to begin forming a liberty working group on the subject I would love to participate. The key to this, again, resides at the root resource level and it is something that I have wanted to do for years having worked in the industry but this is so much larger that one person can do... and in fact the wide reach of DP users might just be the environment that we require to get this going.

Until recent years the technology in terms of both hardware and software was not mature enough. But now I think we can do it if a few of us set of minds to it to pull it off.

.

Required reading.. The Cuckoos Egg

Required reading.. The Cuckoos Egg

http://www.amazon.com/The-Cuckoos-Egg-Tracking-Espionage/dp/...

This will give you a deeper foundational history of IPV4 networks.

Large telecoms love IPV4 they like to sell scarcity. They make more money and provide less service when things are scarce and their competition is at bay b/c there is no name/number resources left for new players to enter the market at low cost.

This is the primary reason they (the big telecoms) have been slow to move to IPV6.

The situation has left the entire world with a huge technology gap; and has presented us with an opportunity to fill that gap in the Telecom Mafia Racket's overwhelming greed.

.

I'm confused about this manifesto and why some disagree w/it

I feel that I am kinda ignorant on this subject, because I hear so much back and forth about people's perceptions concerning what the Pauls are saying in this. Some people seem really up in arms over it, and feel that the Pauls are benefiting the corporations (we know Ron Paul isn't like that, but many others fall prey to the spin).

Knowing Ron Paul's character, I would first question my own ignorance before questioning Paul's motives, so could anyone enlighten me on this issue? This paragraph (from this article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/07/06/how-the-new-...) is what I'm curious about as this person thinks that the Pauls are misunderstanding the issue:

'Masnick points out that the document defends the telecommunication companies, which it describes as “privately owned,” from “coercive state action.”

“This makes me curious if the Pauls spoke out against the billions and billions in subsidies and rights of way grants that the government provided the telcos and cable providers to build their networks,” Masnick writes. “Once again, I am against regulating net neutrality — because it’s obvious that the telcos will control that process and the regulations will favor them against the public — but pretending that broadband infrastructure is really “privately owned” when so much of it involved tax-payer-funded subsidies and rights of way is being in denial.”

Any thoughts on this?

No need to be confused

C4L sold out a while back.

Maybe at the top.

But it is what you make it, at the bottom.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

They're high

on the Ron and Rand Paul cameos on Owned & Operated Vid (NWO Agenda 21 promise a better tomorrow land video now shouing on your right).

Sometimes our movement

Sometimes our movement struggles with semantics. Ron has been dealing with it forever.

reedr3v's picture

I hope his advisers get the feedback

and adjust their approach.

Maybe You Can Argue For Paul Amongst Those U Know

People are divided on this issue as well from my readings.