Libertarian Questions : Gov. vs Economy : Net Neutrality

[dchris1990]

whatever lets youtube stay afloat fiscally, is good in my boat. if that means viacom can sue people for putting up AMVs, i'm... for it i guess :/ because better to have tyranny, than anarchy lol :P

[JMG9519]

@dchris1990 I'm not an anarchist, but that's bullshit. At least in anarchy, it's not legal or "okay" for someone to force you to give money to a group to help them gain more power. Not saying it can't happen under anarchy, but it won't be rationalized as "for the common good" like taxation is considered to be. It would be seen for what it is; theft.

[utubehayter]

Net neutrality is good - but govt cannot enforce neutrality, because govt and its components themselves are not neutral. And so net neutrality laws or any regulation of the internet is BAD!

[bmtimv]

Government control or regulation is the last thing we need. If governments can tell companies what they can't do why couldn't government use that force against us?

[fiftycaliberfistfuck]

i don't know about the libertarians, but us anarchists think the pigs should be banned from the internet

[mmsayre]

anarchists want to ban stuff? when did anarchists start liking the idea of banning things?

[GaleryonTheMystic]

If you find yourself in a situation where you are wondering whether a libertarian would support government intervention in a particular matter, the answer will pretty much always be no.

[shanklinmike]

OMG the last thing we need is a bunch of politicians getting at the internet. It is so cheap and the government would just run up the cost in the long-run and have so many forceful regulations it would be sad. Please protect everyone's right to keep government away! Freedom is why youtube kicks ass, not government.

[DCUPtoejuice]

Let gov't get their foot in the door and you can say goodbye to the wonderful internet we have today.

[DCUPtoejuice]

NO GOV'T REGULATION OF THE INTERNET !

[jedi1josh]

I was wondering the same thing. So I ran a search on Yahoo's search engine for "libertarians feel about net neutrality" and this video was the first on the list.

[dbenoy]

And the next step will be massive licensing and paperwork. The government will site the excuse 'It's too hard for us to investigate people's networks. They should file paperwork so we can review them and ensure that they are compliant! And they should pay us huge money for the privilege."

Which will serve to press out small competitors, and raise prices. Exactly what the bigger ISPs want.

[dbenoy]

Like all government regulations, it will be selectively enforced. The enforcement apparatus will be used as a political tool, or at best, it will be used totally arbitrarily to ruin businesses at random.

The idea that a government pencil pusher would be able to begin to understand the complexities of network infrastructure is laughable. It is 100% doubtless that they will demand technically infeasible things in order to get compliance.

[dbenoy]

Speaking as a not just a libertarian, but an internet engineer let me say that the net neutrality proposals are, like many government proposals, written by the layman, intentionally vague, and broad.

[Nicholai420]

Now that google owns youtube you can't really count on net neutrality on youtube anymore, and why should the US government be in charge of the World Wide Web? China and Iran are already trying to control the web, now you want the US to do the same?

[izzybopoohhsz]

Remember, all things are backward today. Net Neutrality posses a threat to YouTube, not the other way around. Libertarians believe that the gov't should stay out of such things. However, seeing as we the taxpayer have paid for the network infrastructure through large hand outs to big corporations, we are owed a neutral environment in which we can debate, discuss, post, etc. to our hearts content, without corporate/fascist censorship.

[gravyfury]

Libertarians do not want the government to interfere with the internet. Unless it is hurting someone else IE: Child pornography, snuff films, etc...

[Fauble2000]

The libertarian stance is that Net Neutrality is utter BULLSHIT! Basic suply and demand dictates that high speed neutral service will ALWAYS be offered at competitive prices. Net Neutrality will take away your liberty to choose a cheaper biased service if you want. Net Neutrality is bullshit propaganda from the left. Democrats want to get you frightened, use your fear to get them elected, then take your liberty, write feel-good laws that don't do anything, and take credit when nothing happens.

[kev3d]

Well said. I never understood why a law needed to be passed...to "protect" that which the free market already provides. Who said it...Socrates? "The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state."

[El3ctricPenguin]

2 years later... dun dun dun... actually it was Tacitus who said that. Roman orator, lawyer, and senator. He is considered one of antiquity's greatest historians.

[kev3d]

You are correct...why did I think it was Socrates? I haven't been this embarrassed since I confused Pericles with Cicero.

Unforgivable.

[ihopkins]

precisely!

[allixpeeke]

Post 2: Jason Talley, who is in charge of it, posts videos from time to time on YouTube. In a segment of the Bureaucrash News, they made it clear they thought it was absurd that someone like Sen. Ted Stevens was the Chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

Personally, I'm inclined, I think, to support Net Neutrality, but I cannot in all confidence claim that to be the libertarian position.

Yours,

Alex Peak

[markt005]

No offense, but I think I'll trust someone like Vint Cerf, one of the founders of the web, over some high school girl who think she knows how the world should be run (by corporations of course). I've never seen any good argument for abolishing net neutrality. What libertarians don't understand is that oppression and the stifling of innovation, freedom, or liberty can come from private entities just like the government.

[freesk8]

So, let's all sign up for the ISP that Vint Cerf runs or endorses! Let's spread the news to all our friends about the injustice of the big ISP's. The discipline of the markete will solve the problem quicker and with more justice than will heavy-handed law-enforcement by politicians, who are just trying to get re-elected instead of solving the problem.

[saltjoe]

Why Vint, rather than Bob Kahn (anti-NN)? They're sharing the title "father of the internet". Let the market straighten itself (content vs pipeline), and if it turns into an oligopoly (like it is headed right now), then do the MFJ 1984 all over again to break AT&T & Verizon into pieces.

My last phone bill still carried Spanish-American War tax on it. That oughta tell you about the gov't nature & incompetence. Until they clean the house, I'm not trusting them w/ any more power.

[somedirtyhippie]

But the entity that the internet has become needs to be protected as a right. Its an extension of the right of a free press. Just like the printing press, the internet has shaken up the soup and the meat isn't where the greedy people think it is anymore. And that is causing the fuss, not the kid porn. The redistribution of whealth is more alarming to policy makers at the moment.

[RussellsParadox]

"The entity that the internet has become needs to be protected as a right. Its an extension of the right of a free press."

In other words, we need to guarantee everybody access to all parts of the internet, if they want it. Why should we not also guarantee free microphones, PA systems, radio stations, television stations, satellites and billboards to people who want them?

[somedirtyhippie]

"A well informed populace is the best defence against tyrrany".

I hear you on not wanting to give away something for nothing, but in this case I think we would all lose a great deal if the internet became as corporate and bland as our other media outlets. Whatever means we find to prevent that, I'm inclined to support.

[FreiheitKampfer]

"corporate and bland as our other media outlets"

You might consider that radio and television are not free press. They are regulated and require licensing.

I think you'll find that media is different when it is for ideas or when it is for appealing to despots. It is 'corporate' because corporations can use government to discourage competition.

money=>political-power=>monopo­list-priviledge=>laziness&prof­it

get government out of the media

[somedirtyhippie]

They would want to make the internet more of a self generating organism than it already is and keep it in the hands of us individuals. There realy is no need for editing the internet in any fasion. Police can still check up on anything they want that is viewable by the puplic and act as they see fit. As long as it is legal-just like the real world.

[somedirtyhippie]

I responded to your video a few weeks ago but I though about what you asked more deeply. And, while trying to think of what the libertarian platform would be, I think I figured out how it would be handled in reality if Libertarians had power. (next post)

[markt005]

Libertarianism is a flawed ideology. It's not too different from marxism, in that it has an unwavering belief that their philosophy is the only valid one, as well as promises of utopia or something close to it if everyone would just think like they do.

[freesk8]

Unlike Marxism, it also has Nobel-laureate economists and wins most serious debates. The trend in most intellectual circles is towards free markets and social inclusion. Capitalism and civil liberties.  The pendulum swings, and it is now swinging our way.

[saltjoe]

Does anyone realize that Cato Institute is a libertarian think-tank? The Dems quote them when it comes to abortion and church-state separation. The Repubs quote them when it comes to fiscal policy (or used to, under Reagan).

Unlike the two, Libertarian stays philosophically consistent in both fiscal and sociocultural area. Painting it as anarchic devil-worship-dope-smoking crowd, is as flawed as painting the Democrats pinko-kommies, and the Repubicans Jesus-freak rednecks.

[freesk8]

Also, if the government starts getting control of the internet, they will soon begin to censor content as well. First, they will do it to "protect us." Then it will be for the political advantage of the politicians.

By the way, spots1327 is gorgeous in technicolor! :)

[markt005]

Net neutrality (which has been around since the 'net was started) has nothing to do with content. These wonderful companies you think should be able to do whatever they want illegally send their customers' data to the NSA, lobby for laws preventing others from forming their own broadband networks, and screw their customers over at every turn. AT&T even changed its TOS (terms of service) saying it in fact owned its customers data,so it could do what it wanted with it.

[freesk8]

I agree that all of these are injustices. There are two possible results: 1) people care about this and will flock to providers who don't screw us. OR 2) people don't care about this, in which case who are we to argue that they have been screwed? That's the beauty of the market. It tends to respond to the needs of the customers.

[speedogoth99]

But how can that be applicable in a locale where Comcast is the only option you have for broadband internet service? I agree with the Libertarian view in theory, but I fail to see how it can hold its water in the face of reality. It takes years for monopolies to be broken up--the public getting screwed during the wait--and in the end, the separate companies are always just satellite affiliates of one mega-corp anyway.

[freesk8]

Monopolies like the local ones Comcast enjoys are created by local government. Comcast gets a cable monopoly from the City or County government. If government did not force others not to compete, we would have more choices of local providers. As far as non-cable ISP's go, we do have many choices, so the market can work to provide better service at lower costs to consumers. The market works if the government lets it. Big corps USE the government to gain advantage over smaller competitors.

[freesk8]

If corporations control parts of the internet, there are other parts that will escape their control. If the fees are too high on their networks, we cheapskates will flee to others. But if the GOVERNMENT controls pricing on the internet, it will be a MONOPOLY. There will be no place to escape. That's what the politicians want, because they don't want you to be able to escape internet taxation.

[sariwat1]

Government should not be involved in regulating the internet. The private individuals can do so if they choose.

[burnvictim77]

Yes, while I understand the tempation by people who become accomstomed to being given something for free to attempt to FORCE people to continue to privide them with what they want, I find it a difficult stance to support ethically or politically. The Internet is not a right - and we just have to deal with that. But luckily, there's no sign that it's in any danger.

[thisisbunk]

which supports the logical conclusion that the decision is primarily that of the service providers.

[markt005]

No one's being given anything for free. In the US, anyone with broadband pays a lot more for it than other countries, for inferior service. And the Internet was invented and paid for with taxpayer dollars, not by the telecoms. So yes, we have a say. In the US the telecoms like AT&T are the internet providers, but if they want to abolish what made the internet great, we can find someone else.

[somedirtyhippie]

The Libertarian platform on comerce is along the lines of "as long as there is no harm to come from the business (pollution, neglegence, predudice, etc) they are free to do as they please. In this case I think the view would be to have total freedom of information sharing exept private info. The only monitoring would be to safeguard our financial institutions from E-terror and our kids from perverts. Other than that its the peoples internet, and they should have the control.

[spots1327]

I get what you are saying but dealing with E-terror and perverts should be up to the internet providers, websites and consumers not the government.

[thinspiration]

I come from a more anarcho-libertarian stand point, but I believe government should have NO say whatsoever in business. The problem is that the government already has their claws in too deep because of corporations being gov sanctioned entities. If the gov regulates the internet, it will be the beginning of the end of that service. Governments destroy freedoms and rarely protect them. . .

[DarkDiscordian]

...But that's just another example of how government involvement unbalances the economy. More government is not the answer. I see net neutrality as a slippery slope myself, because before you know it, these companies will be administered by the federal government and the FCC will will breathing down our backs. That's what you have to expect when you start saying that the internet is public property like the radio. Hope this short response helped.

[spots1327]

I agree completely. The whole thing is silly and to think that corporations would ignore what their customers want is just ignorance of economics.

[DarkDiscordian]

In my opinion though, I don't it will be much of an issue because public opinion is strongly against the corporations doing this, thus they would be pissing off their consumers and creating demand for net neutral companies. Personally, if one was available, I would only use a net neutral company. Of course, these telecommunications companies were granted a geographic monopoly by the state, so it's difficult to compete...