Republican Platform To Include Internet Freedom Plank 459
First time accepted submitter jay.madison writes "The new Republican Party platform includes language which promises action to promote freedom on the Internet. The move is being driven by Rand Paul's libertarian wing of the party. The text, which is still in draft form, says Republicans will work to guarantee that 'individuals retain the right to control the use of their data by third parties,' and that 'personal data receives full constitutional protection from government overreach.' Republicans would resist moves toward international governance of the Internet, and seek to 'remove regulatory barriers that protect outdated technologies and business plans from innovation and competition, while preventing legacy regulation from interfering with new technologies such as mobile delivery of voice and video data as they become crucial components of the Internet ecosystem.' The platform is due to be adopted at the Republican National Convention next week."
Look at ninety percent of the effort towards gov't (Score:5, Insightful)
They'll spend most of the language attacking the evils of government data collection and storage, to the point where they only mention private actors off-hand.
They might even just say the contractors aren't responsible for government abuses of it simply because they've been paid.
Oh wait, they're already seeking to remove regulatory barriers. You know, the ones that keep companies from screwing their customers.
I'm sure they're really looking out for our freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
They might even just say the contractors aren't responsible for government abuses of it simply because they've been paid.
That would be an iffy defense for the contractor to make. The "But I was just following orders", doesn't seem to work that well, but maybe it'd fly in a courtroom.
Re: (Score:2)
They might even just say the contractors aren't responsible for government abuses of it simply because they've been paid.
That would be an iffy defense for the contractor to make. The "But I was just following orders", doesn't seem to work that well, but maybe it'd fly in a courtroom.
It works fine, just so long as you're working for the (US) government side. (How many of the guys who murdered 250 people at My Lai did time for it?)
And we've already got precedent, with the law that was passed saying that whatever ATT had done, it was ok even if it was illegal, because it was for the government.
Re: (Score:2)
And we've already got precedent, with the law that was passed saying that whatever ATT had done, it was ok even if it was illegal, because it was for the government.
If a law was passed, then it's not illegal unless it happens to violate law with higher precedent such as treaty or constitutional law. In that case, the law provides no protection.
Re:Look at ninety percent of the effort towards go (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, you might be right about the wrongness of making illegal actions retroactively legal, but that's not something built into the US system. You would need an amendment for that.
Re: (Score:3)
As for My Lai, one person was convicted, William Calley. Apparently he served 3.5 years under house arrest. So, non-zero number! Gotcha.
No gotcha, I just asked how many were convicted. "Between 347 and 504 unarmed civilians" were murdered (the number I quoted from memory turned out to be low), and the officer was convicted for killing 22 of them, and did 3.5 years for it. None of the other gunmen were convicted of anything. (Actually, I thought the captain had been convicted too, but turns out he was acquitted, though later he admitted having lied about what happened.)
In general governments don't convict (or even charge) their own. Rath
Re:Look at ninety percent of the effort towards go (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh wait, they're already seeking to remove regulatory barriers. You know, the ones that keep companies from screwing their customers.
It's worth remembering here that customers should be working to avoid getting screwed. Say like using competitors who don't screw them? Classic examples are the huge banks with the ridiculous fees.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or by having legal protections against that screwing, not to mention mechanisms that lead to competition not collaboration.
See the banks aren't struggling against each other. Thery're working together to get what they wasn't from the government. All in the name of freedom and liberty.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Look at ninety percent of the effort towards go (Score:5, Insightful)
This may work in some cases, but not really for internet access in the US.
Both wired and wireless connections have a huge barrier to entry [both financially and regulatory]. And the incumbents know you don't have a real choice.
You can tell, because the few places that have [or could have] real competition, they actively fight against it [by legislating against it, suing to prevent/delay it, dropping prices locally & temporarily to kill it].
Re: (Score:3)
That's fine until the smaller bank is assimilated by the larger bank because your idea of government regulation resembles a post apocalypse movie like Mad Max.
this is a fantasy land (Score:5, Insightful)
You are assuming a perfect market of a wide availability of choices of middle size playing fairly. The reality is an oligopoly that suppresses competition from small players and squeezes customers for all they are worth. You can't use the fundamentals of capitalism to defend the practices of an oligopoly, please wake up.
And no, the government is not to blame for this, this is the natural state of affairs of an unregulated market. Yes, the government is corrupted to serve the oligopoly's interests, but to say the answer to that is to remove the government is to reward the disease for making the patient sick, removing all barriers to complete abuse of the customer.
Why do so many fools cling to the myth of the clean unregulated market? An unregulated market naturally gravitates to an oligopoly that colludes and
1. Squeezes smaller players
2. Abuses the customer
3. Corrupts the government
That is the natural state of the market. Wake up! The only effective remedy is a strong government with effective regulation. Cure your government of its corporate infection, its the only thing on your side. Really!
So many blind propagandized putzes.
Re:this is a fantasy land (Score:4, Insightful)
You are assuming a perfect market of a wide availability of choices of middle size playing fairly. The reality is an oligopoly that suppresses competition from small players and squeezes customers for all they are worth. You can't use the fundamentals of capitalism to defend the practices of an oligopoly, please wake up.
Sure, you can.
And no, the government is not to blame for this, this is the natural state of affairs of an unregulated market.
Sure it is. It's worth remembering here that government creates the regulations that these businesses operate under and which inhibit entry by new businesses.
Why do so many fools cling to the myth of the clean unregulated market? An unregulated market naturally gravitates to an oligopoly that colludes and
Why do so many fools cling to the myth of regulation fixing things? Here, I gave an example of a heavily regulated industry, the banking industry that just so happens to have all the characteristics which you allege come from "unregulated markets" such as collusion, squeezing of smaller players, oligopolies.
Clearly, if the cure isn't working,then we need more of it.
Re: (Score:3)
So we remove govt regulation. Corps cheers because now they can do whatever they want without paying off congresscritters. smaller players get more abused, customers get more shafted.
The corruption of the govt Is an EFFECT not a CAUSE of the problem. I didn't say getting rid of corruption is easy but I know for a fact no regulations equals more abuse. Why can't you see that?
Re: (Score:3)
DO remember that those EVIL corporations are a creation of the government. The "natural state" of the market doesn't include giving special legal privileges (like Limited Liability) to certain players....
Re:this is a fantasy land (Score:4, Interesting)
1) increase regulation,
2) remove all regulation altogether.
I think you will find that there are four positions on a spectrum that finely grained; no regulation, state ownership, increased regulation and (waaaaait for it) decreased regulation. Responding to "I don't like increased regulation" with "Well you just want to eliminate all regulation" is... well, it's awfully American of you, in that there can only be two options and the Other Side is insane/evil/stupid so you're justified in avoiding reasonable debate.
My expectation at this point is that you're going to call me a crypto-anarchist trying to sneak absolute removal of regulation in under a flag of moderation, because... well, because that's generally what happens when I try talking to Americans about this mysterious concept called "middle ground." But if you don't, then I appreciate your breaking the trend and am interested in your thoughts on of the problems of regulatory capture and a rise in barriers to market entry through vastly increased paperwork and bureaucratic make-work. (The Canadian examples I would point out are our CRTC telecom positions being held mostly by former telecom execs, and the problems in Alberta with starting a new business because of the reams of paperwork required for multimillion dollar established companies.)
Re: (Score:3)
Why do so many fools cling to the myth of regulation fixing things? Here, I gave an example of a heavily regulated industry, the banking industry that just so happens to have all the characteristics which you allege come from "unregulated markets" such as collusion, squeezing of smaller players, oligopolies.
What you are missing is that from the late 1930s until the mid 1990's there were regulations that were designed to prevent these bad behaviors and for the most part they worked pretty well. Then we removed many those regulations and the bad behaviors started popping up right away, and eventually lead to the collapse of our economy. So just because the bank industry still has regulations, doesn't mean that it still has all of the important core regulations that it used to have.
Re:this is a fantasy land (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is that the government is, itself, a monopoly. They monopolize the use of force, and various other things enabled by that.
I don't at all disagree with your analysis of the problem EXCEPT that you aren't including government as one of the abusive monopolies.
It's true that my analysis doesn't point to a nice solution. This doesn't make it incorrect. The government does not consider itself bound by the laws that it makes. Sometimes it specifically excludes itself, other times it just declines to enforce the laws against itself. This happens all up and down the spectrum, from crooked police to war making presidents. Even if the agents of government are punished, their punishment is a slap on the wrist compared to what a non-governmental agent would receive...unless such agent was working for another powerful player who had a deal (not necessarily explicit) with the government.
Please note that this is a structural flaw. When you combine it with common human tendencies, I do not see any solution. But I also don't see anything wrong with the analysis.
Re:Look at ninety percent of the effort towards go (Score:5, Insightful)
And as soon as total market transparency as well as instant access to information (AND the ability to understand it flawlessly) is a reality, I will instantly agree with you.
The problem is that the information situation is highly asymmetric and putting the customer at a severe disadvantage. Take your average contract with a bank. That contract put under your nose has most certainly been drafted and approved by a lawyer that specializes in finance laws and it is certainly worded in the way that is most favorable for the bank. You, as the average bank customer, are neither a lawyer nor a finance specialist. You might not understand every word in the contract and every abbreviation used, despite them being completely usual and well known in the finance world. For reference, take IT and its various terms.
Ask the banker what they mean? Oh sure, and they'll explain it to you in the most colorful words followed by "oh, but that never happens" or "that's just a legalese phrase without any real meaning". Good luck trying to prove you've been tricked.
Not signing a contract you don't understand you say? In this time and age, be happy if there's a bank that will lend you money altogether. People pretty much HAVE to sign whatever is shoved under their nose.
And for these asymmetries, the government has to step in to protect the consumer. One reason for its existence is actually to allow people to play on a level playing field.
Re:Look at ninety percent of the effort towards go (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Look at ninety percent of the effort towards go (Score:5, Interesting)
My thoughts exactly. I would be more intersted in a plank that promised net neutrality rather than protecting users data.
The remainder of the Repbulican plank reads like something from the 1800's.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/opinion/what-the-gop-platform-represents.html [nytimes.com]
Vaguely promising to protect your personal data, while including language that puts the police state in your bedroom isn't exactly what I would call a fair trade.
Re:Look at ninety percent of the effort towards go (Score:4, Interesting)
My thoughts exactly. I would be more intersted in a plank that promised net neutrality rather than protecting users data.
If that's what you want, don't expect it to come from Ron/Rand Paul. They consider "Net Neutrality" to be "internet collectivism [buzzfeed.com]. They don't want the government to have any part in regulating the internet.
What interests me most about their paper is how much they seem to rely on appeal to authority. They quote Reagan, and since he said it, it must be true. They quote Von Mises as an authority not to be doubted. They give authorities, not reasons, to back up their opinions. (yes, they do give some reasons too, but not enough to really establish their case).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is isnt violating religious freedom to force employers to pay for contraceptives any more than it violates religious freedoms to ban human sacrifice.
Re:Look at ninety percent of the effort towards go (Score:5, Insightful)
It is isnt violating religious freedom to force employers to pay for contraceptives any more than it violates religious freedoms to ban human sacrifice.
Yes, it is. One bans an action that infringes on others basic rights. The other forces an individual to do something for another which is not related to any constitutional rights.
Of course, you wouldn't want people to not be able to have as much consequence-less sex as they want, they might actually get interested in politics or something if that happened (see: Brave New World [wikipedia.org].)
What you require of a corporation (Score:3)
Corporations cannot logically practice religion.
Not even a corporation formed for the purpose of practicing a religion, such as the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Vatican, etc.?
Only their executors can be religious. So requiring corporations, which only exist at the mercy of the state, to provide certain benefits to their employees inorder to exist has no impact on anyone's religious freedoms.
What you require of a corporation you require of its directors.
Re:Look at ninety percent of the effort towards go (Score:5, Insightful)
Domestic partnership (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
trying to tell Churches who their employees will be and who can be married on their property
I'd like a cite for that. The gay marriage argument has never been about who will be wedded at a church, it's about what marriages, church or not, the government will recognize as valid.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Look at ninety percent of the effort towards go (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect that the availability of water in your area is a harder constraint than the availability of bandwidth.
Re:Look at ninety percent of the effort towards go (Score:4, Insightful)
And that's the fundamental difference.
Re:Look at ninety percent of the effort towards go (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a bad example; plenty of municipalities have water regulations during summers or droughts.
A - those are extreme, non-everyday cases, bordering on natural disaster conditions.
B - such regulations are there solely for the reason of "providing equal service to everyone". Not to ensure greater profit or for the sake of control.
Decoding the code speak (Score:5, Insightful)
No net neutrality is what this means:
" 'remove regulatory barriers that protect outdated technologies and business plans from innovation and competition, while preventing legacy regulation from interfering with new technologies such as mobile delivery of voice and video data as they become crucial components of the Internet ecosystem.' "
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"Legacy regulation" isn't what keeps FaceTime off AT&T's network; throttling and QOS disparities are as much a product of too few competitors in the market and barriers to entry erected by the participants.
I don't believe network neutrality is a Good Thing, because I recognize that most people's definition amounts to price fixing of bandwidth. But I do know the barriers to it are not primarily state-imposed in the US, and countries that have more liberalized Internet access regimes have them because of
What's so difficult? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't believe network neutrality is a Good Thing, because I recognize that most people's definition amounts to price fixing of bandwidth
You /know/ that net neutrality has nothing to do with bandwidth. Carriers cannot discriminate on content, source and destination. What is so difficult to explain. There's nothing about bandwidth in there.
And the public has a moral right to this, since the government paid for most of the infrastructure anyway, in huge corporate giveaways.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Decoding the code speak (Score:5, Interesting)
By "removing regulatory barriers", they mean Verizon can stop suing the FCC because the GOP plans to give Verizon what they want: the right to censor the internet in any way they choose, which Verizon considers a matter of corporate free speech [arstechnica.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Look at ninety percent of the effort towards go (Score:4, Insightful)
> Republicantards
Yes, and the "Demoncrats" are all socialists who want to compromise American sovereignty and reduce us to a third world nation. Right?
Dood, BOTH parties are bought and paid for. Each may be owned by a different set of crooks, but at the end of the day, they're P0wned.
Look at each candidate. Forget the party. The best time to do this is during the primaries, but it's too late for that now. You'll just have to hold your nose and vote for the least-offensive candidate. But if you're a believer that EITHER party has your best interests at heart across the board, you're deluding yourself.
If the American people would stop following party lines, and (most importantly) stop treating each election like a popularity contest, there might be some real change.
When I see Karl Rove or Mitch McConnell, I change the channel or click to a different Web page. They both turn my stomach. But so do Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi is especially endearing because she is obviously as thick as two short planks. (Not that she's alone in that distinction by any means.) I have a salt shaker in my kitchen with a higher IQ.
Not so fast (Score:5, Insightful)
They also claim they are going to make the Internet Family Friendly, ban internet gambling, require ISP's to monitor their users for sexual deviancy, and require laws against pornography and obscenity to be vigorously enforced. You can't have it both ways but that is what this article is claiming.
Re:Not so fast (Score:5, Insightful)
Not.
Re:Not so fast (Score:4, Informative)
Obama re-signed the Patriot Act and the NDAA.
Obama has deficit spent at twice the rate of GWB.
The 2008 economic decline was from......the housing bust. Government mandating home loans be provided to people who couldn't pay them back.
There is a lot of blame for both parties, but only one place where both those parties cause most of the trouble. =====>DC
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not so fast (Score:5, Informative)
No he didn't. In 1996 Clinton authorized the use of a Cruise missile aimed at Bin Laden's satellite phone signal. Clinton was then lambasted for wasting money by the Republican Congress, especially Trent Lott (remember him?). And it was GWB just a year after 9/11 who said that he didn't know where bin Laden was and wasn't interested. It was Obama who finished the job.
"Obama re-signed the Patriot Act and the NDAA" - that doesn't absolve the Republicans any.
"Obama has deficit spent at twice the rate of GWB" - that doesn't absolve the Republicans any either.
"The 2008 economic decline was from......the housing bust." - and the housing bust was caused by the Housing Boom caused by the securitization of mortgages on GWB's watch while the Glass-Siegel act was gutted into uselessness
There is a lot of blame for both parties, but to absolve the Republicans and just blame the Democrats is just pathetic. And twisting history to fit your political beliefs is beneath contempt.
Re:Not so fast (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not so fast (Score:4, Informative)
"Bill Clinton passed on Bin Laden after the first trade center attacks."
No he didn't. In 1996 Clinton authorized the use of a Cruise missile aimed at Bin Laden's satellite phone signal.
That is not what the GP is referring to. The GP is referring to a different incident, post embassy bombings (?), where a special ops team had a visual on Bin Laden. Clinton had them stand down.
"The 2008 economic decline was from......the housing bust." - and the housing bust was caused by the Housing Boom caused by the securitization of mortgages on GWB's watch while the Glass-Siegel act was gutted into uselessness
Bill Clinton signed the legislation permitting the credit default swap financial instruments. Not only did he authorize these financial WMDs but he made it illegal for States to attempt to regulate such activities. Voiding existing regulations that were on the books in some states, regulations that prevented the purchase of insurance on something you had no financial interest in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Obama has not deficit spent at twice the rate of GWB, but, instead, has slowed deficit spending. See the slope of the deficit chart [usgovernmentdebt.us] over the past 13 years. It's most informative. You'll learn several things, namely that GWB and the republicans (remember, they started with a super-majority IIRC) put in motion actions that doubled our debt in 8 years. Another thing to note about said debt is that Obama inherited 2 wars from GWB and the republicans, as well as the prescription medicare piece, which were all un
Re: (Score:3)
Obama has not deficit spent at twice the rate of GWB, but, instead, has slowed deficit spending.
The problem is you then put up a chart that shows the exact opposite. You are right. It is most informative. Its informative about your ability to understand charts.
My guess is that you saw some bullshit facebook picture being shared by circle-jerks that claimed that Obama reduced deficit spending (perhaps the fraud that compared 8 year debt derivatives of Bush to 2 year debt derivatives of Obama as if they were on an equal scale), but you couldnt even find the bullshit graph to link to that actually mad
Re:Not so fast (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate those poor people who busted into Manhattan boardrooms, put guns to the heads of financial services CEOs and demanded they engage in real estate speculation and sell investment products that hid and lied about risks. It really is all their fault.
Re: (Score:3)
How many Democrats voted to deauthorize the DHS and patriot act when they had the House, Senate and white house?
What did the democrats do to reign in deficit spending when they had the House, Senate and white house?
Please explain how Dodd and Frank aren't equally responsible for the banking collapse?
Financial Fraud Conviction Scorecard: Bush: 1300+, Clinton: 1000+, Obama: 0.0
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Are you implying that the Democrats, in any way, shape, or form, are any different from the Republicans? I see an immense division over trivial issues. It's like having a world war over 'what color barns should be painted, pink or orange?'
I have to give a round of applause *golf clap* to whoever orchestrated this little design here; I'd want to shake his / her / their hand, buy them a drink, and possibly have my photo taken with them, because it's a f*cking class act. Of all the things in this Universe two
Re: (Score:2)
It was neither. It was both. Do not look north to the Whitehouse to find the failures. Instead, look east to the Capitol.
Re:Not so fast (Score:5, Interesting)
They also claim they are going to make the Internet Family Friendly,
Maybe somewhat off topic but I saw a humorous story on CNN this morning. They did a piece on the strip clubs in Tampa getting ready for the Republican convention this coming week - including one club owner who said he spent $1.5 million on upgrades. Apparently strip clubs do well at these events, and CNN quoted some informal poll that suggested Republicans spent 3 times as much on "Adult" entertainment than Democrats at the last two national conventions of each party.
Other fun facts include a club bringing in a Sarah Palin look-a-like stripper and comments from another stripper who hoped to be making $1000/hr.
Re: (Score:2)
A study by a Harvard Business School professor shows that Utah outpaces the more conservative states -- which all tend to purchase more Internet porn than other states.
http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_11821265 [sltrib.com]
Take responsibility for who you vote for (Score:3)
Regarding the deadlocked congress on the debt ceiling, Bill Clinton pointed out that the public should not be so upset with congress, but instead take responsibility for who they vote in.
VOTE
And if congress deadlocks over fiscal policy, forks over truckloads to seniors in entitlement programs and the 1% in ta
Re: (Score:3)
I think we've reached the point where it would be difficult to make a an extreme parody of the platform that couldn't be mistaken for the
Re: (Score:2)
Black and white thinking (Score:3)
If you are being given freedom, then you are by definition not free.
Gee... more blank-and-white thinking on moral truths. Have you ever heard of a thought terminating cliche [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
You can have it.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone always has freedom from and someone else has freedom to. Change the party in power and those roles are reversed.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone always has freedom from and someone else has freedom to. Change the party in power and those roles are revers
Not so fast. Both parties will give and take some freedoms. The GOP is involved in a war on sin. Taking away your moral freedoms is for your own good. They also want to give you economic freedoms.
The Democrats tent to be moral individualists. After-all who am I to tell you what is moral. (I happen to believe in the scientific basis of moral questions, which makes of mockery of this type of relativism.) The Democrats also would also like to give and take some economic freedoms.
As usual, the truth is not
Re: (Score:3)
You are half right, the Democrats also favor a technocratic saving you from your self b/c you are too stupid to act responsibly(vs too flawed/full of sin). Both parties will march you into totalitarian hell, one for the "good of your own soul", the other for the "common good".
You need a schism (Score:4, Insightful)
Both the US parties (Dem and Rep) need major schisms to break their stronghold, and thus usher in change, may be accompanied by a more democratic electoral system then FPTP.
Re: (Score:2)
We've had the calmer and more boring populace. They whine more, and you can really feel it in your eyes. It's like having the Monarch (Venture Brothers) screaming at you after a hangover; you want him to kill you, just to make it stop.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the options are Brawndo with bleeding eyeballs, or Brawndo with bleeding eyeballs. Prove me wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what happens when you translate phrases and idioms from your native tongue directly on to a foreign tongue.
Reminds me of the Finnish Vp of Nokia, who said something about pissing in pants. The finnish phrase he had translated was meant to convey the fact that you can not select temporary benefit that would lead to even worse problems later on.
Nobody got that on, and was one (of the many) nails that lead to his being denied to CEO seat that now Elop has.
And of course, they're completely trustworthy (Score:2, Funny)
Right?
Internet Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't have internet freedom without net neutrality.
You can't have internet freedom with 1-2 companies having a monopoly on internet access.
You can't create freedom by restricting the power of only some of those who would deny you freedom.
Re:Internet Freedom (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, you can have freedom without net neutrality. We've had net freedom since forever, and no-one started talking about net neutrality until a couple of years ago.
Because net neutrality was the de facto standard for the internet up until a few years ago when certain providers thought they could make more money by penalizing their competitors (e.g. Comcast imposing bandwidth caps, but not counting their own streaming video service [ala Netflix] towards that cap).
Re: (Score:2)
Whoops.
And all without the need for governments to clamp down on everyone and say "CHANGE IST VERBOTEN!"
This from the party that says (Score:2)
You cannot trust the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This from the party that says (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, most of the people saying this work for the government, so I wouldn't trust them if I were you.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I do not trust the government. That's why the people need to keep an eye on it. But I also do not trust big business. That's why we need to keep an eye on them. Democrats oppose the former while Republicans oppose the latter.
Internet Freedom is not what you think (Score:5, Insightful)
Republican internet freedom is freedom for large corporations to do what ever they want, with the citizens getting the shaft. You can forget net neutrality out of them.
Re:Internet Freedom is not what you think (Score:4, Interesting)
"Freedom" these days means corporate control. The more "freedom" people have, the more corporations have power. Power has to go somewhere, so if power is taken away from government, it goes to the next powerful entity - corporations. The last place power goes to is to individuals. The only power individuals have is their ability to collectively gather and form a government, which in effect limits their own individual power.
An individual limiting their own power is a good thing.
"Freedom" at this point is a bad word. Adults already know that no one has "freedom". No one has ever had "freedom", from the times when kings existed to any democracy. They simply replaced one ruler (a king) with another (big govt), especially with millions of laws in place, each one designed to take away one less right.
And even when kings existed, they never had full power as well. Kings have always had to rely on public support to maintain their power, especially during the rise of the merchant middle class in the 1100's.
Let's remember that every libertarian "freedom" fighter with a 3rd grade educations is actually saying "I want to give corporations more power over competing smaller entities, including individuals."
This is why one must NEVER be a libertarian, and one must always believe in forceful social controls.
And that we must always fight against "freedom" that the Republican party wants, and their insane ego that causes them to feel they should have "freedom."
Let's transfer power away from individuals, and give them more to government. Redistribute power. It's a good thing.
Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
"If you elect us, we will get rid of net neutrality so fast it'll make your head spin."
Re: gulation (Score:2)
preventing legacy regulation from interfering with new technologies such as mobile delivery of voice and video data as they become crucial components of the Internet ecosystem.
What government regulations do we have right now that interfere with mobile delivery of voice and video data?
Re: (Score:2)
After passing this through the bullshit filter, here's what comes out:
Due to Google's efforts, part of the FCC's ruling on the new 4G networks is that they MUST have net neutrality. This means that providers cannot favor their content, nor charge customers extra for accessing other people's content, they must explain variable speeds, and they can't limit anyone's access.
The telecoms HATE this. They are pushing for "less government controls" because they want the "freedom" to screw their customers.
This is
Sure (Score:2)
I also think Rand/Ron Paul are on the skirts of The Republican Party. They are flies that the GOP leadership tolerate in order to get the libertatian votes.
Also note that there is a list of senators and congressmen at the bottom, but it doesn't explicitly
Call me cynical (Score:2)
Besides, true freedom is economic security. Without that you're just a wage slave. True security can never be obtained by individuals. That's what society is for, and gov't is the instrument of society's will. If you've lost control of your gov't to an oligarchy, so what? Th
Re: (Score:2)
Pre-Voting (Score:3)
Election promises mean less than nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed. So, what we should do away with pre-voting altogether. Simply draw names from a hat for the positions. We'll see how they do and vote 'em out afterwards if we don't like their service; Let someone else have a chance to fill the role for their limited time. This is more in line with the way voting works anyway (voting against instead of for issues or people). Additionally, it gives the people power to hold their leaders accountable. Screw up? You're fired. A probationary period could ensure it doesn't devolve into a person a day per office. Additionally, it would present opportunities for 3rd party folks to actually get in office -- Proportional to the actual number of candidates, not limited by an entrenched and obsolete party system.
No, I started out this as a joke, but what I found out while writing this is that ANYTHING is better than the system we have right now.
Hold politicians accountable for what they say. False advertising is false advertising, even if it's coming from a politician's mouth.
Read between the lines (Score:4, Insightful)
Republicans will work to guarantee that 'individuals retain the right to control the use of their data by third parties,'
No attempt will be made to ensure you are able to exercise those rights; the Republicans will do nothing to altar any terms of use you come across on the internet, which universally demand you waive those "rights."
'personal data receives full constitutional protection from government overreach.'
Remember the speaker. Replace "personal data" with "Swiss bank statements" and "government overreach" with "the IRS."
'remove regulatory barriers that protect outdated technologies and business plans from innovation and competition, while preventing legacy regulation from interfering with new technologies such as mobile delivery of voice and video data as they become crucial components of the Internet ecosystem.'
Recall the Republican definition of "regulation." They could have simply said "remove regulations" and left it at that. Contrast this statement to the first statement above; a regulation ensuring an individual can control their personal information would "stifle innovation" from Facebook, et al.
It ain't regulation that's letting AT&T charge more for FaceTime.
The 1880s definition of Freedom (Score:2)
By freedom, they mean the right of AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast to control the internet any way they want.
The fundamental flaw in anything from Ron Paul (Score:3)
... is that there is no teeth in it. That would have to mean government laws and enforcement. He will have none of that.
They should look to the GPL (Score:2)
Defining digital freedom isn't new, so maybe the GOP should look to the four freedoms of the GPL:
* the freedom to use the software for any purpose,
* the freedom to change the software to suit your needs,
* the freedom to share the software with your friends and neighbors, and
* the freedom to share the changes you make.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html [gnu.org]
Of course that doesn't fit with controlling your neighbors morality or allowing corporations to own the internet.
Freedom for corporations (Score:2)
Re:as long as you realize... (Score:4, Insightful)
And "remove regulatory barriers" means ending any concept of 'net neutrality. Them republicans don't cotton to people telling their corporations what to do. Can't stand in the way of excessive corporate profits, oh no.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is why I am moving my family out of this country. I will be following once I have saved a predetermined amount of money, or when these idiots make it impossible for me to save any more money.
Re: (Score:3)