Ajit Pai: States Can't Enact Net Neutrality Rules

[tetris42]

It's frightening to read a thread like this. Almost every poster arguing in favor of MORE government power. My own views have changed quite a bit over the last few years. We should be arguing against government. The goal is for government to have as little power as possible. Someone quoted the 10th Amendment. The constitution and its intents have long been thrown away and forgotten. For many aspects of our country today, it's almost as if it never existed.

You really have to go issue by issue. The constitution was written back when we were an agrarian economy and knew it couldn't foresee everything, hence its flexibility.

You want the government to have as little influence as possible, except when less influence creates MORE problems. Environmental protection or food regulation are pretty obvious examples of this. The government only got more involved because left to private industry, rivers were so polluted they were caching fire and people were getting rat meat in their food.

The thing about power is it flows SOMEWHERE. If not to the government, then to private corporations. Sometimes the government is worse, sometimes industry is worse. Again, it's issue by issue. How corrupt the government is, how much competition there is in the market, past history of industry abuse, etc. all come into play.

For Net Neutrality, I think most people are in favor of the principle. It's obvious to anyone paying attention that as large as ISPs have become, they'll abuse their power even further, given the chance. It's already anti-competitive now (seriously, compare internet prices to Europe sometime, especially cheaper options), and there's an ever-present pressure to exploit the situation even more. Where the debate is (or where it should be anyway), is are the "solutions" proposed by our current government actually going to fix the problem or will it just create more of a mess? The industry isn't going to regulate itself, but government may be so bought that it probably won't implement anything helpful either. It's very much a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.

 

[big_aug]

You really have to go issue by issue. The constitution was written back when we were an agrarian economy and knew it couldn't foresee everything, hence its flexibility.

You want the government to have as little influence as possible, except when less influence creates MORE problems. Environmental protection or food regulation are pretty obvious examples of this. The government only got more involved because left to private industry, rivers were so polluted they were caching fire and people were getting rat meat in their food.

The thing about power is it flows SOMEWHERE. If not to the government, then to private corporations. Sometimes the government is worse, sometimes industry is worse. Again, it's issue by issue. How corrupt the government is, how much competition there is in the market, past history of industry abuse, etc. all come into play.

For Net Neutrality, I think most people are in favor of the principle. It's obvious to anyone paying attention that as large as ISPs have become, they'll abuse their power even further, given the chance. It's already anti-competitive now (seriously, compare internet prices to Europe sometime, especially cheaper options), and there's an ever-present pressure to exploit the situation even more. Where the debate is (or where it should be anyway), is are the "solutions" proposed by our current government actually going to fix the problem or will it just create more of a mess? The industry isn't going to regulate itself, but government may be so bought that it probably won't implement anything helpful either. It's very much a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.

No, government is always the enemy. You don't have to go issue by issue. The answer is always the same. Government is the enemy of freedom. Sometimes it is a necessary evil, but it is NEVER a good thing. Period. Power flows away from the people because we have yielded it to those that seek to take it.

You can just look at our government today. It has gotten completely out of hand. Government is composed of a group of elites that have no ties to the people that cast votes in elections. They play their own games by their own rules as if the rest of us don't exist. Giving government any more power makes no sense at all. The government already has complete control over every single aspect of our lives. You cannot do anything without some law that relates to what you're doing.

 

[tetris42]

You can just look at our government today. It has gotten completely out of hand. Government is composed of a group of elites that have no ties to the people that cast votes in elections. They play their own games by their own rules as if the rest of us don't exist.

Again, issue by issue, I agree with this part of your statement, our government is largely corrupted. In order for government to work, it has to be held accountable by its people. If not, you end up with this. Corporations are only accountable to shareholders. As long as what they do is profitable, they have no limitations. One's not really better than the other, it just depends on what issue you're talking about.

No, government is always the enemy. You don't have to go issue by issue. The answer is always the same. Government is the enemy of freedom. Sometimes it is a necessary evil, but it is NEVER a good thing. Period. Power flows away from the people because we have yielded it to those that seek to take it.

I think that's a very simplistic way to look at the world.

After social security = poverty among elders dropped by by 25%, therefore evil
After the EPA = DRAMATIC cleanup in air and water pollution, therefore evil
After the FDA = led to safer food and lower disease rates, therefore evil
After OSHA = reduction in workplace accidents and death, therefore evil
Creation of national parks and forests, ensured they weren't clear-cut, therefore evil

Now do I support government engaging in wars, picking winners in industry, giving massive subsidies to corporations, bailing out the banks? Not at all. But to act like it's ALL evil is naive. Everything I mentioned above was in a bad enough state that left to market forces, the problem was getting worse and worse. The market simply doesn't solve some problems and even incentivizes adding to the problem. I get that you hate government and in many cases it's justifiably so, but to act like it's ALWAYS bad ignores severe problems it at least alleviates. Otherwise, what's your answer for problems the free market simply doesn't fix on it own (or makes worse)?