Slashdot Mirror
No, Net Neutrality Doesn't Violate the 5th Amendment
An anonymous reader writes "Yesterday we discussed the theory that net neutrality might violate the 5th Amendment's 'takings clause.' Over at TechDirt they've explained why the paper making that claim is mistaken. Part of it is due to a misunderstanding of the technology, such as when the author suggests that someone who puts up a server connected to the Internet is 'invading' a broadband provider's private network. And part of it is due to glossing over the fact that broadband networks all have involved massive government subsidies, in the form of rights of way access, local franchise/monopolies, and/or direct subsidies from governments. The paper pretends, instead, that broadband networks are 100% private."
No, because private enterprise would find a way to make it work. If enough people want something and the government doesn't interfere, the free market comes up with an elegant solution that works. With enough research and such, perhaps there would be more interest in what today is considered to be "alternative" energy such as wind and it would be cheap, refined and usable. Of course when the government gives away free money to basically just burn coal, any other solutions are out because they would cost more initial money and look where that puts us today.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
The internet would be born no matter who designed it. It just so happened that the US government was the only entity that owned enough computers to need a network like that in the early 60s. It wasn't because of some magical government insight, the internet would be born though any entity with enough computers to need such a network, private or government. And who knows, had private enterprise designed the internet from the start, it could have more elegant solutions and such.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Bullshit. The Emancipation Proclamation(s) freed no slaves, took no property. The exact same proclamation has been made in every war against a slave-holding state. "Join us against your masters and we will free you!" They didn't even free slaves in areas the Union had conquered.
How the hell does this guy get to be a professor?
Lincoln didn't want to see free blacks or any other sort, he wanted them all shipped back to Africa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation
If you look at a lot of the companies who thought about making flying cars (like Ford in the 1950s) the ideas were usually rejected by the FAA which is, guess what? More government interference.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
It would fix companies screwing their customers because the only options would be to serve their customers or lose money. When any business is given free money for doing a sub-par job, they will only do a sub-par job because they are getting money but when such a thing is privately funded, if they do a sub-par job they lose customers and quickly die. Because most customers like net neutrality, an ISP which violates it would lose customers and because all ISPs started out on the same level it would be possible for another ISP that was receptive to their customers to take over, because no ISPs were given an unfair advantage.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Net Neutrality means whatever the politicians want it to mean. The well-meaning useful idiots such as yourself promote Net Neutrality, even after its character has changed.
No. Private enterprise did not want the internet. In large part they said "it's just a fad, no significant amount of commerce will be done over the internet."
Buggy-whip makers didn't want the automobile either, and said 'it's just a fad, no amount of travelling will be done in a horseless carriage'.
Meanwhile, private enterprise largely built the Internet after the very early phase, while government did its best to prevent commercial use. You know, companies like Sun, Cisco, etc, etc, etc, etc....