Slashdot Mirror
The FCC May Decide Not To Regulate Broadband
This morning the Washington Post reported that FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is leaning toward letting the telecomms have their way — not asserting greater authority to regulate the Internet by reclassifying broadband as a Title II service. The blogs are atwitter (HuffPo, StopTheCap) that not voting to apply Title II regulation to Internet carriers is tantamount to giving up on net neutrality — which has been a centerpiece of the Obama administration's tech policy. The Post paraphrases its sources, who are reading the chairman's mind, that Genachowski believes "the current regulatory framework would lead to constant legal challenges to the FCC's authority every time it attempted to pursue a broadband policy." The FCC will say only that the chairman has made no decision yet.
Those who enjoy happiness (even to excess) depend upon the existence of this society for their ability to enjoy that state, and preserve it.
Things don't exist in a vacuum. It exists through "consent of the governed." And that's why we consider things such as "essentials" of living, and ensuring all Americans have at least a basic level of "the Dream."
If you want to see how it works under your ideal system (where each individual has what they have in opposition to everyone else), look no further than Mexico. Disparity of wealth has led to widespread corruption, a population that doesn't feel society benefits them, and the wealthy immigrating here because they can't trust their own society to protect what they have.
That's why the "it's mine, you can't have it" attitude is a Pyrrhic victory. What good is it if you have it, and are able to keep it, but the society (social norms) you depend upon break down and you lose everything?
That's a lovely libertarian mantra. But, in reality it could never exist. When individuals in a state of nature join together for their mutual benefit (forming a society under Lockean political philosophy) their definition of "mutual" will never be the same.
Consider the founding generation. They revolted to promote their mutual goal of liberty. After 12 years of living under the relatively libertarian Articles of Confederation they ditched it for a relatively *colossal* new federal/constitutional government of 1789. They traded liberty for security (a more powerful government to which states would be more greatly subordinated).
From there it gets more complicated. Some joined together to protect their property rights. Others joined together to strip others of their property rights (the right to own slaves). Colorado became a state to control its source of water. Arizona became a state to use the federal government to get its "fair" share of that water. Competing goals. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness often dependent upon public law -- which creates winners and losers.
When enough people feel they're consistently losing (such as, the top 1/10th of 1% quadruple their incomes as average income declines 10%, all under the auspices of "trickle down" economics), that's something to be concerned about.
You can't dismiss it with quaint depictions of liberty and happiness being exactly what you say it is.