Libertarian Questions : Gov. vs Economy : Net Neutrality

Economy | Information | History | Online | Facts | World | Global | Money

1. That's silly. Most of the bullshit going on with net neutrality today on the western world is due to corporation ignoring consumers right with unethical offers. Government is a problem to net neutrality, but it's not like the web-based economy is an answer to anything, it's fucking up even more.
2. @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.
3. 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
4. You are correct...why did I think it was Socrates? I haven't been this embarrassed since I confused Pericles with Cicero. Unforgivable.
5. "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
6. 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!
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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?
10. "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?
11. Let gov't get their foot in the door and you can say goodbye to the wonderful internet we have today.
12. NO GOV'T REGULATION OF THE INTERNET !
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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."
18. Libertarians do not want the government to interfere with the internet. Unless it is hurting someone else IE: Child pornography, snuff films, etc...
19. 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
20. 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.