Private Property and the Net

[PoliticalChic]

I found this post this morning in regard to what Republicans should do:
"Solidify net neutrality by law, protect it under first amendment."



This is where the 'rubber meets the road.'


It is surprising to me that so many who support personal responsibility, decry government entitlements as hand-outs, and joined me in despising the 'you didn't build that' socialism, are happy to endorse the 'Net Neutrality' agenda.


Are these folks selling out their principles in the hope of keeping their cable TV bills a tad lower????




1. The issue is this: there are a handful of servers that basically control the Internet providers like Verizon and Comcast
They've set up a dual-highway system: a super express highway for the largest, wealthiest users, Amazon, Netflix, etc....who can pay more for the service

2. And a local-less accessible highway for the smaller companies.

3. The Net Neutrality law would say that all comers get access to the super highway.....Internet providers have to treat all traffic sources equally. Net neutrality would be enforced by the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, the government.

a. Let's take one example.... Comcast, which would probably like to promote NBC's content over ABC's to its Internet subscribers. That's because Comcast and NBC are affiliated.
But net neutrality prevents Comcast from being able to discriminate, and it must display both NBC's and ABC's content evenly as a result. That means no slower load time for ABC, and definitely no blocking of ABC altogether.
EXPLAINED: 'Net Neutrality' For Dummies, How It Affects You, And Why It Might Cost You More - SFGate




4. The providers say "we took the risk and used beau-coup bucks to build this infrastructure...and now you want to come in and tell us how to use it???"

Getting rid of net neutrality means Verizon or Comcast could similarly choose which content to promote based on their own self-interests.


I love this: it is politics at it's most basic!


5. It comes down to an issue of private property....and just as the eco-fascists have used government regulations to de facto deprive private land owners the use of their property, once again the collectivist big government folks are out to co-opt what they have no right to.




7.If you like the concept of Net Neutrality, think about it like this:
if a consumer is looking to but a refrigerator, how about a regulation that all appliance stores have to have the same price for refrigerators? Even better...the same as the lowest price any are charging.

That sound like freedom to you?

Grubercrats aim to free us from the tyranny of work AND private property.

You are one of the few who understands what is going on.


Let's remember that liberty and private property are intimately intertwined, and the very antithesis of communism, socialism, 'Occupy Wall Street,' and Obama-politics.



6. Perhaps some know that before it became “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in our Declaration of Independence, John Locke wrote that man has a right to “life, liberty, and property.”
Property Rights Have Personal Parallels - Forbes


a. Under United States law the principal limitations on whether and the extent to which the State may interfere with property rights are set by the Constitution. The "Takings" clause requires that the government (whether state or federal—for the 14th Amendment's due process clause imposes the 5th Amendment's takings clause on state governments) may take private property only for a public purpose, after exercising due process of law, and upon making "just compensation."
Property - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia




7. " Karl Marx describes in his communist manifesto, the ten steps necessary to destroy a free enterprise system and replace it with a system of omnipotent government power, so as to effect a communist socialist state. Those ten steps are known as theTen Planks of The Communist Manifesto…

a. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

b. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

c. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State."
Communist Manifesto 10 Planks

 

[Ame®icano]

".... or giving priority to the biggest players."

So you probably want a law that makes Sparks Steak House charge no more than Mickey D's, huh?

Grow up.

Why should anyone pay more for using more? Everyone should pay equal price, regardless of how much they use. That's why government has to step in and fix the problem. Problem that doesn't exist, btw.

 

[PoliticalChic]

".... or giving priority to the biggest players."

So you probably want a law that makes Sparks Steak House charge no more than Mickey D's, huh?

Grow up.

Why should anyone pay more for using more? Everyone should pay equal price, regardless of how much they use. That's why government has to step in and fix the problem. Problem that doesn't exist, btw.

Yet the bogus 'Income Inequality' ploy has legs, and the Leftists are able to run with it.

Bye, bye, America.

 

[Ame®icano]

You are one of the few who understands what is going on.

I don't think anyone knows what's really going on. From experience, they saying one thing while doing something completely different. That's why government need to pass "net neutrality" as soon is possible so we can find out what's in it.

 

[Ame®icano]

Yet the bogus 'Income Inequality' ploy has legs, and the Leftists are able to run with it.

Bye, bye, America.

Key word - equality. When government makes everyone equal, especially when they make someone more equal then the other, it doesn't matter if there are more problems then before.

We all know that great things happen when government take control over something. When few people have issue with health insurance, government steps in, take control over the industry and make problems for everyone.

 

[Eric Cartman]

"It comes down to an issue of private property..."

Not sure it is quite that simple. The internet was developed with the help of government funds and authorities... not unlike the road system. I don't want the guy who built my subdivision or the guy who sold me my car to be able to tell me where I can drive. If they could them Ikea could pay them to restrict my access to Pier one.

1. "The internet was developed with the help of government funds and authorities... not unlike the road system."
Any endeavor can be traced back to, and attributed it to, some function of government.
That being said, it's absurd to use that as an excuse for government to dictate every aspect of the private economy.

How about, since you use the roads, the government gets to tell you you must wear the mom-jeans that Obama wears when you drive.


2. "I don't want the guy who built my subdivision or the guy who sold me my car to be able to tell me where I can drive."
Why not?
Consider it the moron-test. He gets to do that, and you'd get to wear a moron sticker if you bought your car from him.


3. "If they could them Ikea could pay them to restrict my access to Pier one."
Ricky....this is awful. You've clearly bought into the 'government can do anything it feels like' mentality.

1 Hardly the tertiary relationship that you imply.

Government Did Invent the Internet But the Market Made It Glorious - Peter G. Klein - Mises Daily

When the cable company dug a trench though my property to bury a fiber cable they didn't even knock on my door and say "hi" let alone pay me a usage fee for my property.

2 It does seem moronic because it can't be done and it shouldn't be allowed by the last mile of service providers of internet service.

3 The internet has been a capitalist dream up to now, fair competition abounds, now giant corporations would like to restrict access to this government created infrastructure to stifle competition. It will result in government welfare for cable companies (see: cronyism, to big to fail, picking winners and losers.)

or

You could give up a reason and buy into the cable companies propaganda.

 

[ClosedCaption]

".... or giving priority to the biggest players."

So you probably want a law that makes Sparks Steak House charge no more than Mickey D's, huh?

Grow up.

Why should anyone pay more for using more? Everyone should pay equal price, regardless of how much they use. That's why government has to step in and fix the problem. Problem that doesn't exist, btw.

What problem doesnt exist? LOL

 

[ClosedCaption]

You are one of the few who understands what is going on.

I don't think anyone knows what's really going on. From experience, they saying one thing while doing something completely different. That's why government need to pass "net neutrality" as soon is possible so we can find out what's in it.

Awesome!!! The OP says you know whats going on and then you respond that you dont.

LOL!!! Thats why PC thinks you know, you deliver information about information you know nothing about like a pro

 

[PoliticalChic]

"...we must promote growth in the technological sector, a consistent bright spot for the U.S. economy. But we won’t realize more of that dynamic growth unless we keep the Internet free from the kind of unnecessary regulation that is strangling our health-care, energy and banking industries.

And one of the biggest regulatory threats to the Internet is net neutrality.

In short, net neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet. It would put the government in charge of determining Internet pricing, terms of service and what types of products and services can be delivered, leading to fewer choices, fewer opportunities and higher prices.

President Obama this week came out aggressively for net neutrality and turning the Internet into a public utility. Some in the online community have embraced this call, thinking that cheaper prices will result. But when has that worked? Government-regulated utilities invariably destroy innovation and freedom. Which is more innovative, the U.S. Post Office, or Facebook and Twitter? Which is better for consumers, city taxi commissions or Uber and Lyft?

If the federal government seizes the power to regulate Internet pricing and goods and services, the regulations will never end."
Ted Cruz Regulating the Internet threatens entrepreneurial freedom - The Washington Post

 

[ClosedCaption]

Thats it PC...quote even bigger dumbasses who dont know what they are talking about as proof.

Ted Cruz just said "internet obamacare" and thats all he had to do

 

[Ame®icano]

You are one of the few who understands what is going on.

I don't think anyone knows what's really going on. From experience, they saying one thing while doing something completely different. That's why government need to pass "net neutrality" as soon is possible so we can find out what's in it.

Awesome!!! The OP says you know whats going on and then you respond that you dont.

LOL!!! Thats why PC thinks you know, you deliver information about information you know nothing about like a pro

Actually, OP said that to RoadRunner, not to me.

 

[SwimExpert]

7.If you like the concept of Net Neutrality, think about it like this:
if a consumer is looking to but a refrigerator, how about a regulation that all appliance stores have to have the same price for refrigerators? Even better...the same as the lowest price any are charging.

That sound like freedom to you?

If this is the analogy you want to present there seem to be only two possibilities:

1. You don't understand net neutrality.

OR

2. You're just playing politics.


A more apt analogy would be this:

A collection of truck drivers are traveling along a road. Each is charged a fee, but each pays different fees based on the company they work for.

 

[Ame®icano]

Thats it PC...quote even bigger dumbasses who dont know what they are talking about as proof.

Ted Cruz just said "internet obamacare" and thats all he had to do

But you DO get it, right?

Let's see. With Barry's "net neutrality", everyone will have premium service at premium prices. Those rich will pay for it full price, while poor will be subsidized. That's equality they talking about. Everyone will be satisfied with the service, just like with ACA.

Of course, we will see more speeches like: If you like your ISP, you can keep your ISP. If you like superfast broadband, you can keep it. Then they'll say, "let me be clear, this is about fundamentally changing the way that businesses do business and making it fair(er) for everyone".

 

[Ame®icano]

7.If you like the concept of Net Neutrality, think about it like this:
if a consumer is looking to but a refrigerator, how about a regulation that all appliance stores have to have the same price for refrigerators? Even better...the same as the lowest price any are charging.

That sound like freedom to you?

If this is the analogy you want to present there seem to be only two possibilities:

1. You don't understand net neutrality.

OR

2. You're just playing politics.


A more apt analogy would be this:

A collection of truck drivers are traveling along a road. Each is charged a fee, but each pays different fees based on the company they work for.

So if I prepay my bridge tool and pay annual fee at discounted price, that's not really fair to others that pay full price every time they cross over.

 

[SwimExpert]

Let's see. With Barry's "net neutrality", everyone will have premium service at premium prices.

That's not what the issue is about at all. It's about whether ISPs can charge producers for their company being consumed.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Thats it PC...quote even bigger dumbasses who dont know what they are talking about as proof.

Ted Cruz just said "internet obamacare" and thats all he had to do

But you DO get it, right?

Let's see. With Barry's "net neutrality", everyone will have premium service at premium prices. Those rich will pay for it full price, while poor will be subsidized. That's equality they talking about. Everyone will be satisfied with the service, just like with ACA.

Net Neutrality means that the cable companies cant create tiered service. If you believe that the telecoms will treat everyone fair ONLY WHEN they get to create packages then either you dont have cable or are a fool

Of course, we will see more speeches like: If you like your ISP, you can keep your ISP. If you like superfast broadband, you can keep it. Then they'll say, "let me be clear, this is about fundamentally changing the way that businesses do business and making it fair(er) for everyone".

Yeah yeah, you are against it because Obama something something...but all these post fail to say WHY you are FOR IT and how it will benefit the consumer.

Do you know why? Because these idiots dont have a reason they are for it AND it wont benefit the consumer at all.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7.If you like the concept of Net Neutrality, think about it like this:
if a consumer is looking to but a refrigerator, how about a regulation that all appliance stores have to have the same price for refrigerators? Even better...the same as the lowest price any are charging.

That sound like freedom to you?

If this is the analogy you want to present there seem to be only two possibilities:

1. You don't understand net neutrality.

OR

2. You're just playing politics.


A more apt analogy would be this:

A collection of truck drivers are traveling along a road. Each is charged a fee, but each pays different fees based on the company they work for.

And...the company of which driver owns the road, dunce?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's see. With Barry's "net neutrality", everyone will have premium service at premium prices.

That's not what the issue is about at all. It's about whether ISPs can charge producers for their company being consumed.

Seems that you just proved that you're the one who doesn't understand the intended law.

 

[SwimExpert]

And...the company of which driver owns the road, dunce?

Wait.....so are you changing the analogy by which you'll evaluate this issue? Or is your response just meant to be a red herring?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Thats it PC...quote even bigger dumbasses who dont know what they are talking about as proof.

Ted Cruz just said "internet obamacare" and thats all he had to do

But you DO get it, right?

Let's see. With Barry's "net neutrality", everyone will have premium service at premium prices. Those rich will pay for it full price, while poor will be subsidized. That's equality they talking about. Everyone will be satisfied with the service, just like with ACA.

Net Neutrality means that the cable companies cant create tiered service. If you believe that the telecoms will treat everyone fair ONLY WHEN they get to create packages then either you dont have cable or are a fool

Of course, we will see more speeches like: If you like your ISP, you can keep your ISP. If you like superfast broadband, you can keep it. Then they'll say, "let me be clear, this is about fundamentally changing the way that businesses do business and making it fair(er) for everyone".

Yeah yeah, you are against it because Obama something something...but all these post fail to say WHY you are FOR IT and how it will benefit the consumer.

Do you know why? Because these idiots dont have a reason they are for it AND it wont benefit the consumer at all.

"Net Neutrality means that the cable companies cant create tiered service."

That's a business decision.

Seems that you must be one of the dorks who are turned away at the club, when folks like moi....the beautiful people....are allowed right in.

Isn't it time you got over it?