Slashdot Mirror
Congressmen Send Letters, Hope For Net Neutrality Fades
The odds of the FCC implementing net-neutrality rules just got much longer. "A bipartisan group of politicians on Monday told FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, in no uncertain terms, to abandon his plans to impose controversial new rules on broadband providers until the US Congress changes the law. Seventy-four House Democrats sent Genachowski ... a letter saying his ideas will 'jeopardize jobs' and 'should not be done without additional direction from Congress.' A separate letter from 37 Senate Republicans, also sent Monday, was more pointed. It accused Genachowski of pushing 'heavy-handed 19th century regulations' that are 'inconceivable' as well as illegal. ... [U]nless something unexpected happens, the fight over Net neutrality will shift a few blocks down Independence Avenue from the FCC to Capitol Hill. (In an editorial Monday, The Washington Post called for just that.)"
He may be cranky, but he's right. That kind of idealistic gullibility would be laughed out of even a high school civics class. It's more on par with every poorly-written flag-waving bumpkin type on crappy TV shows.
Shall we examine the ways in which your statement is more evidence of your own delusion rather than any reflect on reality?
"Law is how a civilized society addresses grievances between it's citizens without resorting to violence or terroristic threats."
There is no evidence that law implies civilization, and more than a few counter examples: Most of the middle east, much of central Africa, Texas.
As an extension of the above point, you're wrong because many times the law EXPLICITLY prescribes violence as performed by the government.
More abstractly, *all* government power to enforce laws is derived from one of two sources: Willingness of the people to go along with it, or violence. The former does not scale beyond the most local levels, leaving the latter for most state and federal laws. Before you claim that is not the case, think of what would happen to the schmuck who breaks one of these laws and decides that he's not going to cooperatively go to prison.
The entire purpose of laws is to collectively trade some liberties for some security which, despite pithy quotes from American historical figures, is not always a bad thing. By agreeing to refrain from murdering other people, one (ostensibly) gains the security of being pretty sure (sorta) that no one will murder him either. Talk of "universal human rights" and the like are purely philosophical, not factual, as evidenced by the fact that there are societies who have rejected the concept, the execution, or both.
Unfortunately, when a society stupidly allows itself to fall into a fox/henhouse situation like we have in the U.S, the "rule of law" becomes no longer sacrosanct, and instead becomes a vehicle for the corruption to spread virally.
Human nature being what it is, laws will be made and enforced in ways that, first and foremost, benefit the legislators and enforcers. When they are allowed to make end-runs around any methods to stop them that the people who might object to this situation might have, they have little reason to be concerned with the will of the people anymore. That's the situation the US is in now.