FCC votes for net neutrality, a ban on paid fast lanes, and Title II

Internet providers are now common carriers, and they're ready to sue.

Read the whole story

 

[MidgardDragon]

Resolute[/url]":9vej5id9]Opponents (read: ISPs) argue that Title II regulation will result in new costs to the consumer. I think they are right. Problem is, we're dealing with some of the most blatant examples of corporate greed in the world. They are probably going to jump everyone's bill and claim it's Obama's fault. However, no Title II regulation would have resulted in new costs to the consumer as well. A slight breeze in Omaha would result in new costs to the consumer. The CEO of Verizon taking an incredibly satisfying dump would result in new costs to the consumer.

Personally - and this is one of the very, very few times I would say it - but I would rather take my chances with government regulation.

Although there is no rate regulation, the FCC does now have greater ability to investigate and act on consumer complaints. If ISP's raise rates across the board as a F*** You to Wheeler and Obama, then the complaints go up, the FCC investigates, and they get shit done now because no court in the land is blocking them from doing so anymore.

 

[MidgardDragon]

Sulik2[/url]":18a4pojg]I can't get excited about this. I guess its something, but no local loop unbundling just makes me think they are trying to pull the wool over our eyes and let the ISPs continue to abuse the end user.

They're just trying to get the regulatory power they technically already had back before going a step further. They had to reclassify because when Verizon sued the court told them that because they didn't reclassify they didn't have any authority. Now we're basically back to square one, which will allow us to move forward instead of continuing backwards.

 

[MidgardDragon]

siliconaddict[/url]":47wzdp59]Don't worry. This will get overturned as the monopolies sue. We are relying on the court system to be technically savvy. Good luck on that.

Last time an ISP sued the FCC the courts sided with the ISP's *because the FCC did NOT reclassify ISP's under Title 2*. Now that they have reclassified, if ISP's sue, there is THAT precedent for them to deal with.

 

[MidgardDragon]

sapphir8[/url]":k4igxeyd]It passed today, will be challenged in court for who knows how long, will always be attacked by the GOP in Congress and if Republicans get the majority at the FCC, it will be overturned. Sounds about right.

Just like how all their whining and moaning overturned the ACA?

 

[Derecho Imminent]

MidgardDragon[/url]":2u4n1j0v]

sapphir8[/url]":2u4n1j0v]It passed today, will be challenged in court for who knows how long, will always be attacked by the GOP in Congress and if Republicans get the majority at the FCC, it will be overturned. Sounds about right.

Just like how all their whining and moaning overturned the ACA?

Apples and oranges. Overturning the ACA would take much more than a 3-2 majority on a commission.

 

[MidgardDragon]

cerkit[/url]":3njxgkce]

Peevester[/url]":3njxgkce]

Rabbiddog[/url]":3njxgkce]Sad to say, reading comments on many news sites and non-tech related sites, is the number of un-educated people out there that simply have no clue what net neutrality is and simply think big gub-ment is trying to "regulate the interwebz".

*SMH*

Government is in fact doing exactly that. It also happens to be what any person who can rub two neurons together knows is the right thing. Absolutism makes you stupid.

Contrary to popular Ars comment lore, not all Republicans are anti-science idiots.

Equating a person who disagrees with the FCC's version of net neutrality to an "ignorant fool" or to call them "un-educated" is arrogance. I see it a lot on Ars comments. People get so high and mighty about their anti-republican science that they fail to realize that there are completely intelligent people out there that disagree with them for valid reasons.

That's why there is debate, to get to some form of consensus. Name-calling never helps.

That being said, I think we will see further regulation, but not from the same parties. The FCC just made the Internet a "fairer place for all". I think we'll see content regulation from other political groups (likely right-leaning) who will take advantage of this new foot-in-the-door to further their agendas of making the Internet a "safer place for all".

I hope I'm wrong.

If you look at what the Republican party that is currently in power acts like and believes, and you say "I want to support those same things and I believe they are in the right." then you might just deserve to be insulted a little. If you actively are more intelligent than that and against those things (racism, bigotry, anti-regulation, sexism, anti-science, etc.) and you STILL choose to be a "Republican" then at *best* I can say you are being delusional about what it means to be a "Republican" these days.

 

[MidgardDragon]

Nargg[/url]":2qqwu8w1]The ISPs will reply to this by 1. law suits and more importantly 2. higher prices. They have to punish the public for supporting something they don't want, right?

Well a lawsuit is what got them into this mess in the first place and jacking up prices and being generally anti-consumer is what put the majority of America on the side of reclassification, sooooo.

 

[MidgardDragon]

Ianberg[/url]":2knhnoud]In Canada, telecom utilities have been regulated as common carriers fo decades. Result is that we have relatively expensive wireless and wired Internet access though we don't have fast and slow lanes. The Canadian government is a direct beneficiary of neutral neutrality as it is owner of CBC.ca and some provinces own public telecoms that compete dieectly with private ones. http://www.thestar.com/business/2015/02 ... -crtc.html

The government owned (municipal) broadband providers in the US are the fastest and most affordable in the country. Whose point wins this ideological standoff? Or could it be that these are both completely different things than having a regulatory committee vote to actually be allowed to do the job it already was supposed to be doing?

 

[MidgardDragon]

Lukacsmw[/url]":131xj9fl]The significance of the Internet is freedom of information. Now that the government can control information, they will.

So you don't mind that Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast were choosing what you could and couldn't see (unless they owned the content) but if the government (FCC) uses its power to prevent that from happening, we've all become mind control slaves to the government's filtering? How on Earth did you make that jump? Do you work for an ISP?[/quote]

I trust a profit motive .[/quote]

So then you're an idiot?

 

[MidgardDragon]

Lukacsmw[/url]":8e7slxvz]Absolutely insufficient for the level of change proposed. A comment period before drafting the law and a summary is not transparency. Transparency is putting the text of the proposed legislation online with sufficient time for the public to exercise their rights (contacting their representative for instance). There was NO compelling reason to ram this down our throats without a viewing period of the "as-written" rule.

It was the people who voted against the changes who made sure we weren't allowed to see them:

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/fcc-co ... ased-today

 

[MidgardDragon]

crofford[/url]":357tlbg7]The government has never done anything well. .

This idiotic rhetoric is why I can't take you damn nutjobs seriously. You wouldn't have roads, the internet in the first place, school systems, freedom from slavery and much more without the government acting and accomplishing their goals first. Being completely anti-government is JUST AS STUPID as being completely pro-government in all things.

 

[MidgardDragon]

cactusbush[/url]":2iokgzzk]You people crack me up. About 2.5 billion people on this planet live and sleep in filth, 783 million have to drink dirty water if they can find it and about 883 million face possible starvation every day they draw a breath. Global population is expected to increase by about 3 billion within the next 35 years. While there is not even enough food to go around right now, food production is expected to decrease (perhaps sharply during that time frame) due to acceleration in climate change. Yet 'Flit' commented: "At least find out if your candidate would overturn this ruling, it is probably the most important economic decision of this decade". Fortunately a lucky few can afford to live in an imaginative fairyland.

Your newfound hero (Wheeler) waxes poetic by stating: "The Internet is the most powerful and pervasive platform on the planet. It is simply too important to be left without rules and without a referee on the field". Wheeler also calls the Internet "the ultimate vehicle for free expression" and claims that it has replaced the post office and telephone. I must be living in another century because I express myself freely all the time, retrieved 2 pounds of bills from the mailbox about 3 hours ago and have suffered nitwits ringing my landline all afternoon.

I use the Internet probably as much as anyone here, perhaps to an unhealthy degree. It’s nice but I could also live in peace and tranquility without it if I had to. It didn't even exist about 30 years ago. Wonder how people managed their affairs back then? The Internet is rife with good, bad & useless information but many times I've found it very lacking in producing the particular information I was looking for. If businesses and commerce actually rely solely upon computers or upon Internet connectivity for their transactions then that is their fallacy & naivety. The anarchist in me sometimes wants to applaud an anonymous hacker that might bring a bank, large establishment or government to its knees.

I don't feel entitled to high bandwidth nor do I want to pay too much for it. I view the Internet as more of a novelty than a necessity. Feel free to disagree. You cannot honestly disagree though that online, peeping Tom types, info merchants and NSA government snoops are actively and immorally stripping you of your privacy. "Times are a-changing" and the Internet of tomorrow is likely to be a very different dog than it is today. What with video surveillance cameras at every turn, miniature drones, Google Glass devices, AI, biometric databases, voice recognition and on and on, we are faced with a potentially dystopian future where computers and the Internet they enable might determine our very decisions. Don't worship this technology too much; it might soon turn into more of a curse than a blessing.

Many commenters have almost equated Commissioner Michael O'Rielly with the devil or a muslim suicide bomber but he might be viewing the issue from an honest and virtuous perspective. Rather than net neutrality O'Rielly's real concern is likely what he perceives as being an illegal power grab by the very same bureaucratic entity he helps preside over. Being conservative, he probably views this action as a prerequisite to control and taxation of the Internet down the road somewhere. Politicians have been trying to find a way to tax the Internet since its inception. The FCC is an independent agency and its decisions should not be politically motivated. That’s why its chairmen are split between parties. If Wheeler did kowtow to Obama for political pressure then O’Rielly’s statement would be vindicated.

This is stupid. I don't even know a word to express HOW stupid it is. It's like saying phones and electricity weren't important because you can live without them and there are people in poverty who do.

The internet is one of the most important tools we have as a society right now, it can topple regimes, it can help bring those people out of property when the right people with the right mindset utilize it on their behalf properly rather than just trying to make more money off of them. It is THE most important tool we have in our society right now, just like at one point electricity was, just like at one point the engine and automobiles were. You cannot treat the internet like it is just some pipe that carries YouTube videos of cats and nothing more important, and say that you should just live without it. The more access people around the globe have to the internet, the more society changes for the better.

 

[knbgnu]

ChristoMax[/url]":2kb6e5pd]

knbgnu[/url]":2kb6e5pd]

ChristoMax[/url]":2kb6e5pd]

Lukacsmw[/url]":2kb6e5pd]

ChristoMax[/url]":2kb6e5pd]

Lukacsmw[/url]":2kb6e5pd]
I have the right to life, liberty and my property. That doesn't mean that someone else can't take it, and it definitely doesn't mean that person has a right to take it. I have the right to live not because of some Government and not because of society. I have the right to live because I exist, plain and simple.

Again, only because there is an established government that ensures that. Otherwise you're SOL. Perhaps picture yourself in some post-apocalyptic world, where society breaks down. Do you think your "I have the right to life, liberty and my property." schtick is going to stop marauders, or anyone who wants what they think you may have?

Sorry, not matter how you try to weasel way through the argument, you don't have any intrinsic right to a n y t h i n g.


*edited for quoting mishap..

I never said rights couldn't be attacked or taken away. Just because you have a natural right to something doesn't mean it can't be taken, that's why we codify laws to establish how rights interact. And if the US Government didn't exist in a post-apocalyptic scenario, I would still have the right to life, liberty and property - I would just have to defend those rights on my own, without the collective benefit of the US Government and it's rule-of-law behind me.

If you have a natural right to X, why can I not have a natural right to Y? Because morality? Government? Or some other function that has specifically been created by mankind. Do you see animals expressing a "right" to property? I can tell you that if you watch our closes cousins in the wild, there is no such thing to right to property. If such things are natural and inherent, how come they don't take place in nature? I'll finish this mental exercise for you, it's because rights aren't something anything is born with. They're ideas that societies agree upon to keep things going smoothly. This isn't rocket science.

Animals do have practices quite similar to property, and at least some primates have a sense of justice and fairness very much aligned with our own. Thus, in regards to at least negative rights, they probably have at least some roots embedded within our DNA.

It seems like a moot point, though. It's pretty much universally accepted that by virtue of being a human, you have certain rights that cannot be justly taken away from, at least outside of very narrow exceptions. Even most dictatorships at least put up the farce of being a democracy. Divine right of kings is all but dead as far as popular support, and 'because if you don't I will kill you' is nigh universally seen as unethical. Thus, the natural rights and social contract theory of governance is currently the nominally the only game in town.

That said, you can't bring property rights into ISPs, because the way they operate makes them more like a unchecked government than a free market business in a number of ways.

I'd argue that the sense of justice or fairness you're referring to is due to the fact that it gives these groups of primates an evolutionary advantage. Working together helps the group prosper, which in turn leads them to being successful. This isnt an indication of having an innate 'right' to anything, as much as it shows that living in a group setting will lead to having a more defined social structure than animals that don't.

A right is a concept, so it's not going to have a physical manifestation, and it obviously isn't literally protected by a higher power, but holding such concepts is probably about as innate to humans as language.

As for your second point, none of that indicates an inherent human right to anything. It was a long winded way of saying that social constructs matter if we want to have a functioning society, and that people recognize that if you don't do things a certain way, that functioning society will be difficult to maintain.

Since humans are social creatures and pretty much useless without the things that a group can bring, we will either form a functioning society or die off.

0 evidence for having rights just for being alive and a hapoen to be a human.

As i said before, there's not going be the kind of evidence you are looking for because it could not physically exist. But, if you were to put humans on another planet and they managed to survive, they would most likely establish something very much akin to natural rights.

 

[Derecho Imminent]

A right is something that cannot be taken away.
Therefore calling freedom of speech a right is only half right.
A government may have the power to curtail it, but no government has the power to wholly take it away.
People talk whether you let them talk or not.

 

[joemama_1]

adamrussell[/url]":3im8bz80]A right is something that cannot be taken away.
Therefore calling freedom of speech a right is only half right.
A government may have the power to curtail it, but no government has the power to wholly take it away.
People talk whether you let them talk or not.

Rights =/= abilities.

Apply your argument to murder.

 

[DreamMachine2015]

MidgardDragon[/url]":2k15dj3f]

xaqattax[/url]":2k15dj3f]I'm generally conservative - but it's about frickin time.

How do you reconcile supporting homophobia, racism, sexism, over-reaching military support, and in general all that crap that those who identify as "conservative" in power support with being an actual living, breathing human being?

You are just stucked on f-up dumb. :facepalm:

 

[BossRoss]

There are 4-5 relevant discussions going on Ars right now, and so few of the comments seem to grasp the history of commercial telecom, and how structurally, things are not so different from ILEC/IXC days. The switch from TDM to IP does not render irrelevant the basics of local access monopolies (ISPs) and long distance services (Transit). Furthermore, there is barely a nod to the role broadcast/cable television (aka "content") has in all of these proceedings.

If you step back to a slightly less pixelated view, it becomes easy to see that a dying industry model is trying to co-opt a booming business model, and it's basically all about who gets to show whom what. Communications is largely secondary to broadcast. I posted elsewhere, that you can see it developing wherein "paid fast lanes" is a euphemism for "premium channels" - Coming soon to a device near you... not much longer now. I think this is a foregone conclusion, and the only battle really worth fighting is whether or not you, the individual citizen or small business, will be able to compete for eyeballs with something a little better than the IP equivalent of the Community Access channel. Anyone want to talk about the "Must Carry" equivalent for ISPs. Hopefully, ensuring this is what Wheeler sees as his purpose. His personal history would lead you to believe he knows what it's like to be locked out of a market.

That your local municipality has been prevented by ILEC or CATV sponsored legislation from investing in a quality of life infrastructure project that is really not so far removed from any other quality of life public works project or municipal utility is not a demonstration of self-determination or states rights; it's corporate protectionism. Please prove me wrong and show me one bill sponsored by a civic minded individual worried about his/her town following the fiber rabbit down the wrong hole.

When I read endless drivel about Republican this or Obama that, I think it's painfully obvious that the agenda of divide and conquer is succeeding. The monopoly "rent seekers" have nearly sowed up the win. Free markets require vigorous oversight and regulation. To paraphrase another Ars comment, "Why do you think the NFL has referees?".

 

[Derecho Imminent]

“Young fool … Only now, at the end, do you understand.”
Republican FCC commissioner Ajit Pai, quoting the dark lord Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars

Im not kidding at all. He said that.

http://www.theguardian.Com/technology/2 ... neutrality

 

[soulsabr]

adamrussell[/url]":y651hylm]“Young fool … Only now, at the end, do you understand.”
Republican FCC commissioner Ajit Pai, quoting the dark lord Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars

Im not kidding at all. He said that.

http://www.theguardian.Com/technology/2 ... neutrality

How do you claim to be fighting for "freedom" and then turn around and quote the dark lord? That's like quoting the big bad wolf while arguing bacon is disgusting.

EDIT : I love me some bacon. The quote in no way reflects my views on how tasty this particular food product is.

 

[THavoc]

soulsabr[/url]":d8bmft9g]

adamrussell[/url]":d8bmft9g]“Young fool … Only now, at the end, do you understand.”
Republican FCC commissioner Ajit Pai, quoting the dark lord Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars

Im not kidding at all. He said that.

http://www.theguardian.Com/technology/2 ... neutrality

How do you claim to be fighting for "freedom" and then turn around and quote the dark lord? That's like quoting the big bad wolf while arguing bacon is disgusting.

EDIT : I love me some bacon. The quote in no way reflects my views on how tasty this particular food product is.

Good thing too.

Not liking bacon is almost as bad as agreeing with Ajit Pai on this issue.

 

[Papageno]

Tiernoc[/url]":2732b7gv]

Lukacsmw[/url]":2732b7gv]
We have to be purposeful, and I don't see how reviving a 1930's law to end-run the system because you disagree with the results of a fair election, fulfills that purpose.

I must have missed part of that last conversation, because I have *NO* idea where this came from.

Can anyone fill me in as to how the Net Neutrality decision was somehow tied to the results of ANY election, fair or otherwise?

I guess he's referring to the "fair election" by five Supreme Court Justices of Bush the Lesser back in Dec. 2000, and the subsequent appointment of the FCC people who decided that cable internet couldn't be regulated under Title II.

EDIT: Given all the other disastrous consequences of that man's presidency, pretty small potatoes all things considered, but I'm glad the FCC has (at least temporarily) moved in the right direction here.

 

[EDNYLaw]

Tiernoc[/url]":bhjyb84w]

EDNYLaw[/url]":bhjyb84w]

Oh god (no pun intended), I didn't even bother reading that link. But here's a question, I'm posing to you because you called him on that BS, if "god" gifted these rights, isn't that literally the same thing as government granting rights? I mean, ok god =/= government, I get that (I don't believe in god, so I don't particularly care about the comparison), but if rights are granted from source A (deity) or source B (government), in the end isn't that the exact same thing? Although one is definitively provable and the other is imaginary, but looking past that.

This was what I came away from the discussion with, that it boiled down to a difference w/out a distinction.

I can grasp the libertarian's concept about individual rights existing a priori to governments. I don't AGREE with the concept, but I can grasp it.

It makes sense if you subscribe to the libertarian worldview wherein regulation equates to limiting freedom and limiting freedom ALWAYS = bad.

It falls apart though when looking at the broader global society, where these 'rights' aren't codified and protected by another government (say Somalia, for simplicity's sake). You can make the positive claim that you have the same right you had before, but that claim will offer about as much protection as cloth provides vs bullets.

I think you, rather eloquently, stated why I have no regard for libertarians. It's a very anti-human society concept. It's all about the me me me. Societies have always recognized that working as a community is far more beneficial than going it alone. It's something about this country, American exceptionalism I guess, where people think they're the exception to the rule (I guess by definition of exceptionalism that's true). But it seems to ignore the whole of human history.

 

[knbgnu]

EDNYLaw[/url]":298vs2dc]

Tiernoc[/url]":298vs2dc]

EDNYLaw[/url]":298vs2dc]

Oh god (no pun intended), I didn't even bother reading that link. But here's a question, I'm posing to you because you called him on that BS, if "god" gifted these rights, isn't that literally the same thing as government granting rights? I mean, ok god =/= government, I get that (I don't believe in god, so I don't particularly care about the comparison), but if rights are granted from source A (deity) or source B (government), in the end isn't that the exact same thing? Although one is definitively provable and the other is imaginary, but looking past that.

This was what I came away from the discussion with, that it boiled down to a difference w/out a distinction.

I can grasp the libertarian's concept about individual rights existing a priori to governments. I don't AGREE with the concept, but I can grasp it.

It makes sense if you subscribe to the libertarian worldview wherein regulation equates to limiting freedom and limiting freedom ALWAYS = bad.

It falls apart though when looking at the broader global society, where these 'rights' aren't codified and protected by another government (say Somalia, for simplicity's sake). You can make the positive claim that you have the same right you had before, but that claim will offer about as much protection as cloth provides vs bullets.

I think you, rather eloquently, stated why I have no regard for libertarians. It's a very anti-human society concept. It's all about the me me me. Societies have always recognized that working as a community is far more beneficial than going it alone. It's something about this country, American exceptionalism I guess, where people think they're the exception to the rule (I guess by definition of exceptionalism that's true). But it seems to ignore the whole of human history.

If you aren't actually building shrines to Ayn Rand and worshiping Homo Economicus, you can cooperate without being coerced to do so. In fact, we have mechanisms built into our brains that reward us for helping others, so if we like pleasure, we aren't going to just be assholes all the time. Granted, libertarians are often inflexible in sticking their principles (unless they are merely being opportunistic hypocrites), but let's not pretend that we all fall apart without a strict hierarchical power structure, or that concentration of power results in more collective action. If we are following human history closely, we wouldn't trust anyone with too much power because all humans are constantly stupid or malicious.

 

[cactusbush]

@MidgardDragon

Quote:
"This is stupid. I don't even know a word to express HOW stupid it is. It's like saying phones and electricity weren't important because you can live without them and there are people in poverty who do".........."the internet is one of the most important tools we have as a society right now, it can topple regimes, it can help bring those people out of property when the right people with the right mindset utilize it on their behalf properly rather than just trying to make more money off of them. It is THE most important tool we have in our society"........

Quote:
"A great many people do not have a right to their own opinion because they don't know what they're talking about".
Andrew A. Rooney

 

[AlexisR200X]

operagost[/url]":1sb02ayf]

AlexisR200X[/url]":1sb02ayf]

Lukacsmw[/url]":1sb02ayf]

nutjob2[/url]":1sb02ayf]

Lukacsmw[/url]":1sb02ayf]I am NOT an internet troll. I have brought up a legitimate concern and rational arguments. These are concerns held by a large percentage of the population, including TWO commissioners that were appointed by the President and confirmed. When the subject of internet regulations comes up on a tech blog like ars, and the editors take a very partisan, specific stance, what else are we to do? Bend over and watch our rights whittled away by misguided do-gooders with a golden spoon up their ass?

What you're unable to understand is that everything is not political. There is a right and a wrong way, better and worse. It's not a matter of choice or persuasion, it's facts and logic.

Conservatives mostly chose to ignore this because they think that truth is what they choose (usually because they're too dumb to know better). Don't blame "partisans" when you get called on this asinine notion.

Thank you for the insult - it gives me a warm fuzzy inside. And FYI - most studies have shown conservatives to be as intelligent or more so than liberals, and more generous too (oddly enough). I would send the link, but I don't have it at available at work. And I don't think you want to compare my intelligence to yours (because my bet is I'll win).

As for partisan, yes - there is partisan actors at work ON BOTH SIDES. George Soros is heavily funding much of the Net Neutrality movement, and he is as partisan as you can get. And right now the FCC is being investigated by the Congress (yes, I know they are Republican) under suspected bias by the Chairman. The FCC is supposed to be non-partisan and kept indicating they were not going to enact Title II until the President proposed as such, then they did a 180, which reeks of partisan politics.

And yes, there is a right way and a wrong way. I'm an engineer, I understand facts and logic. But those only get you to where you are, not necessarily where you will be going. Unfortunately, in politics (and this is heavily embroiled in politics now) there are three sides: your side, their side and the truth. The truth is that Title II is not a solution to the problem. It's an outdated concept from the 1930's that's was pushed because the FCC couldn't get their way through the normal regulatory process and were smacked down by the courts. They are answerable to the people, and the people voted in Republicans en masse (that happens in a Republic, sometimes your horses loose). So rather than work with Republicans to address the issue in a legislative method, they chose to circumvent the spirit of the law to enact ancient legislation that was passed before the invention of the transistor.

I really hate people that equate everything with politics, they muddy issues that are clear as day. The US has a sovereign right to regulate businesses operating on US soil.

No, the federal government does not. They have the rights given to them in the Constitution, along with any lawful regulations passed by Congress authorized by those rights. They cannot do whatever they want. Of course, thanks to people like you, de facto they can.

I said the US as in United States, be it the federal government or each state implementing local laws and regulations. If you are going to comment in such a way please at least take the time to comprehend what I wrote first OK?

 

[Tiernoc]

EDNYLaw[/url]":19rtmhtd]

I think you, rather eloquently, stated why I have no regard for libertarians. It's a very anti-human society concept. It's all about the me me me. Societies have always recognized that working as a community is far more beneficial than going it alone. It's something about this country, American exceptionalism I guess, where people think they're the exception to the rule (I guess by definition of exceptionalism that's true). But it seems to ignore the whole of human history.

See, I can see the wolf in sheep's clothing that is Libertarianism (at least at the fringe / True Believer levels), but there is something appealing about Libertarian philosophy, when it's not taken to extremes.

I personally disagree with much of our nation's priorities and policy, from addressing poverty, to the war on drugs, to our "free trade" agreements that are usually anything but.

I'm not even going to comment further on the fact that our nation has been at war for over 90% of its life.


When you consider HOW this has happened, it seems to have occurred because of two main factors:

1. Those in power have spent decades re-writing the laws to benefit themselves and to amass more power.

2. The people have failed to reign in these power-mongers, and in doing so failed in our civic duties.


Now the question arises, "How do we fix this?" and there aren't many answers. Our options that are codified in law have been eroded, and the deck has been slowly stacked against us over the past century as to limit our ability to protest. At the heart of the Libertarian doctrine, the Government has shifted from a guard dog to a slavering beast. The approaches we have to curtail it are to 'starve' it (as we've seen with the rise of the Tea Party in the past ~6 years), or to rise up against it (which doesn't have much of a chance of success as things stand currently).


Taking this into account, and looking at where we are today as a nation, it becomes very appealing to live in a world where the Gov. doesn't have the ABILITY to spy on your conversations, read your mail, intrude on your life or invade your privacy.

So the question arises: "What level of <"bad"> is justified to obtain this <"good">?". Is the certain harm that would come from starving the government a price worth paying in order to reclaim our democracy?

It stops looking *QUITE* so much like lunacy or pure selfishness when put into the proper context...

 

[itzalex]

The 400 billion dollar question is about the location of the funds that went to these oligopolies that did not expand fiber to every house and just stuck with POTS DSL technology for most of the country. I love seeing the incumbents and their surrogates whine because of new technologies that would make their cash cows disappear (sub-optimal speeds: (max speeds docsis 3.1: 1gbit and dsl variants: 200 mbit), substandard methods of delivery and data caps like their cell networks using optical carrier which makes caps a bit redundant unless they decide to bare bones it).