RP on Net Neutrality

[o0xst]

What a joke. Go listen to some Christina Aguilera music rp

[imaginepeace63]

Ron you are wrong about what Net neutrality is. We don't want government to regulate the internet. We ant government to regulate the internet providers. The internet providers are trying to regulste the internet. We want government to portect our right to roam the internet freely. Yeah he is our last hope. BULL SHIT!!

[muslimgiga]

@imaginepeace63 did you hear him? He said he doesn't have full knowledge of this. If he's president he's obviously going to have advisers.

[imaginepeace63]

@muslimgiga his "knowledge" is based on conservative bullshit. Typical trust the private sector nonsense. The very people that are taking the internet away from us he wants us to trust it to. Ron Paul sucks.

[muslimgiga]

@imaginepeace63 so your basing his entire presidential campaign on his opinion of the INTERNET? lmaof....wow.

Let me tell you something. The guy isn't a hypocrite like 90% of the politicians including Obama and the other democrats or idiot republicans. He's been a man of his principles for 20 years and doesn't CARE about yours or anyone's vote.

....donno about you but that's someone I WANT to be in the white house. a BOSS not a tool.

:)

[imaginepeace63]

@muslimgiga He does not support seperation of church and state. He does not support the voting rights act, social security, medicare, pell grants, Glass Steagel, Sherman anti-trust act, tax increses on the rich. He is pro-life. He does not believe in evolution and calls himself a scietist. Scientis my ass. RON PAUL: SUCKS!!!

[muslimgiga]

@imaginepeace63 .....he's the MD doctor..not you lmaof. I dont think you understand his platform. Ron paul is big on state's rights he doesn't want the federal gov. micor managing every little crap that goes on in the US. So what if he's pro-life? So am i. and about sep of church and state...lol if hes calling for a theocracy, he wouldn't be so big on individual rights (legalizing drugs, etc.)

[RenegadeFury]

@muslimgiga i am as well, what a faggot for not supporting net neutrality, all I care about.

[TheNavigateur]

Ron Paul is an honest courageous person. But on this issue, he is plain wrong. He opposes abuse from government power. But he does NOT oppose abuse from corporate power. He calls it "free market", an oxymoron because with each abusive practice, it become less and less "free". Laws are invented to CURTAIL abuse by private but powerful citizens, such as the law against slavery, or the law against assault. Would Ron Paul be against those? Net neutrality is BASIC, SIMPLE and CORRECT requirement.

[Frettsy]

@TheNavigateur listen to what he says at 0:42-0:48. the reasons it's not a free market is because of FCC regulations, not because of corporations. I'm no fan of corporations, screw em, but you take away the FCC and market entry becomes much easier, increasing competition and choice and decreasing cost and monopoly.

[TheNavigateur]

@Frettsy Simple law: "those providing internet service shall not be allowed to discriminate between servers". That in NO way curtails market entry for ISPs. And majority of "markets" are on the server-side (i.e. websites)... so in fact allowing discrimination would DESTROY easy market entry in many markets. The QUESTION is, do you believe in ANY kind of law whatsoever? That's ideological, but not practical. We all KNOW that net neutrality is the only MORALLY correct type of service.

[Frettsy]

@TheNavigateur you will never get that "simple law". because the corporations write the law (AT&T & Comcast in this case). the QUESTION is, is it Constitutional? the answer, of course, is no - as with the majority of things our gov does.

[TheNavigateur]

@Frettsy Then the first law should be no corruption. Simple. Are you also saying the simple law I stated would be unconstitutional?

[Frettsy]

@TheNavigateur yes, the simple law you stated would be un-Constitutional. the fed gov has no business mandating how private businesses must run. this is a very fundamental principle which, if you are unfamiliar with it, I would recommend reading Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead (or watching the movie of the same name). of course, nobody in this day and age respects or even thinks about that, since we have supposedly "progressed" past issues of Constitutionality.

[TheNavigateur]

@Frettsy Actually you're wrong. Laws against slavery interfered with private businesses, so they couldn't have slaves for profit. Similarly, laws against fraud meant they can't do business dishonestly. The constitution mandates lawmaking by elected representatives, see Article One. Ayn Rand was a nut-job, whose ideas collapse upon themselves. Instead of reading Ayn Rand, why don't you read the US constitution, which diametrically contradicts Ayn Rand at every turn.

[Frettsy]

@TheNavigateur wrong. slavery interfered with the human right to freedom, which trumps anyone's right to make a profit. fraud is a breach of contract, which is illegal by definition - there needs be no additional law against specific instances of fraud. however, in this case, there is NO fraud - in fact, there aren't even any instances of corporations doing what the law is supposed to prohibit in the first place - it's unnecessary, preemptive. care to elaborate on your errant analysis of Rand?

[TheNavigateur]

@Frettsy You realise that laws against slavery aren't in the original constitution? Elected representatives have both the power to formulate new laws and amend the constitution: that's explicitly mandated in the constitution Article One and Article Five. It has democratic progressivism enshrined within it. Besides which, lack of net neutrality is just morally wrong, and if market accountability doesn't enforce it, then of course the law must. It's such an easy case AND fully constitutional.

[Frettsy]

@TheNavigateur the Constitution "has democratic progressivism enshrined within it"? you've got to be kidding. you need to read it again, it's nothing of the sort. it lays out an individualist republic. and though the original Constitution doesn't outlaw slavery, it is a very anti-slavery document (that was the point of the 3/5 compromise). you need to read up on net neutrality too, because what you're getting is a lot different than what you think you're getting. you're wrong about everything.

[TheNavigateur]

@Frettsy Why don't you actually read the constitution instead of Ayn Rand's ideas which contradict the constitution?

[TheNavigateur]

@Frettsy Howcome you didn't know congress's legislative powers, then? Seems you just read Rand which is in direct contradiction to the US constitution. Laws to provide for the general welfare, that's directly anti-Rand!! Plus, any person who supports a law for all is considering everybody, not just himself/herself. So if any congressman/judge/policeman followed "self-interest", there wouldn't be any laws for all. Thus Rand's ideas collapse upon themselves. Thus, her ideas are insane.

[Frettsy]

@TheNavigateur I'm sorry, but do you have cotton balls between the ears or what? of course I know Congress' legislative powers. you clearly don't understand Rand, as shown by your "law for all" comment. please point out one specific tenet of Objectivism that contradicts the US Constitution. which mentions "general welfare" - that which benefits ALL, NOT *specific* welfare, that which benefits a subgroup (I expect this to go over your head).

[TheNavigateur]

@Frettsy First of all, it's "Randism", not objectivism. She only claimed to be objectivist. Randism uses subjectivism, not objectivism, as its principle. "General welfare" is in stark contradiction to Randism, as Randism purports that one need not consider others as much as oneself. If this were practised by agents of the law/judges/congressmen then the entire system itself would collapse. If it can't be justifiably practised by agents of the law/lawmakers, then it isn't sound philosophy at all.

[Frettsy]

@TheNavigateur honestly man, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about re: Rand. it IS Objectivism, as SHE COINED THE TERM. do some more research and come back in a few weeks and we'll chat.

[TheNavigateur]

@Frettsy Ayn Rand's narcissistically used the word "objectivism" as a short way of saying "I'm right". However her moral arguments do not use objectivism as their guiding principle; they use subjectivism. Objectivism was used about a century before Rand was born, and is based on the assertion that there exists objective truth, but the notion has been around forever. It contradicts Rand's fundamentally subjectivist moral arguments. True objectivism accounts for all beings in the universe.

[TheNavigateur]

@Frettsy Calling one's own philosophy "correctism" does not make it correct. Establishing objective truth is the goal of ALL philosophies. Rand however, presented the opposite.

[TheNavigateur]

But answer me: can the notion that one need not consider others as much as oneself be justifiably practised by agents of the law or congressmen? If you agree not, then you begin to understand the insanity of Rand's ideas.

[Frettsy]

@TheNavigateur unfortunately, as I've noted, you don't have a good grasp on Rand's ideas. she does not advocate acting in one's own "immediate" self interest, but rather "rational" self interest. an example of the former would be to rob or murder for one's own gain - things she would NOT endorse (you will end up in jail). an example of the latter would be to make and uphold moral laws, as these laws affect yourself and your loved ones in the long term.

look into "rational egoism".

[TheNavigateur]

@Frettsy The only "rational" behaviour is one which is based on equal consideration of other beings as much as oneself. Anything other than that is not "rational". Rand did not make this assertion. Anything other than that cannot be justifiably practiced by agents of the law, judges or congressmen. This cannot be termed "self interest" even if pretentiously prefixed by the word "rational". It is "equal interest", which is INHERENTLY rational AND objective/objectivist. Rand was neither, at all.

[noogie123]

this is one area where i profoundly disagree with RP

[LibertaerUeberAlles]

@scatcoitus

He's right that Net Neutrality is bogus. But he should have expounded on the solution, which is to eliminate whatever regulation is constricting the number of choices regarding ISPs. That's how it works in most of Europe: more ISPs than you can shake a memory stick at.

[scatcoitus]

they dont want to regulate the internet. they want to regulate the corporations that provide the internet. Wrong Paul is a fake libertarian. hes for corporate control of the internet

[Frettsy]

@scatcoitus you're wrong on all counts. the reason corporations are able to monopolize markets is strictly because of the government regulations - they are written by and for the corporations. that will never change. so Dr Paul wants a free market where corporations are NOT given favors by law. he is a true libertarian.

[TheNavigateur]

@Frettsy Why not support laws against corruption? Does that go against your "libertarian" ideology?

[TheNavigateur]

The US constitution is fundamentally collectivist. Every single word of it. Ayn Rand's ideas are simply incompatible with the US constitution.

[Frettsy]

@TheNavigateur hahaha. you've got to be kidding. this is so off it doesn't even warrant a response.

[TheNavigateur]

@Frettsy An "individualist republic" is an oxymoron. The powers of elected representatives are in Article One Section 8, the limits on congress in Section 9. It's very clear. Elected representatives have powers to make laws on behalf of the people. You cannot GET more collectivist than that!! Literally. It's even more specific than that: "To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".

[Frettsy]

@TheNavigateur it is not an oxymoron at all. we are to have individual rights that cannot be taken away, but governed as a Constitutional republic.

the fact that we have lawmakers does not mean we are inherently collectivist at all. that's apples and oranges, completely unrelated.

[TheNavigateur]

@Frettsy Rand was a nut-job.

[Frettsy]

@TheNavigateur YOU are a nut-job. this is a pathetic response and clearly you have nothing to come back with, so I guess I understand.

[fstaheli]

PB: Why don't you stop swimming in the pickle barrel. It makes you drunk with stupidity. But even as inane as your comment was, I don't think YOU should be excluded from the debate.

[picklebarrels]

So then why don't you explain why you're against net neutrality.

Try using your vast knowledge of how the internet works and explain specifically. I'd really like to hear how you explain an ISP being the arbiter of the value and success of a service, rather than the consumer, is good.

[picklebarrels]

And, yes, my comment about elderly people being excluded was not serious.

Youtube comment sections are proof we suffer from an equal, if not greater, amount of stupid people from young age demographics about this issue.

[picklebarrels]

This is exactly what anyone should expect with Ron Paul. It's just who he is.

Having said that, this is why old people should be excluded from the debate.