[ExI] internet regulation as a public utility

spike spike66 at att.net
Tue Nov 11 02:08:37 UTC 2014



From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of James Clement
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 5:27 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] internet regulation as a public utility


On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 6:52 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:


>>…It does, thanks James.  I read up on it and I come away with little doubt: any attempt at regulation is a bad thing.  It sets up too many risks for violation of free speech enforced by the IRS.  I don’t trust the party currently in power nor the one that is coming in January.

>…So, does that mean you're against net neutrality, since such would be a regulation imposed on ISPs by the FCC?  BTW, here's another good explanation: http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality


Ja.  It leaves a government agency of some sort responsible for determining what is political content and what is not.  Then it requires some kind of government action to balance that playing field.  We saw the problem with that notion in the IRS scandal: an agency made up of people who all have their own political agendas get to decide what activity is promoting the public welfare.  For instance, is educating Americans on the Bill of Rights welfare?  I would say it is.  The IRS arbitrarily decided that activity is promoting a political notion.  After the fact, the same agency has functionally admitted it destroyed evidence by arranging for critical disks containing critical evidence to crash.  Just last week they said they didn’t bother searching for copies of the email elsewhere, because they already knew that search would be fruitless.  Think about that.


Anything that empowers the FCC is subject to all the same problems, possibly worse.  


I could go along with the whole scheme under exactly one condition: that the person who gets to make the final decision on what constitutes a political message is me.  I alone get that unlimited power, no one gets to appeal or to criticize me, for if they do, it’s Audit City and been-nice-to-know-you.


But in reality, even I do not want that power, for I already know it would corrupt me.  This is ME talking, the very most fair-minded and humble person in the history of mankind!  That kind of power would corrupt even spotless little ME.  So now imagine that power in the hands of those corrupt egomaniacs currently in Washington.


No thanks, let big businesses compete and buy that bandwidth.  At least we know their end goals.


Free speech has its price.  It’s worth it.


>…Whose free speech, corporations?


Yes sir.  Or you, if you want to pay to deliver it.  Or anyone, if they will tolerate a slower delivery rate.  I agree this approach has its problems, but the alternative is worse.


>…I'm one of those anarchist/libertarians who thinks personhood for corporations should be abolished, so they can no longer claim protection under the Constitution.  James


Ja.  I don’t know how to handle it if a corporation is one person.  I can’t imagine why hiring help would disqualify a person from his usual rights.





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20141110/b7017a89/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list