Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Evening Legal Briefs

View
14 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >

14. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Jul 25, 2012, 11:00 Beamer
 
VoodooV wrote on Jul 25, 2012, 08:28:
I used to think I was a libertarian. But it seemed to me every time a politician claimed to be a libertarian, what he really meant was "I want to get away with selling the public things that I know are bad"

There's a reason I'm an independent now. When I was young, I thought I was a republican, but eventually realized that was wrong. I thought I was a democrat, and later realized that was wrong. You just really can't sum up the political philosophies of 300 Million+ Americians with just 2 major parties. It's ridiculous.

The founders were right be wary of parties. These parties may have been founded with good intentions, but they always seem to inevitably get hijacked by the psychopaths.

Yup, these days "libertarian" means "no one should be able to tell me what I can and can't do." Sometimes they'll extend it to "so long as I don't harm anyone else," but then they adamantly deny that anything they do could ever harm someone else unless you show a single link causal chain.

"Libertarian" tends to be "Tea Party Less Religion" in today's politics.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
13. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Jul 25, 2012, 10:38 avianflu
 
the word "libertarian" was co-opted by the tea party. It will be 20 years before Americans can use that word again and have it mean something like it did before. Its a shame because it is a handy word.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
12. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Jul 25, 2012, 08:28 VoodooV
 
I used to think I was a libertarian. But it seemed to me every time a politician claimed to be a libertarian, what he really meant was "I want to get away with selling the public things that I know are bad"

There's a reason I'm an independent now. When I was young, I thought I was a republican, but eventually realized that was wrong. I thought I was a democrat, and later realized that was wrong. You just really can't sum up the political philosophies of 300 Million+ Americians with just 2 major parties. It's ridiculous.

The founders were right be wary of parties. These parties may have been founded with good intentions, but they always seem to inevitably get hijacked by the psychopaths.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
11. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Jul 25, 2012, 06:05 eRe4s3r
 
Yes it does if you have a supreme court that judged that companies are persons and thus all laws and rights applying to a real living person apply to a company as well. The greatest misjudgment in the history of judgments.

Companies should have absolutely 0 constitutional rights and never be regarded as persons. Thus a company regulation can never be unconstitional. This is how law works in 99% of the world, except in the USA.
 
Avatar 54727
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
10. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Jul 25, 2012, 05:27 Prez
 
By very definition, the realm that the feds are supposed to police.

I don't think it's that cut and dry actually. The constitutionally allowed Federal regulation of "interstate and international" activities refers to commerce specifically. Can it really be said that the internet in and of itself is commerce? I don't think so myself.

That said, let's say that it is determined that it is or I am wrong for whatever reason - there is regulation and then there is over-regulation. Regulating the internet in any capacity makes it inherently less free in a capacity proportional to how much it's regulated. Most people don't like the Patriot Act because, despite its ostensible intention to ultimately make people more safe, it does so by removing freedoms that are so integral to our way of life in the U.S. as to be viewed as sacrosanct. If history is any indication, it is generally wise to be wary of sacrificing freedoms for safety in the best of times, and considering the massive overreach of government today as it is, I would hardly call this the best of times.

I don't consider myself a paranoid person (I'd use the word "cautious"), but despite everyone's worst-case scenarios detailing potential abuses could come about with a completely deregulated internet, a Fed-controlled internet is something I am FAR more wary of.
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
9. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Jul 25, 2012, 03:17 Flatline
 
Beelzebud wrote on Jul 25, 2012, 02:59:
Right now there isn't much of a problem, because net neutrality is here already, and has been since the founding of the internet.

These companies think they should be able to introduce a tiered internet, where high paying corporations would be on a 'fast lane' and everyone else would be stuck in the affordable 'economy lane'. I don't want speed limits, based on the ability to pay, being the standard for the internet, which is what libertarians are arguing for.

A corporation being "free" to introduce a tiered internet is not freedom for people.

Amen.

Another way to look at it is to imagine every single road in this country becoming a toll road. Now if you're with company A on their toll roads, you drive fast. If you go onto Company B's toll roads, they limit you to 20mph, unless you dish out more money. So between your house and the store, it's entirely reasonable to expect to pass through a half dozen toll booths/toll companies.

UNLESS!

Company A builds a supermarket connected to their road system. Which means you don't have to go to the local market, you can stay within A's system! Nifty isn't it?

Does it sound familiar? It should. It's called a Walled Garden. We did this back in the 90's with AOL, Compuserve, and the ilk. Remember how crappy internet was back then?

The death of net neutrality will take us back to the heady days of AOL in the 90's. It's not innovation, it's the very essence of stifling innovation.

But just the US and wherever else they destroy the idea of Net Neutrality. The rest of the world will pass by the stagnant, backwater strip malls that our network will become.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
8. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Jul 25, 2012, 03:12 Flatline
 
LittleMe wrote on Jul 25, 2012, 01:04:
I'm a libertarian and I think their approach is flawed. First of all, the feds have made it clear they'll violate the constitution whenever they want to. The Constitution is just a piece of paper, more or less meaningless.

This is a local government issue. If your ISP has a franchise agreement (a monopoly) with your local government and they filter your traffic against your wishes, contact your local government and demand they update the terms or open your market to competition so you can chose the best service. If your local government refuses, vote someone else in who will.

Your local government created the problem, not the feds, not your ISP.


Dude this is so pie in the sky optimistic that it boarders on insanity.

You really think that your local government would, without net neutrality, side with you vs AT&T, who would just drop a few hundred thousand dollars into the city's coffers for "exclusivity rights"?

Besides, the internet is inter-state and international. By very definition, the realm that the feds are supposed to police.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
7. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Jul 25, 2012, 02:59 Beelzebud
 
Right now there isn't much of a problem, because net neutrality is here already, and has been since the founding of the internet.

These companies think they should be able to introduce a tiered internet, where high paying corporations would be on a 'fast lane' and everyone else would be stuck in the affordable 'economy lane'. I don't want speed limits, based on the ability to pay, being the standard for the internet, which is what libertarians are arguing for.

A corporation being "free" to introduce a tiered internet is not freedom for people.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
6. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Jul 25, 2012, 01:04 LittleMe
 
I'm a libertarian and I think their approach is flawed. First of all, the feds have made it clear they'll violate the constitution whenever they want to. The Constitution is just a piece of paper, more or less meaningless.

This is a local government issue. If your ISP has a franchise agreement (a monopoly) with your local government and they filter your traffic against your wishes, contact your local government and demand they update the terms or open your market to competition so you can chose the best service. If your local government refuses, vote someone else in who will.

Your local government created the problem, not the feds, not your ISP.

 
Avatar 23321
 
Perpetual debt is slavery.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
5. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Jul 25, 2012, 00:55 Prez
 
A 'rational libertarian' is just another way of saying "I'm a classic liberal".

I can agree with that, but I only put so much stock in how we categorize ourselves anymore. I've come to believe we as a society put to way too much emphasis on labels. It serves to "pre-divide" us before we even start talking and begins every conversation with people already on opposite sides. I prefer to start with what we have in common and work up to the differences we may have in ideology.
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
4. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Jul 25, 2012, 00:16 Beelzebud
 
A 'rational libertarian' is just another way of saying "I'm a classic liberal".  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
3. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Jul 24, 2012, 22:47 Prez
 
Agent.X7 wrote on Jul 24, 2012, 22:07:
Should read stupid libertarians think net neutrality is unconstitutional.

I'm a libertarian. I understand technology, however, and think these groups are out of their friggin' minds. Net Neutrality is the only way to ensure censorship isn't rampant.

Same here. When someone asks me my political leanings, I tell them I'm a rational libertarian. With emphasis on the first part.
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
2. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Jul 24, 2012, 22:07 Agent.X7
 
Should read stupid libertarians think net neutrality is unconstitutional.

I'm a libertarian. I understand technology, however, and think these groups are out of their friggin' minds. Net Neutrality is the only way to ensure censorship isn't rampant.
 
Avatar 23400
 
Origin - JStarX7
STEAM - Agent.X7
PSN - JStar_X7
Xbox Live - Agent X7
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
1. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Jul 24, 2012, 21:43 Prez
 
Wow, TechFreedom, CEI, Free State Foundation & Cato are REALLY reaching here. Their argument makes no sense from a constitutional standpoint.  
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
14 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo