| |
  
|
||||||||||
i thought net neutrality was bad?
Submitted by coopkabob on Mon, 12/01/2008 - 21:12
didnt rp vote against this and wasnt it the opposite of what it sounds like and is this site lying about it? http://savetheinternet.com/=faq i thought we were against this correct me if i'm wrong, i'm still confused about it. » |
|
|||||||||
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul or his Presidential Committee. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original poster, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site IMMEDIATELY. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2011 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul. | General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here
It depends...
Internet neutrality is good but the Net Neutrality legislation is bad. Don't be fooled by the name of the bill.
I was actually for this
It is a bill that simply makes it so service providers cannot discriminate against Web sites or services based on their source, ownership or destination.
Any time you limit corporate power, you get freedom. But am having second thoughts...
That's backwards.
If you limit government power, you get freedom. Corporations should be unregulated, because that's private property. Freedom includes the ability to use your property however you want to use it.
Of Course.
________________________________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels
_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels
If you are going to write a law...
Then write this one:
All ISPs must disclose to their customers information about how packets are prioritized.
That way if you find that Time Warner is blocking Google.com, then quit using Time Warner.
Just beware that requiring such disclosure will present a barrier of entry to new people wanting to set up ISPs, but then again, it's pretty easy to automate that process; just write a quick script to convert your routing tables to an HTML file.
What's with that statism?
Remember government policies tend to never achieve their stated objectives. And they sometimes in fact achieve the exact opposite.
Duh
Hence the "just beware..."
There are likely other unintended consequences.
It may limit corparate power
It may limit corparate power during THIS current Legislature, but not the next. Allowing Congress to pass a Net Nuetrality Law establishes, by consent of the people, that Congress has the right to regulate the Net. Once this right to regulate is established there is nothing to stop the NEXT legislature from writng regulations you DON'T like.
This bill is NOT just a bill that "simply" makes it so..., it is a Bill that will establish Congresses RIGHT to regulate.
----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" Bugs Bunny
"Scwewy Wabbit!" Elmer Fudd
----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence
we have already created laws that regulate the Internet
adding this law, is not going to set the standard.
i have a better idea. how about this:
would you support an amendment that the Internet should not be regulated, period? and if so, what are the ramifications of that?
Do you think laws that prohibit spam are disfunctional in the long run?
Thanks
But why is limiting corporate power good?
Especially when one uses the physical force of government (which thus expands the infinitely more dangerous government power) to do so?
Well, I didn't say Corp
Well, I didn't say Corp power was bad or good, that was the comment above mine. But consider this, the Corporation is a Creation of Government and is thus a grant of special privilege.
----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" Bugs Bunny
"Scwewy Wabbit!" Elmer Fudd
----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence
The corporation might have been a creation
of gov't. But that doesn't mean that they wouldn't exist in a freed-market.
In a Free Market we have
In a Free Market we have Companies, under Government regulated markets come Corporations.
----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" Bugs Bunny
"Scwewy Wabbit!" Elmer Fudd
----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence
What is the distringuising feature between a
corporation and a business?
I believe it's 'limited-liability'. Now, what is to say that their might not be 'limited-liability' companies in a freed-market? If people voluntary want to do business with them, they will tend to exist.
People have a right to discriminate
Why would support the taking away of that right?
If you're interested in reading more on this, check out this article by Michael Rozeff entited I Favor Discrimination.
Secondly, that's not true that "Any time you limit corporate power, you get freedom."
Corporations by their nature don't restrict freedom. It's governments that do.
you might be right about it
but i suggest that we need a bill of rights for business.
i think the Founders did not forsee the cozy relationship between corporations, lobby, and government. what the government can't do, the companies simply do. see: central banks.
Central banks are
Central banks are governmental. If they were a private business, you'd be able to choose whether you wanted business with them.
but that's circular reasoning
and therein lies the problem. banks did not start out governmental. so, would we regulate businesses, or not?
That's true afaik that banks
That's true afaik that banks did not start out governmental.
Now, if you are saying that the Federal Reserve is private then I don't think you have done your research properly. Check out the Austrian economist. None of them to my knowledge state the the Federal Reserve is a private business.
Hell no. I believe in freedom, don't you?
we regulate the government, don't we?
or is that an infrigement of our freedoms, too?
Of course, we should regulate the government
But, what's your point? Since we regulate the government we should also regulate private businesses?
yes!
precisely because they both can get too much power. but, you see, the method that we regulate government is exactly how we should regulate business.
that is not to impose a specific moral boundary, but rather to restrict power.
two that you probably already agree with is 1) monoploies should be illegal. and 2) businesses should not be able to donate money to politicians, period.
there are probably a few more, but it would not be a stretch to demand a bill of rights for businesses to limit their tyranny.
Business can't have coercive power
unless government colludes with them. They can have market power, but that's fine, because that's freedom. You can only have market power by being a superior competitor through being the most efficient. Monopolies should not be illegal if they are in a monopoly position without government helping them (which has never really happened). True free-marketers recognize that monopolies only come about by government intervention which prevents competition. As long as government is not involved, there is the opportunity for competition.
ok but
we are enjoying the fruits of google's innovation now, for example. but what is to stop them from selling out to some evil bastard somewhere?
what if google decides to use its' power for tyranny? you could blackmail just about everybody that surfs the internet. zoom in on their house. restrict access to informative websites. quell dissent. turn the internet into FOX news. etc, etc, etc.. the power is endless.
Don't you get it? Power corrupts absolutely. Who cares if they aren't a government. It won't be long before they start holding hands, if they aren't already.
Net Neutrality is good
A Law declaring Net Neutrality is bad. Currently we have net neutrality by the fact there is NO law regulating the net. Once a law is written declaring Net Neutrality, a declaration has been made that the Government has a right to make laws concerning the Net. Upon the people's acceptance of this Net Neutrality Law, the government has established it right to regulate, and can then change laws at willy nilly.
----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" Bugs Bunny
"Scwewy Wabbit!" Elmer Fudd
----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence
Good point
The relatively free competition in the ISP business has given us a pretty darn "neutral net".
Writing a statist law will just make things worse...most liberals are support Net "Neutrality" unfortunately.
yes it is
very bad! It is a propaganda ploy to try and fool most of the people into believing it is actually good.
The Abuse of Greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power. - Shakespeare
It is bad.
If you're for free-market capitalism, you have to be against Net Neutrality. That's the government telling businesses how they have to use their own property.
Ron Paul is against it.
Yup that is correct
Economo is got it right. Net Neutrality is a restriction on individual liberty.