kidmercury

I think Shelley has oversimplified things in the video below. There are corrupt political interests on both sides of the net neutrality issue. But for this reason, I am increasingly inclined to side with Shelley, as it is the more classic libertarian view, which is the view of those who view government as one big corruption center.

Watch the video below.

marko

kid, maybe you can help me.....i've always had a difficuly time understanding the logic of libertarianism that runs deep in the US .....even more so after the near collapse of the "free" market recently. essentially, what is the difference between a libertarian and anarchist? .....i'm not saying i agree with either view at all, but i really don't know where the line between those world views are.

the arguments i've heard are usually based on mistrust of gov't.....but, it seems odd that the country that invented democracy would rather avoid gov't than seek to embrace and improve it - of the people, by the people, for the people.

my opinion is net neutrality = free speech. i expect the gov't to step in and protect that everyone has an open channel to join the discussion.....regulation is not a 'dirty' word for me in this context.

anyways....interested to hear your thoughts.....

kidmercury

hey marko,

the basic idea of libertarianism is i think limited government. how limited is perhaps a bit subjective, of course, and what one considers limited another could consider tyrannical.

under conventional libertarian ideology, big government doesn't work because central planning is not as efficient as auction-based/market planning. it is not just a morals issue, it is an economics and efficiency issue as well.

regarding net neutrality, right now, there is nothing blocking ISPs from charging different rates for certain sites, as shelley noted in the video, yet most ISPs don't do this. why? because they know they would lose customers if they did. the free market provides its own kind of regulation. there is also the issue that net neutrality will require hte government to have greater access to track and control what ISPs are doing. and there is hte issue that in the future there may be technologies that emerge that want to connect to the internet and it is economically advantageous and morally neutral to charge users using those technologies a different amount. in my opinion, ISPs should be free to manage their company as they see fit.

just my opinion of course.

marko

i hear ya. but, i don't believe in free market fundamentalism.....the world is not black and white, it's grey. we have commonly agreed laws, and norms to provide 'the rules of the game'. unfettered free market is what led to the recent near meltdown.....gov't intervention is the only thing that stopped total collapse. i would prefer proactive regulation as opposed to privatizing gains and socializing losses....its already going again as nothing really changed.

i just think net neutrality is so important. we've seen mobile carriers block traffic in the past and it just doesn't benefit anyone, except mobile carriers. these industries are granted special positions through licenses, etc, so they must be regulated in a way that is best for consumers. and i'm mostly thinking about blogs like this.....i may not agree with everything you say but i enjoy your posts and support diversity of opinion....some ISP should not decide whether i can read your stuff or not. this great new open medium should not be centralized by those who see it as a threat to their cash cows. moo.