Rand and Ron Paul denounce net neutrality and the public domain


98 Responses to “Rand and Ron Paul denounce net neutrality and the public domain”

  1. royaltrux says:

    Christ, what assholes. I thought they were libertarians. Maybe I just don’t know what that word means.

    • ComradeQuestions says:

      It basically just means that government support of companies is capitalism, while government support of individuals is a gross overreach of power.

      • Adam L. Cox says:

        That is the best concise definition of “libertarianism” as practiced I’ve ever seen. *golf clap*

        • DC Dan says:

          I like this one better:
          It’s the attitude that says, “it’s fine for me to profit from all of the benefits and infrastructure of the State without paying back into the commons, because hey, ‘they’ made up the rules and I am completely amoral.” Libertarians, in other words.jwz http://www.jwz.org/blog/2012/05/more-tax-dodging-sea-steading-nonsense/#comment-105257

        • Martijn says:

          It’s not really a definition of libertarianism, it’s just what some Americans, including Ayn Rand and Ron Paul, have corrupted it into.

          Plenty of left-wing libertarians love that “evil” collectivism, because that’s how you get stuff done: together. Without it, you’re at the mercy of corporations (which is of course what ring-wing “libertarians” want).

      • sigdrifa says:

        Seriously? I thought that was the definition of a Republican. What’s the difference?

      • Marja Erwin says:

        We need to return to Dejacques’ definition.

        Obviously he was an anarchist communist libertarian. I think one can also be a market libertarian, but one should oppose [pseudo]-private authoritarianism as well as state authoritarianism.

        And if one believes some property can be justified, some can’t.

      • Abe Voelker says:

        Hunh?  I think you’re thinking of crony capitalism which is supported today by both Republicans and Democrats.  All the Libertarian material I’ve read is strongly opposed to giving either consumer or producer special privileges, which kind of destroys the whole idea of a free market.

        • C W says:

          “Hunh?  I think you’re thinking of crony capitalism”

          Which is something he lives and breathes.

          • Abe Voelker says:

            I would be grateful if you could provide some examples of that.  I’m not a Ron Paul expert, but I’ve only heard of him using subsidies in order to cancel out taxes the federal gov’t is imposing. Also, as far as I know, his campaign money comes almost entirely from individuals.

      • Tom Mathew says:

        No it doesn’t. Libertarian means the government helps no one – neither the people nor corporations. That means no one gets any favors either. 

      • Joshua Paul Harding says:

        I read somewhere that corporations are legally treated as individuals? How does that work exactly and how would it fit in here?

      • Mordicai says:

        I couldn’t hear the sound of that slamdunk because of all the glass of the backboard shattering.  Bravo.

    • ambiguator says:

      To be fair, Ron Paul is probably against government support of telcos as well. In fact, Ron Paul doesn’t want the government to spend money on anything.

      Rand Paul, however, is definitely a shill.

      I know it’s tough to keep all these Pauls straight sometimes, so I came up with an easy pneumonic to remember that they are, in fact, two different people:
          Ron gets his crazy on.
          Rand kisses the corporate hand.

      • chenille says:

        In fact, Ron Paul doesn’t want the government to spend money on anything.

        That’s for the federal goverment. If he has ever wanted to place any limits on the goverment at the state level, it certainly doesn’t come up often.

        • SedanChair says:

          He wouldn’t mind if the federal government banned abortion.

          Note to indignant responders: I didn’t say it was his position, I said he wouldn’t mind and I stand by that. Ron Paul takes some “infringements on freedom” more seriously than others…

          • Scott says:

            Actually, yes he would. Personally, he might be anti-abortion, but A) he doesn’t want the federal government involved in any sort of that decision making for individuals, and B) he understands his will does not give him the power over other people’s bodies (i.e. property). So spread your disinformation somewhere else.

          • C W says:

            “Actually, yes he would.”

            Are you fucking kidding me? He’s for Federal observation of the rights of the fetus. Do you people ever actually read his proposed/supported legislation?

          • Antinous / Moderator says:


          • C W says:

            “A) he doesn’t want the federal government involved in any sort of that decision making for individuals”

            Antonious is correct, I suppose. You really have no clue what Paul pushes.

          • Marc Mielke says:

            (A) would be valid only if RP (either) actually acknowledged women as individuals and/or people. Like all pro-lifers, they do not. 

    • As bought and paid for as any other US politicians.  They must demonstrate obeisance.

    • C W says:

      “I thought they were libertarians.”

      “Libertarian” doesn’t only mean ACLU/EFF.

    • sgtdoom says:

      “Libertarians” ???

      Ron Paul is staunchly anti-workers’ rights and women’s rights — just a cursory look at the legislation he’s introduced over the past many years will validate that.

      Of coure, perhaps that is libertarian?

      (Please see my rant at the bottom pertaining to net neutrality.)

      • C W says:

        “Of coure, perhaps that is libertarian?”

        That’s exactly what it is.

        • Marja Erwin says:

          No it isn’t.

          The first libertarians were *anarchists,* including anarchist communists, who insisted that anarchist opposition to political hierarchies and economic hierarchies should also extend to opposition to sex and gender hierarchies. Opposition to economic hierarchies, oppression, deprivation, and dependency is just as basic to libertarianism as to [any other branch of] socialism.

          The right-wing so-called libertarians are trying to hijack the term. If we want to be able to talk about politics, and have any kind of discourse besides duckspeak, we need to be able to distinguish ideas from their opposites, so please, please, don’t help them hijack the term.

    • chris jimson says:

      I always thought it was about support for the rights of the individual, but I guess they think it means “the rights of the individual (which can also magically mean “corporation” now) to exploit others for profit.”

  2. fuzzyfuzzyfungus says:

    Is it some sort of strange cognitive myopia, or are they merely lying about not being corporatist shills?

    I simply cannot fathom the mental contortions required to assert, with a straight face, that the American telecommunications market has the slightest resemblance to a ‘free market’. It’s a massively subsidized oligopoly, at best(and, even in some hypothetical ideal world where it enjoyed zero political power, it would still have strong natural monopoly characteristics, as utilities tend to)…

    • TheMadLibrarian says:

       Ah, Ma Bell, we hardly knew ye…

    • StCredZero says:

      > I simply cannot fathom the mental contortions required to assert, with a straight face, that the American telecommunications market has the slightest resemblance to a ‘free market’.

      Similar to the mental contortions required to deny how warped the health insurance “market” is.

    • digi_owl says:

      Best i can tell they consider private property (and by extension, private enterprise) sacrosanct. This wholly independent of the amount and subsequent impact on the life of others. This is the cornerstone of their entire world view.

      • Marja Erwin says:

        But actually-existing private property is rooted in royal monopolies and royal land-grants from the colonial era, theft, graft, and *slavery*.

        How on earth are these things sacrosanct? X(

        Whatever one may believe about property grounded in individual rights and ‘just acquisition,’ that’s no reason to defend property grounded in force, fraud, and *slavery*.

        • C W says:

          “How on earth are these things sacrosanct? X(”

          Because CONTRACTS. Duh.

          • Marja Erwin says:

            Ah. Rooted in consent, a meeting of the minds, and either side being able to say *no,* legally and practically.

            Nope, we don’t have that either. We get illegitimate property defended by illegitimate contracts defended by illegitimate property… all the way down to the first neolithic plunderers and slave-traders.

  3. Halloween_Jack says:

    I’ll just wait for the Google Ron Paul people to show up and explain how this is really a blow for FREEDOM!, assuming that they don’t just answer with “Google Ron Paul”, of course.

  4. Mark A says:

    Don’t ever be fooled again, Libertarians are nothing more than corporate lackeys. Like the internet, if they take away rules and enforcement, who is going to fill the power gap? Corporations, and they know it.

    • petertrepan says:

      Lesson learned. I may disagree with economic left-wingers on how to achieve worthy goals, but I disagree with right-wingers on things as basic as what constitutes goodness, fairness, and ethics.

    • jandrese says:

      In college I was a libertarian until I realized that they were just a bunch of corporate fat cats.

      I wanted to stand for individual liberty, I didn’t want to stand for individual liberty to be utterly dominated by corporate interests. 

      If I have to choose between the government controlling my life or major corporations controlling my life, I might as well choose the one that at least theoretically has to answer to me every few years. 

      • StCredZero says:

        That’s some choice. Either bow to the corporations, or bow to the corporation’s lackeys. (Government)

  5. Barry Egan says:

    The sound you just heard was reddit exploding.

    • fuzzyfuzzyfungus says:

      That’s the plan. Poor Ron has always yearned for an opportunity to use the phrase “Trolled for epic lulz.”

    • Churba S says:

      Y’know, Reddit has been pretty against Ron Paul for a while now, it’s not been hard-core for Ron Paul since 2008, and this year, it really took a hard dive, especially after it came out that he has other opinions beside “Legalise pot!”.

      There are very few places on Reddit where Ron/Rand Paul are terribly well liked anymore, pretty much only the libertarian or Ron Paul supporter subreddits – admittedly, they had a big thing with spamming other reddits for a while, but they’ve really cut down on that annoying bullshit of late, except for a small handful few exceptionally loud users, and even they mostly seek out places where people are speaking ill of Paul, and trying to start fights.

  6. skysky says:

    They’re gonna lose a lot of their supporters for this. The elder Paul, at least, owes all of his current relevancy directly to the kind of internet-dwellers this “manifesto” attacks. For these kind of people the messaging of the internet against harmful legislation – think SOPA/PIPA protests – is more potent than any kind of messaging the Pauls can produce. He’s biting the hand that feeds him.

    • fuzzyfuzzyfungus says:

      I imagine that Verizon, for one, will appreciate their bold support for constitutional rights…

    • Gideon Jones says:

      Ron’s support is already gone, totally fizzled out during this last Republican primary.  I’d like to blame it on his exposure as a giant flaming racist, but that sadly seemed to have little effect on how his supporters saw him.  

      And Rand was never really even very good at pretending to be a libertarian like his father was.  His support was always from the hardcore rightwing GOP base, not the sort of oddball group that supported his father.

      • skysky says:

         That’s interesting, I haven’t followed Ron’s fortunes recently. I try to stay away. Thanks, GJ.

      • Navin_Johnson says:

        but that sadly seemed to have little effect on how his supporters saw him.

        Like your various _____-ers,  they can’t be swayed no matter what comes to light.  It’s always a plot, conspiracy, or unfair use/fabrication of his own words. It’s very much like a religious fanaticism. Liberty turtles all the way down…..

        Freedom & liberty! (for corporations, landed white gentry….)

    • C W says:

      “They’re gonna lose a lot of their supporters for this.”

      No they won’t. Paul’s fanatics are already mindless corporatists.

      • jimh says:

        Or stuck at the level of “He wants to legalize weed, bro.”

      • JProffitt71 says:

        I wouldn’t completely dehumanize them. I for one was starting to grow fond of Ron Paul’s outlook (given I needed to seriously investigate that racism issue before making a decision about him), but this completely turned me off. There are no libertarians in our government, it’s corporate shills all the way.

        Edit: Irony noted, but seriously, can anyone point me to a good, decent politician anymore who even attempts to work for their constituents beyond the absolute bare minimum?

    • Churba S says:

       A lot of them won’t care. You’d be surprised by the number of Paul supporters whose political ideas boil down to “Whatever Ron Paul says. Vote Ron Paul.”

      They’ll defend this. They’ll stand against anyone who says Net Neutrality is a good thing – hell, there are already people in that crowd who believe it’s evil collectivist nonsense without any prompting, it isn’t going to be a hard sell for Paul.

      And the reason? Because they DON’T think it’s a strike against them, they think it’s a blow for their personal freedom, and they’ll be livin’ in a libertarian wonderland if he manages his goals.

      They think that the people fighting FOR Net Neutrality are the ones trying to restrict their freedoms, who are working against them.

  7. Aloisius says:

    I had no idea that the founding fathers were evil collectivists.

    • fuzzyfuzzyfungus says:

      Ah, but the Founding Fathers also had a concept of property rights that posed serious problems for human freedom, so they’re OK…

  8. sigdrifa says:

    Gee whiz… When the Republican primaries started, I though Ron Paul was the least of five evils. He probably was, but whereas before I felt kind of indifferent towards him, I’m now leaning towards “dislike”.
    Not that it’s gonna make a difference what he says. And as for Rand, I can’t say I know too much about him, but it’s probably not gonna make that much of a difference either.

    • C W says:

      “whereas before I felt kind of indifferent towards him, I’m now leaning towards “dislike”

      A natural extension of researching what Ron Paul actually believes. You should check out how he wants to re-illegalize homosexuality and remove all possible privacy in the bedroom.

  9. mccrum says:

    Vote Ron Paul 2012!  It’s for The Good of the Company!

  10. ablestmage says:

    I’m confused. Where exactly did you get the idea that 2xPaul is against Net Neutrality? The manifesto seems to spell out precisely why SOPA shouldn’t be allowed, which is pretty much what BB’s position is.

    • mccrum says:

      Probably things like this part:

      “Internet collectivism takes many forms, all of them pernicious.

      Among the most insidious are government attempts to control and regulate competition, infrastructure, privacy and intellectual property. According to them;

      Privately owned broadband high-speed infrastructure must be subject to collective rule via public ownership and government regulations that require “sharing” with other competitors.

      Internet infrastructure must be treated as a commons subject to centralized government control through a variety of foolish “public interest” and “fairness” regulations.

      Wireless, the lifeblood of the mobile Internet revolution, must be micromanaged as a government-controlled commons, with limited exclusive property rights.”

      This really seems like they are saying “common intranet structure shared by all with collective ownership and limited exclusive rights are bad.”  If you read this and see something different, I would be interested in how you see it.

      • mJRgDC159 says:

        As long as he’s emphasizing physical/real property rights and not defending imaginary property rights (digital echos), I don’t see a conflict.

        Similarly, I’d prefer net neutrality to be market-driven too, assuming competition is alive and well.

        I think there’s a lot of room for interpretation of these statements, and if they were intended to mean something like the sentiments above, I think his PR department could work on bridging the language barrier between online and offline rhetoric.

        • Churba S says:

          Quote Ron Paul – ” “Internet freedom” means the destruction of property rights.”

          Copied directly from the above manifesto, too. Reading the whole thing, it seems to indicate he is considering imaginary property rights – like the digital echos you mentioned – to be identical to regular property rights that he apparently fights for.

          • mJRgDC159 says:

            You’re probably right…

            The same words get thrown at all sides as if one government wouldn’t be the same as one multinational conglomerate. (In other words, “left” vs “right” and “socialism” vs “capitalism” are not arguements. They are both the same destination if you drive them all the way.)

            Quote: “But, ironically, just as decentralization has unleashed the potential for free markets andindividual freedom on a global scale, collectivist special interests and governments worldwide are now tirelessly pushing for more centralized control of the Internet and technology”

            Ironically, since copyright is a government-endorsed monopoly that I am also against, I don’t feel too bad about the collectivist dig (even though it is the rhetoric of monopolies). Since I’m also against the government “regulating intellectual property” on the Internet (as in enforcing something that wouldn’t otherwise exist), I don’t mind that line either.

            Quote: “We do not need to reinvent our principles for the web; we only need apply our coreprinciples to it. When faced with Internet regulation, we should ask these key questions:”

            To pick out the key questions:
            “Does it protect property rights?”
            “Does it protect individual rights?”

            I think his and every other politician’s answers turn into mystery-meat here. In effort to apeal to all sides, they resort to irrefutable “common sense.” The same common sense that has
             nourished hatred of anything different, from racism, to electric cars.

            I strongly believe tangible property rights are different from intangible rights (to whatever degree you supprt them), and anywhere the two ideas might meet, tangible property must be preserved. This means intangible rights will not exist at some extremes (for example, they should not prevent physical use of any equipment you own, subject to everyone else’s physical rights), and that is fine: because real things matter most.

            If he really does think the two are equivalent then he is stuck in the same mud as every other “good old country boy” politician out there who’s arguing from analogy and completely out of touch with reality.If so, it’s a shame. I thought Ron had clarity on some other issues.

    • C W says:

      “I’m confused.”

      Probably because you don’t know what “net neutrality” means.

  11. mobobo says:

    without attempting to be offensive (but failing)…


    & tea          t

  12. sgtdoom says:

    Speaking of net neutrality:

    Full Spectrum Dominance:  Why transactional data matters

    During the Bush administration, at least on several occasions, the entire warrantless eavesdropping or wiretapping and FISA made the national news cycle for several days —- yet each time, oddly enough, it was knocked off by the news of national immigration marches.

    What exactly was really accomplished by those national immigration marches?
    Other than occupying the news space on those days?

    Next obvious question would be who owned those Spanish-language radio stations responsible for organizing those marches?

    At that time, the major financial stake in those stations belonged to the private equity firm, the Blackstone Group, chaired by Peter G. Peterson, protégé of David Rockefeller.

    During that time the Blackstone Group also had a financial stake in telecoms in Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, Poland, Italy, Portugal and Malta (Malta being an important nexus point, or physical exchange point, between Europe, North Africa and the Middle East), as well as one of the three major privatized global satellite networks at that period, New Skies Network (officially later sold off, but we never checked to see if Blackstone Group actually owned the company it was sold to?).
    So those national marches, which knocked warrantless wiretapping off the news cycle and involved AT&T, were organized by Blackstone Group-owned radio stations, chaired by the fellow whose financial-economic-political mentor was David Rockefeller.

    Now AT&T was broken up — on paper at least — but can anyone provide definite data to prove it was ever actually financially divested?


    Now, traditionally, AT&T was a Rockefeller-Morgan financial entity, which, by the way, happens to have re-conglomerated back to its original form, thanks in part to President Bill Clinton’s Telecommunications Act of 1996.

    And who led the charge in congress to grant immunity to AT&T and those telecoms involved in that warrantless wiretapping for the government?

    None other than Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia!

    My oh my, how those coincidences pile up?

    Recently, some very serious legislation has passed into law — while other equally dangerous legislation has failed, for now  — although that failed legislation attacked net neutrality (equality of access to the Internet), it was really only to make into law that which is quickly becoming reality — the end of net neutrality!
    Laws have been passed, in America and Europe and elsewhere, requiring ISPs to retain your data for 1 to 3 years or more.

    Why is this important to the ruling elites? 

    Transactional data, surrounding information, dot connection, global linkage.

    Using existing DPI techniques (Deep Packet Inspection), they can virtually identify and extract information about you, your life, your family, the like of which most people cannot even imagine.

    Data mining hit critical mass around 2003 to 2004; and all it then required to identify a person exactly was their age and zip code — today it probably requires less.

    A little while ago, a fellow from the New America Foundation wrote a book on ExxonMobil — focusing on the personalities of its chief executives, and went on a book tour where not a single person who interviewed him (including NPR’s Terry Gross and Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!) inquired as to the ownership of ExxonMobil?

    Now isn’t that freaking amazing? ? ? ?

    Of course, New America Foundation is funded by the Peterson Foundation, endowed by Peter G. Peterson, protégé of David Rockefeller.  (ExxonMobil is a re-combining of the original Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Companies — which were once broken up — at least on paper — as no valid data exists to suggest otherwise.)
    AT&T?  ExxonMobil?  Are we beginning to note a pattern here?

    Now that’s why we must also pay attention to transactional data — it’s not just for the ruling elite to manipulate and control us — it exposes the ultimate aims of the plutocracy!

    So, to return to MK ULTRA — which officially they claim was ended — but is very much in existence today.

    Funds were disbursed for that program through the Rockefeller Foundation, and other Rockefeller family foundations under different names  — referred to as philanthropy, but technically known as the intelligence shadow funds disbursement — then the MK ULTRA program was moved from the CIA to the Pentagon sometime in the 1970s.

    In the 1980s, under Reagan, the NSA was also moved to DoD control, losing its ostensibly civilian independence.

    The government, through the Department of Homeland Security, has instituted its own DPI software, called Einstein Intrusion-Prevention System, utilizing NSA tools (Tutelage program) to monitor traffic into and exiting government networks. 

    (While this may be a preventative measure, it can also be a major boon in its war on whistleblowers.)

    Their system, of course, was first tested and implemented on the AT&T network. 
    DPI technology is presently sold by the Boeing subsidiary, Narus, to China, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, etc., to track down activists for torture, jailing and to disappear them.

    This is what democracy looks like?

    And what former and unrepentant chief economist from the IMF, now a professor at MIT, claims that the Rockefeller family gave away the bulk of their fortune in philanthropy after the breakup of their Standard Oil, which itself is another claim?
    Simon Johnson, who also happens to be a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute, founded by Peter G. Peterson and David Rockefeller for the multiple purposes of ending Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, offshoring all American jobs, and promoting universal love and admiration for the WTO’s Financial Services Agreement!

    (Those coincidences just won’t stop, now will they?)

    So while Johnson spreads the mythology that (1) Standard Oil was broken up, when it was really only broken up on paper, the Rockefeller family retained financial power to control and manipulate; and (2) that the Rockefeller family gave away a fortune through philanthropy, when in actuality they were really disbursing taxpayer funds from the intelligence agencies’ shadow budget!

    And Johnson promotes the breaking up of banks — on paper — while urging the continuation of the status quo, i.e., keeping all their financial tools for destruction in place, such as naked swaps, etc.

    This too, is part of MK ULTRA!

    We admit we have no idea as to the DoD’s new name for MK ULTRA, perhaps “Full Spectrum Dominance” — if anyone knows or can find out we’d appreciate that datum.

    By whatever name, the MK ULTRA program is still active, now involved with manufacturing reality, yours and mine, through disseminating the “news” through countless think tanks, institutes, foundations, trusts, etc.

    It seeks all transactional data through social intelligence systems (social networking, web tracking services, Facebook, Discus, et al.) while manipulating general opinion through chatbots, site censorship, site-generated comments (non-human, but meant to sound like one), etc.

    So let’s break it down:  those national immigration marches acted to alter the national news cycle, only causing people in cars, trucks, buses to burn more gas — and who profits from that?

    The oil companies, and who owns the oil companies?

    Truly, we are being played from every angle!

    Whatever its name, MK ULTRA was and is about master control.

    A young graduate student, a husky White-American male, climbs a tower on a Texas college campus, armed with a rifle and extra ammo, then randomly shoots at the people below.

    A precocious Jewish-American youth enters Harvard at a very young age, where he becomes the unwitting test subject in Henry Murray’s behavioral manipulation program, and years later this young prodigy gains publicity as the Unabomber.

    A Black-American IBM employee in his late 30s, is approached by people on a train who know everything about his past, and he quickly slips into mental illness, quitting IBM only to return in 1982, crashing into their Bethesda, Maryland, facility, and begins shooting at anyone and everyone!

    The concrete link connecting them?  They were all the unwitting subjects of the MK ULTRA program.

    We only realize that today due to transactional data, surrounding data and links.

    MK ULTRA . . . .it continues.

  13. Ben Livengood says:

    From wikipedia: “Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle that advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers or governments on consumers’ access to networks that participate in the Internet.”  

  14. SoItBegins says:

    The Pauls have completely and permanently lost my vote.

  15. Ian Brewer says:

    Heaven forbid that internet providers should be *forced* by democratic government to allow access to sites that don’t promote their interests or share their ideological perspective. That would be a violation of the free speech rights of private property.  Democracy is tyranny! Free speech is for those who can afford it.

  16. chris jimson says:

    So. . . do they think all roads should be toll roads too?

    The thing about infrastructure is: it exists for all of us, not just those willing to pay more for premium service.

    • fuzzyfuzzyfungus says:

      Having all roads be toll roads would actually be substantially better than the ISP analog:

      Tolls are inefficient in practice(because you have to slow people to collect them), so other ways of paying for the road are usually better; but they are applied relatively even-handedly to road users, not too unlike typical $X/YMb/s/month charge for a data line.

      ISPs, by contrast, have significantly more sophisticated ways to distinguish one flavor of traffic from another, by protocol/destination/etc, and they also tend to have business interests that they can advance by taking advantage of that. Cable companies losing video business to netflix suddenly discover that streaming video is destroying the intertubes!!! and telcos hit by VOIP begin suffering mysterious jitter problems, never mind all the fun to be had with having site operators bid for priority.

      If roads operated like that, you’d pay the supplemental Toyota Toll on GM roads, and vice-versa, commercial establishments partnered with your road vendor would be readily accessible, while those competing with them would be locked in 25mph zones or simply off the map entirely, and the toll to use a given road would change dramatically based on the classification of the contents of your car. Happy times.

  17. NaughtayMonkay says:

    The author of the article either simply does not understand how laws work or what Ron Paul’s views are, or both.
    The main argument the writer, Cory Doctorow, makes is that internet service providers receive subsidies from the government and become huge monopolies and without net neutrality laws will become even more powerful and will harass the users of internet who are online through them. 

    This is not entirely accurate. It is indeed true that huge ISP’s already almost hold monopolies over internet access and do indeed receive special permits, subsidies, and various government help. HOWEVER, Ron Paul or his son Rand are not inconsistent in their opposition to Net Neutrality laws, nor do they endorse monopolies, natural, or unnatural.  Libertarian view , and by extent Ron Paul’s , is that no business at all, no ISP, not PG&E (America’s electricity and gas provider) should receive any aid or a single dollar from the government. Not a cent from the tax payer.  If the subsidies and aid by the government to these big ISP was not there in the first place they would not have become monopolies.

    Net Neutrality in itself sounds like a good idea because it sounds like it is designed against discrimination of internet users no matter how the latter use the internet access.  However, this enforcement would have to come from the same government that created the monopolies in the first place. Net Neutrality would not prevent creation of unfair government funded monopolies, nor destroy the existing ones. BUT what it has the potential of doing is creating a precedent that will suggest that the government as an entity has even more control over internet or how it is provided to the user in the first place.  This means, when horrible people come to power they’ll be able to use Net Neutrality as a precedent for government control of the internet.

  18. Wiki-Truths says:

    Christ I’m so lost – the double talk and bills being named exactly for the opposite of what they sound like… I thought Ron Paul was for net neutrality? I thought he was all about telling it like it is and fixing gov? I thought he personally doesn’t like abortion but knew enough that it’s a womans choice to decide and keeping out of it and giving them the right?

  19. Preston McDonald says:

    Libertarianism is fundamentally incoherent.  This sort of thing is a natural consequence of that fact.

  20. Grrrr… Ron Paul’s Internet Freedom Manifesto. The idea that government should not enforce net neutrality is absurd. WE paid for the network roll outs through massive subsidies and granting of monopolies. Therefore we have a right to have a say in how those networks are run, specifically to promote our best interests. The only way we can have our say is through the government, which at least theoretically represents us. Typical libertarian thinking: Ideas that only work well in a vacuum, and ignore convenient facts and/or history.

  21. Jason Albury says:

    Id have to see the video or read the exact comment in full context

  22. ben_b says:

    “what is considered to be in the public domain should be greatly expanded.”

    Am I reading this wrong? This appears to support the public domain, the opposite of what the article says. 

Leave a Reply