Net neutrality honesty (2)
Kevin from ktracy.com has replied to a few of the recent posts I’ve written about net neutrality. Since it’s been a few days since I last responded and I don’t have too much time to write tonight, I’m going to respond in a new post.
In response to comment #3:
You’ve addressed the private property issue, but you still haven’t given a full answer.
You said:
The government sometimes needs to protect the welfare of individuals by making laws, limiting you to what you do on and with private property. This is an example of such a situation.
But what you haven’t answered is why this is a case were the government needs to protect the “welfare of individuals.”
And which individuals, by the way? What about the stockholders of ISPs who lose the right to their property?
Just to bring this back to the issue at hand, what we’re talking about here is data prioritation over private computer networks. We’re not talking about crazy gunmen or arsonists like the examples you stated, but people that might want to make some websites faster than others (for any reason). If an issue like this is grounds enough for government intervention, what isn’t?
As I’ve written before, net neutrality, by itself, can’t create the “free” and “open” internet its advocates desire. ISPs may not be able to discriminate-by-bit if net neutrality passes, but what about other forms of “discrimination” they use? What if they decide not to upgrade their network because they don’t think they can make a profit? What if potential competitors to existing ISPs choose not to go into business because they’re worried about government regulation? Or, what about the ultimate form of ISP discrimination of limiting network access only to those who will pay $40 a month? If the government should protect our “welfare” for the purpose of creating a better internet, then exactly how far do net neutrality advocates want the government regulation to go? Price controls? An internet tax? Should the government run all internet access businesses?
Questions like these go farther than net neutrality advocates are willing to go when they push their agenda.
As for the examples you gave, they were examples of people violating another individual’s rights. If you shoot someone, you’re violating their right to their life. if you set your dry land on fire, you are violating your neighbor’s right to their own property (assuming that the conditions will create an uncontrollable fire that will spread outside of your land). These are not cases of the government restricting private property rights, but enforcing private property rights.
Tags: [net neutrality]Comments
2 Responses to “Net neutrality honesty (2)”
Leave a Reply
I almost didn’t come back. I’m glad I did.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
You’ll be interested to know that while the Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate the internet, the constitution makes no mention of private property. Nor does it state anything about capitalism. While these are both things I generally agree with, like with all things, there are limits.
The government already regulates the internet. You have to be 21 to buy booze, 18 (or 21) to see adult content, you can’t sell illegal drugs or explosives, most states even have a sales tax on online purchases now and if the Fair Tax plan gets implemented, I would expect them to tax online goods as well.
The fact of the matter is that this is nowhere near the first regulation on the internet… this is just the first time it targets the ISPs and not their customers.
One day, if the internet becomes such a vital part of American society and ISPs keep increasing prices, you may very well see price caps as you do in many other industries.
While it’s not fair in the most raw sense of capitalism, our country is governed by the people and not by our pocketbooks, which is contrary to what many of these ISPs, oil companies, and other multi-billion dollar industries think.
You’re trying to victimize the telecos so they look like the failing airlines. The fact of the matter is that they more closely resemble the oil industry with their obscene profits. These companies and their stock holders are not about to go under because the people are demanding network neutrality. They can already easily afford to upgrade their networks and most of them already are. And they didn’t need to abolish network neutrality.
And I REALLY hate to think this way, but I would rather see the internet go completely public (socialized internet) than lose network neutrality.
I really respect where you’re coming from, but know that I didn’t change my mind on this issue because I was bored. You’re right when you say that Net Neutrality alone won’t create a “free and open” internet. But it is a necessary regulation if we’re going to have it. You’re assuming that Net Neutrality is only the first regulation of many more to come. But Net Neutrality isn’t bundled with other regulations.
I promise you, if unfair regulations are proposed in congress, I will fight them with you until I’m blue in the face. But I believe network neutrality is a fair regulation that protects consumers from a ridiculous and dangerous money making scheme by multi-billion dollar cable companies that would drastically change the internet as we have come to know and love it.
Private property may not be mentioned in the Constitution, but it is mentioned in the Bill of Rights. “Capitalism” is not mentioned explicitly, but in so far as our founding fathers made our country a state that respected individual rights and private property, we are a nation founded on the ideals of capitalism.
Founded doesn’t mean we are still that way. I think that one of the reasons our individual rights have eroded to the point where we talk about taking an ISP’s property like this is that people no longer take principled stands. Rather than hold a simple principle like “I will not steal from other people” and apply it to situations like this, people just do what feels ok at the time. Just like you said, you’d prefer the government to completely nationalize internet providers if it means you can get what you want. What does that say about you stand for? Or what you won’t stand for? If you “really” hated to think this way, you wouldn’t think that way.
I can’t change your mind, you can’t change mine, and that’s fine. Though, if we’re going to talk about an issue like this, I think it’s important we talk about the ideas behind those issues. I’ve already said this, but I’ll say it again: You still won’t state why you should have the right to tell other people what they can do with their own property. You’ve pointed out the fact that the law allows regulation like this and that it happens in other industries, but that fact doesn’t explain why net neutrality is necessary. How exactly do you determine when government action is necessary and when it isn’t?
Saying that government should act when its action is is for the “general benefit” is not a complete answer. What does it mean? Who decides what that means? I keep asking, but I never get an answer.
And I’d say that if anyone here is trying to victimize telecom companies, it’s the net neutrality advocates. They are the ones that are trying to take the telecoms property (i.e. turn them into robbery victims).