Slashdot Mirror
Ron Paul's New Primary Goal Is "Internet Freedom"
Charliemopps writes "Ron and Rand Paul are shifting the central focus of their family's libertarian crusade to a new cause: Internet Freedom. From the article: 'Kentucky senator Rand and his father Ron Paul, who has not yet formally conceded the Republican presidential nomination, will throw their weight behind a new online manifesto set to be released today by the Paul-founded Campaign for Liberty. The new push, Paul aides say, will in some ways displace what has been their movement's long-running top priority, shutting down the Federal Reserve Bank. The move is an attempt to stake a libertarian claim to a central public issue of the next decade, and to move from the esoteric terrain of high finance to the everyday world of cable modems and Facebook.' This seems like welcome news to me. Let's see if they can get more traction here than they did with the Fed."
Seems like Ron Paul's congressional record is about the same as a paperweight. The guy might have an interesting idea now and then (and a lot of nutjob ideas in between) but those ideas don't translate to anything real.
Given his failure as a representative, why should we pay attention to anything else he says?
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Ron Paul is now our friend... for now.
they need to get a clue.
I made a contribution to one of Ron's 2008 "money bombs." From that simple action, I started getting spam from Ron, the Campaign for Liberty, the Rand Paul campaign, and state campaigns. All with "no one's listening" return addresses.
Somehow, this move reeks of opportunism - they have not shown any real understanding of Internet privacy, and certainly haven't "walked the walk."
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
why is it every time a politician says anything with "freedom" I have to dive into documents/articles to learn what they really mean to say. the word freedom is unofficiallty dead and without meaning.. like "terrorism".. "independant".. "green".. "my experience".. and so on
But they still want to ban gay marriage and abortion, right? Just want to make sure we're talking about the same freedom-loving Libertarians, here.
Ron and Rand Paul are shifting the central focus of their family's libertarian crusade to a new cause: Internet Freedom.
Depends what you mean by freedom. According to this Ars Technica Article, he means the freedom of corporations to decide who gets to speak and what they get to say on the Internet.
This seems like welcome news to me.
I'd say that depends pretty heavily on whether you want citizens to be free to speak, or network providers to be free to generate revenue by restricting speech.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
he was off "fund raising" instead of "voting for liberty", the guy is a hack.
no, that's not what the Pauls want. it's an example of the ``insidious" agenda of collectivists (page 1).
libertarians really can't get a hold on anything unless there's private property, even if it's established by fiat in the first place! their very idea of online freedom will depend on strong copyright and patent laws. to quote again (page 4), internet regulation will be acceptable if it ``protect[s] property rights," presumably even if the government has to define what is private property in the first place. don't even try going federalist with this, as any state which defects from enforcement will gain a ridiculous advantage and could be federally regulated under reasonable application of commerce laws.
any libertarian opposition to strong copyright and patent will be on the fringe of the fringe, although to be fair the Pauls want the regulation to be ``clear and specific, with defined metrics and limitations."
my prediction would be that they will be for stronger patent and copyright enforcement, but hopefully with saner (shorter and more specific) terms.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
It seems this relates to regulation of US based provision of services based on the internet and wider ranging issues of US government of monitoring or censoring access to US residents.
To me, a non-US based reader, the dude *seems* like a scaremongering wacko ...
Given his failure as a representative, why should we pay attention to anything else he says?
We pay attention to ron paul on slashdot because he is the source of >90% of the political groupthink here. If he said tomorrow afternoon that Coca-Cola should indenture their employees to invade Malaysia, slashdot would come out in roaring support of it because his is the majority opinion here, by a long shot. It would quickly be endorsed by slashdot as the greatest idea in the history of mankind - or at least, the greatest idea since ron paul's invention of the internet.
Anyone like me to dares to suggest that ron paul is not the second coming is generally moderated down quickly and severely.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Their rhetoric even sounds like Ayn Rand's tirades in Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead and elsewhere. This is logical since Ayn Rand is their idolized ideological forebear.
Let private industry do whatever they want to the Internet. Smart people and the corporations they heroically work for have made the Internet what it is today. So let the Verizons, the Comcasts, the Cox's, the Rogers' and the Telus' of the world give priority routing of their ad-laden drivel over what some of the customers of these paragons of individualist virtue would like to do, which is to communicate, to learn and and to chose their entertainment from wherever it suits them.
And if our corporate overlords who provide us with their extravagant priced "pipes" wish for us to have no access outside their hallowed walls, what then? What choices do 99% of us have? Zip. Someone said the Pauls are our friends? Not in this lifetime!
It's becoming a creepy world where everyone's movements and activities are tracked and photographed on a moment-by-moment, yard-by-yard, page visit-by-page visit, transaction-by-transaction basis and permanently archived and sliced and diced by hundreds of machine intelligence frameworks for commercial, social, scientific, and political/governmental advantage.
This will change the evolutionary course of the human race in favor of people who relish living in front of the cameras 24x7x365. Think of the Kardashians, Donald Trump, etc.
The Pauls want "internet freedom" - which includes the opposite of net neutrality - so that they can better deploy it as a way to bring in new recruits to their cult. By giving more power to corporations (as they propose) it is easier for them to ensure that their message is heard over the messages that counter their own. They'll be able to pay ISPs and search engines to ensure that traffic searching for counter ideas or even related ideas always end up directing to their website instead.
Just remember, the main difference between a religion and a cult is in the number of adherents. Right now Ron Paul has a cult. A few thousand more worshippers and he has a church (with tax exempt status, of course!).
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
"Internet Freedom" sounds like a phrase designed to make being anti-Net Neutrality sounds good.
And no wonder: Verizon and AT&T are heavy contributors to Rand Paul's campaign.
Make no mistake: there's nothing "free" about the state-granted monopolies the wireless and cable industry have. Since they're monopolies, they ought to be regulated.
And if regulation is removed, you know that the telecom industry will be hitting up Google and Netflix for cash right away.
"Internet Freedom" means freedom for Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T to charge siteowners like Google and Amazon just because they feel like it.
"Internet Freedom" means every single thing you do on the Internet is going to cost more because Verizon and Comcast need to keep posting massive increases in profits.
"Internet Freedom" means freedom for the carriers to hold you hostage. ...and if you think that the 'free-market' will solve this, remember: bandwidth is scarce and already monopolized by the big carriers. You won't see landline competition either: the big carriers also have all the local governments locked up so there won't be any competition there. And you know that the Pauls won't be taking on the local governments so that there can be competition in the landline market.
Defending the Internet and the corporations that invest in it from government regulation
So basically let ISP's pretend their services aren't a utility, and allow them to shit all over (including but not limited to) multimedia streaming services that compete with their own via QOS throttling?
Ron Paul will represent a victory for freedom from government, for both consumers and ISPs.
Libertarian philosophy is deficient in that it assumes all transgressions are ultimately the fault of governments and governments alone. From there they can do some good but they will always stand in inaction in the face of powerful, non-state threats to freedom... mostly because they don't believe non-state actors can transgress on freedom - or, worse, consider such transgressions to be the freedoms of said non-state actors.
The fact that he can simultaneously be a doctor and claim to belong to a philosophy which says we should do away with the FDA and medical licensing laws should point to the kinds of cognitive dissonance (or outright lies) this man must deal with every day. Not to mention, he's an open homophobe, and supports prohibiting same-sex marriage, while also claiming to be a libertarian. His claim to dissuade such cognitive dissonance is that horrible, freedom-restricting regulations are OK on the state level... which means he's not even a libertarian, just a provincial nutjob.
In terms of actions, Ron Paul does fuck all, runs hopeless presidential campaigns every four years, and gets large amounts of contributions from gullible libertarians who like to see someone attempt to espouse their unworkable philosophy in office. He's switching narrative from the federal reserve to internet freedom because right now it looks like the federal government is the primary threat. Which means he can rake in more money while continuing to make stupid pointless no votes on things which don't pass his horribly warped view of constitutionality. It's a pretty good racket.
Tell me, when ISPs begin to intentionally cripple their own service in areas where there is no competition, what is the Ron Paul Plan for Network Neutrality? Please don't say that new start-up ISPs will appear, because you can't create start-up ISPs without enormous amounts of municipal support, and state governments are known to quash municipal network plans at the behest of ISP lobbying. (I don't care about extending libertarianism to the states - remember, Ron Paul doesn't want that because it means queerofags marrying at his door.)
Tell me, when entrenched media monopolies turn to copyright trolling to destroy technologies that would otherwise be useful, what is the Ron Paul Plan for Copyright Reform? Or, if technology companies turn to patent trolling to destroy competitors, what is the Ron Paul Plan for Patent Reform? I'm aware that even certain parts of libertarianism support explicit repeal of all copyright and patent laws, but then again keep in mind that Ron Paul is not a libertarian, and we are arguing his plans, not yours. He could easily cop out and agree with the Rand-style libertarians/objectivists who think that copyrights and patents are perfectly justified property in all cases.
I suspect any comments in this discussion that don't support ron paul will likely be quickly and severely moderated into oblivion. Thankfully, I have karma to burn. Others might not be so lucky and might not want to pick a fight here with the leagues of slashdot paullowers.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Paul's new big push is *against* net neutrality. The freedom he's defending is your ISP's freedom to open your mail and forget to deliver it if it's from their competition.
As a non american, I am vaguely aware of US presidential candidates proposals. I here discover the idea to close the Federal Reserve.
Does he propose to create an alternative body for creating dollars? Or does he considers that only private banks should be able to create money? In the later case, what is his plan to save the economy once they will have bursted the next bubble?
"Internet collectivists are clever," the manifesto says, accusing their foes of series of Orwellian linguistic twists. "They are masters at hijacking the language of freedom and liberty to disingenuously pushfor more centralized control. 'Openness' means government control of privately owned infrastructure.'Net neutrality' means government acting as arbiter and enforcer of what it deems tobe 'neutral'."
The irony is that If he gets his way on this issue HE will be among the most likely to be stifled.
As Bugs Bunny used to say, "What a maroon!"
-- QED
not jewish myself but these fucking w.a.s.p. freaks are trying to bring back feudalism. whether capitalist or communist jews always seem to care for social justice even for non-jews (except stop beating up on the palistinians already) while christians want nothing but strong authoritarian rule. jews have always championed civil rights, workers rights, culture and science...a jewish guy discovers mass-energy equivalence, a great contribution to science, and in a decade christians are using it to make weapons of mass destruction. i wish the conspiracy kooks were right and jews did control the government because everyone's standard of living would be a hell of a lot better!
Obligatory: http://xkcd.com/495/
From reading the article, it sounds like the Pauls are more afraid of the government than corporations, which is a mistake IMHO. Eisenhower talked of the Military-Industrial complex. It's all slowly merging into one giant GovCorp, where the politicians and top corporate executives entrench themselves further and further, scratching each other's backs.
There's the concept of "Creative Destruction." The working classes are well acquainted with it. The problem is that where it's needed most, at the top of the political system and in financial sectors, it's almost completely prevented from occurring.
The Economist had an interesting article entitled "The question of extractive elites."
From that article: "In an extractive economy, such as the Belgian Congo and its successor state, Zaire, a narrow elite seizes power and uses its control of resources to prevent social change... Much of current economic policy seems to be driven by the need to prop up banks, whether it is record-low interest rates across the developed world or the recent provision of virtually unlimited liquidity by the once-staid European Central Bank. The long-term effects of these policies, which may be hard to reverse, are difficult to assess."
Now, do you celebrate, or find a new Cause...?
the individual's?
or freedom like this?:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/07/04/1538201/verizon-claims-net-neutrality-violates-their-free-speech-rights
the problem the pauls and libertarian fundamentalists like them have is they are incredibly naive about what small government really means: a power vacuum that is filled by corporations. at least with our deeply flawed government, there is actually a pretense that it is supposed to stand for our individual freedoms, and some means of recourse
weaken our government, and you are left with monopolies and oligarchies who are happy to trample on our freedoms in the name of their "freedom", and no recourse whatsoever
oh yeah, you can take your business to a competitor, because without regulation the three dominant players aren't colluding and squashing all real competition
oh yeah, you can sue them in court. like you have 6 months and $100,000 and you lose anyway because they can just wear you down with their legion of lawyer goons
give it up, randroids
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Internet freedom by letting Comcast coagulate with the scum of the earth MPAA/media producers.
That means my internet will suck more, because I refuse to buy a fucking subscription to their shit ass channels. Fuck you Comcast, I just want my goddamn internet and I'm not a fucking pirate.
This problem is endemic among charities. I maxed out to the Ron Paul campaign ($2500) and now get snail-mail stuff for Romney and even the W Bush library fund. Politics is slightly worse because disclosure requires too much information to be made public (IMO) with few-to-no limitations on sending garbage to my house via USPS (there are methods, but they are both annoying and ineffective possibly based on your local postmaster).
Politicians give themselves free postage and charities and non-profits get a special rate. I believe bulk deserves some discount, but not as much as they get (like paying $0.13 or so for something that might cost me a couple bucks to send).
Many a non-profit has lost my business because I'd rather not donate if they can't better control information and marketing.
He's a states-rightser who's masquerading as a libertarian, and he gets away with it because the things he says are anti-federal government.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Its obvious from reading the comments on this story that a lot of you all think this means Ron Paul is in favor of a free and open internet, and has come out in favor of net neutrality. You all obviously don't know Ron Paul. For him, and his son, "internet freedom" means businesses on the internet are free to do as they please, capitalism rules, and net neutrality will die a quick death.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Real internet freedom needs freedom not only from government interference, but also from corporate interference. And the latter requires strong competition based alternative forms of internet access. Since it is not economical to build up that much duplicate physical connectivity to customers, internet access services will need to be split between a shared physical infrastructure and independent core connectivity and associated access services (DHCP, RADIUS, DNS, and whatever else the chosen technology may need). This common shared infrastructure needs to be regulated by government and operated as a regulated monopoly with a mandate to provide service to all on a level and open playing field.
IMHO, Ron Paul would never agree to any part of the infrastructure to be regulated in any way. Competing companies would not overbuild on each other more than 2 or 3 because of the capital inefficiency. As a result, there would not be sufficient competition for a viable free and open internet.
Ron Paul would certainly reject a single vertical internet provider monopoly which would effectively entrench government interference. At least that much is good about his positions.
Only a hybrid solution can ever really work. See how electricity is delivered in Texas. One company (Oncor Energy Delivery) operates the infrastructure and delivers the electricity to the customers of many competing energy providers which customers choose from. Ron Paul is from Texas, so he should know about this.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
He has some good ideas, then there's of coarse the rest that are completely insane. Getting rid of the Federal Reserve is near the top of the list. Classic Republican lunacy. Deregulate and dismantle all safeguards because corporations always know best. Look at the history of deregulating. The SNL bailout was from deregulation as was the bank bailout. Net freedom is a good thing up to a point. Leave it in the hands of the corporations and the internet bad guys and the net will be a disaster. Sales taxing the internet is no solution and anything that is legal should be allowed. People can say it's hard to decide which laws should apply to the internet but most people would agree on the obvious ones. Banning kiddie porn, identity thief and scams should be obvious. Letting Congress decide is nuts because most of them are internet illiterate. Better to get together a group that represent all sides to try to find common ground. Either you compromise or one side lords over the rest and the rule making body is Congress so do you really want them deciding?
One needs to separate "marriage" as a private/religious institution from government reward of the same. The only legitimate interest, IMO, for government giving special privileges to those who marry (tax benefits, primarily) are related to preventing offspring from becoming wards of the state, something which doesn't apply to homosexual couples.
If you're going to take that line of thought, then "marriage" in that sense should be automatic between any couple who have children together, and excluded from anyone who doesn't yet have children. If marriage is to be about childrearing, then there should be (legally) no such thing as a childless marriage or a child out of wedlock. If you have a kid, you're "married"; if not, you're not. No contesting it.
Of course, there are other things involved in marriage besides the rights and responsibilities of children. Mutual rights in each others' property and lives (e.g. medical decisions in case of incapacitation). I can see a reason why people who aren't romantically or sexually involved at all might want to do something like that. Say you have two very straight guys who have no intention of ever settling down with one woman but plan to play the field their entire lives; but they are very close friends, have been housemates for years, etc, and want to buy a house together, file joint taxes on their mutual incomes and expenses, and have the other guy watch out for them if anything horrible should ever happen to them. Neither has any sexual or romantic interest in the other, and they each plan on having a different girl over every night, in their separate rooms, for the rest of their lives.
Why shouldn't they be able to make such financial and legal arrangements so resembling what we now call marriage? We don't have to call that marriage, call it a kind of incorporation, partnership, or union... a civil one, you might say. And let men and women in love with each other planning to raise a family get that exact same thing, and call it the exact same thing. And if those two guys want to make that arrangement, and are also having sex with each other, what difference does that make? What if more than two people want to live together and pool their lives and finances together -- whether or not any of them are having sex with each other -- what's wrong with letting them? And the slippery slope stops there, because children, dead people, goats, and furniture can't enter into contracts at all, and so there's no worry about anybody "marrying" any of those things if we replace marriage with a generic civil contract.
And then there's the social ceremony. This is legally meaningless, and should be the thing that gets the term "marriage". Let your favorite church, temple, mosque, coven, social club, or renaissance faire guild decide who they want to give what ceremony and recognize what title to, and let the law not give a shit about any of that. "Marriage" should be legally meaningless. Civil unions for everyone!
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Those who want gay marriage don't seem to want to settle for a legal status that doesn't include the term "marriage". Civil unions aren't good enough. Fixing bad civil union laws isn't good enough, even though they're trying to fix what they consider to be bad marriage laws, so they're trying to get laws changed either way.
If civil unions are good enough for gay couples, shouldn't they be good enough for straight couples too?
Get the government out of marriage entirely. Call it a civil union and forget about the sex of the people involved. Leave "marriage" to the churches, and give that no legal weight whatsoever.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Which, besides being bad for end users, in the long term would have prevented much of the private economy that today is revolving around the internet from taking off.
Audits have been demanded on Ft. Knox (U.S. Gold Reserve) & have been DENIED!
(Illegal though it is to deny independent others doing so, but moreso for governmental reps)
It was for the reason in my subject-line (I have it's been suspected that there's nothing there anymore, debts were paid to China for example via it, it's suspected as gone... OR, massively depleted!).
Is it true? Heck - Nobody knows, but denying audits tends to be rather, ahem "suspicious"...
Plus - honestly?
Well... I can see other nations being 'out of favor' with payments in U.S. Dollars lately, vs. SOLID GOLD!
APK
P.S.=> http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/24/news/economy/ron_paul_gold_audit/index.htm ...
... apk
What century are you living in?
" to preventing offspring from becoming wards of the state, something which doesn't apply to homosexual couples."
Gay couples of either sex adopt, have kids by donor gametes, etc. Go wash your blinkered ignorance with a little enlightenment, please.
You're wrong in a very fundamental way. Obama most certainly is proud of his accomplishments, as are most Democrats who voted for him. Among other things, he's dramatically changed the health care landscape for the better, he's helped to radically shift society's perception of homosexuality, and militarily he's kicked ass, accomplishing the destruction of the most hated person on earth since Adolph Hitler. Am I in love with everything the guy's done? No, but on the whole, I am extremely proud to proclaim that I supported him in 2008, and I am happily doing so again this year.
You seem to be buying Republican attempts to make him out as ineffectual. I know it's pretty difficult with right wing politicians, Fox News and a whole bunch of talking heads on the radio constantly spewing out lies and misrepresentations about his record and corporations who want the unfettered ability to run roughshod over our freedoms spending hundreds of millions, possibly even billions of dollars on 24x7x365 slick well-planned marketing campaigns designed to get the poor and middle class to vote against their own self-interest. It's clearly a case of the old adage of telling a lie enough until even the person telling it believes it's true.
But make no mistake, I am not supporting him because of any kind of "I'm not GWB" campaign. The fact is that he inherited a hell of a mess caused by eight years of bad policy, and he's done an amazing job turning things around. Most Democrats knew this well enough in 2009 that they really haven't needed to constantly remind everyone except when Republicans keep trotting out things like the massive job losses that the U.S. sustained in Obama's first year when we were still operating under Bush's economy. If Republicans would stop pitching these losses as Obama's fault before he even had a chance to enact any policies, we would stop reminding everyone why those numbers were so bad.
But yeah, it's most certainly not more of the same. Ask anyone who is getting mortgage relief now. Ask any gay member of the military. Ask anyone who had their insurance policy canceled during the Bush years because they had an incurable condition. Ask the brave members of SEAL Team Six. Ask any young immigrant who is here through no decision of their own but, until a couple of weeks ago, faced the threat of deportation to a country they've never known. Anyone who thinks that the past four years have been more of the same is either lying, stupid, or grossly not paying attention.
We still have HOPE and we've seen CHANGE. Backtracking on that now would be one of the dumbest things the American electorate could ever do.
I would prefer he focus on patent reform.
Max.
If the delegates at the RNC learn about Ron Paul's message, they can choose to vote their conscience and nominate him.
http://elektable.com/
In other words, a shameless attempt to jump on the bandwagon.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
"State's rights" in practice is almost always a way to hide one's immoral motives
Oh no. It's when you know you'd win if the state voted, but you'd lose if the nation voted. If you know you'd win at the national level, then you oppose state's rights because you want to impose your will on the greatest possible number of people.
Upvote for truth.
I mean, does the entire American society boils down to "RNC-DNC" ?
Don't you think America deserves much more than that?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
I can't correct it all right now...
I personally disagree with homosexuality, but even I can see the change has been occurring since long before Obama reached office.
There was a clear inflection point in polls though when Obama publicly stated his support for gay marriage.
Obama has had 3.5 years to do something and the unemployment rate has not only EXCEEDED the HIGHEST he said it would go, it has STAYED there for a long long time.
We've been doing doing about a million jobs a month better lately than the economy he took over in 2009. As economists know, spending is what pulls an economy out of a recession. You can clearly see when the stimulus worked in the unemployment numbers, but Congress blocked the jobs bill and has forced austerity, which is a drag on the economy.
How much voter fraud do we have in this country?
Almost none. Well, there was that O'Keefe guy. Got any others?
The Internet wouldn't even EXIST if the Ron/Randoms had been in power in the 1970's, and now they figure they have something useful to say about how it ought to work? I suppose their "Internet Freedom" must mean that they want us to be free of the Internet entirely...
I think Ron Pauls goal has consistently been to create a sustainable society. I don't believe he has an agenda outside of providing service to humanity.
If this new "goal" of libertarianism applied to the internet means that huge corporations like Comcast can do whatever they want...including throttle bandwidth to customers, block/censor websites, block competing web services (ex: video on demand), and pay off politicians in order to pass laws in their favor (ex: Comcast acquisition of NBC Universal)...then I'm against it.
> Ron Paul for Internet Freedom
If Internet Freedom means freedom to P2P, torrent or otherwise pirate movies and songs, then Ron Paul is an antisemite. Movie studios and music labels were founded by talented, inventive and fiscally wise jewish people and continue to be jewish owned to this day. The uninventive, simpleton, financially irresponsible goyim masses want everything for free, because that is their only plot to rid the jewish people of wealth and influence. Now wonder the whole P2P craze originally spread from russian MP3 share sites, as Russia is the most anti-semitic place in the world. Luckily all jewish people have extremely high IQ and also enjoy the heavenly gift of Ummim and Thummim, so they can foresee the wile acts of goyim and act in clandestine and clever ways to prevent anything that would hurt the Lord's chosen tribe.
Net pirates will be eliminated just like sea-pirates were! Want to see a movie? Pay for a movie ticket or visit a shop and buy it on optical disc. Want to hear a song? Visit a performance and pay for a ticket or buy a disc or tune in to a radio that has paid for the right to air it. Otherwise you are stealing from the jews and the Lord will punish you, because the tribe of Isaac and Jacob stands most dear before him.
They did not have traction with the Fed?
Of course, clicking through reveals that (as always) Crazy Uncle Liberty's got a strange definition of "freedom": unlimited corporate authority. Given the existing state of near-monopoly/duopoly in most areas for ISPs, this means that CableCabalCo can pretty much dictate exactly what sort of service they feel like giving you.
Let me play the devil's advocate with you about access to rights of way. The way I understand it, the municipality owns the rights of way, and anyone who has a cable they want to run must get their permission and follow their rules. Public roadways work the same: the municipality controls them, but anyone can use them provided they get permission (in the form of licenses, inspections, etc.) and follow the rules.
No one, however, expects that automobile drivers have to act in the public interest because they use public roadways. It's their car, they own it, they control it. How is that not like a cable operator who runs a line down Main Street?
Granted, not everyone has the funds to be a cable operator, but then not everyone can afford a car either.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Ron Paul for Internet Freedom.
It's like having Elmer Fudd as spokesperson for the second amendment.
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
The apathetic are the last people a statist (one who believes in the system) needs to worry about. No, they are not your allies, but they are not your enemies, either. They are neutral as far as you are concerned. They claim no stake to the pot (i.e. your money, your right to self-ownership). They simply make the pot bigger for the victor.
Let's clear our minds of political ideals for a second and think about this. Logically, the more people who "contribute" to the pot -- without staking a claim to it -- the more you stand to gain. Furthermore, instead of convincing 300 million people to join your team, you only need to convince 150 million. Not only is your goal easier to reach, but the reward is bigger.
But that's not good enough for the statist, is it? Somehow, an apathetic person that pays every last cent of taxes and follows every last rule -- taxes and rules designed and implemented by statists -- still isn't "doing his part". In that case, please know that not only have I never voted in my life (and I am 37 years old) -- know that I am damn proud of it. (FYI, it's not because I'm apathetic.)
*Keep in mind this surely means libertarian freedom, as in minimal regulation regardless of what that regulation is (i.e. no net neutrality) and ISPs' strong property and free speech rights on the "internets they own." No thanks, keep it.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The same Ron Paul that couldn't be bothered to vote on cispa is now claiming to care about net neutrality again?
What Ron and Rand Paul call freedom may not be what you call freedom. Foe example they oppose government regulations that requirenet neutrality.
Part of me just can't let some of these claims you're making rest, without some sort of rebuttal.
Sure, I agree that Obama is proud of what he's accomplished (or tried to accomplish, depending on the situation). But at the same time, these accomplishments are being questioned by nearly half of the American people, according to most polls. These certainly aren't "clear win" items where the vast majority agrees it moves America forward!
The military situation is a prime example! We're STILL at war, though most people can't really tell you anything concrete that we've accomplished so far. All we seem to hear is more of the same propaganda about "Helping keep us free from the terrorists!" (Those who read Orwell's 1984 or watched the movie "Brazil" will recognize this tactic immediately for what it is.) What I *do* know is, we've sent more American citizens home in body bags or with missing limbs or at least with post-traumatic stress disorder than we've had so much as remotely THREATENED by the terrorists. Never-mind the COST of the war, which puts our nation many billions of dollars further in debt, at a time when we can ill afford it. Obama insinuated that if he was elected in '08, he'd bring the troops home and put and end to what W started. For anyone who voted for him expecting that to happen (you know, maybe as part of that whole "hope and change" thing he went on about?), it was a total FAIL!
You want another example of Obama's good intentions not producing real results? Take his energy policies.... In his zealousness to promote all things "Green", we've watched company after company take government funds to the tune of millions of dollars, produce none of the products they promised, and turn around and file for bankruptcy. He managed to shutter the last U.S. based company producing incandescent light-bulbs too, while convincing the public to switch mostly to CFL's -- exclusively foreign-made lights with inferior lighting properties and containing hazardous mercury inside. And that's progress??
And right now, this whole "gay rights" thing sure is getting a lot of attention, but IMO - that's such a side issue. Obama's wishy-washy responses throughout his presidency on gay marriage were nothing to praise the man about anyway.
Let me be clear... I don't consider myself a Republican at all. I'm very much independent. But an honest, unbiased analysis of things leads me to conclude that wherher we have Romney as our next president OR Obama for another 4 years, we're in trouble as a nation. Obama couldn't end a senseless war he inherited in *4* years, and Romney is already talking about spending much MORE on military buildup if he's elected. War-mongers, the whole lot.
Go ahead: Be evil!
He wants to leave it open for corporate take over.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Let me play the devil's advocate with you about access to rights of way.
Always a healthy thing. Thanks.
The way I understand it, the municipality owns the rights of way, and anyone who has a cable they want to run must get their permission and follow their rules.
That sounds pretty close to me, though I think some rights of way have federal involvement? Not sure, but I'm thinking interstate highways, interstate pipelines, etc. Not important in our discussion, though.
Public roadways work the same: the municipality controls them, but anyone can use them provided they get permission (in the form of licenses, inspections, etc.) and follow the rules.
Not exactly the same -- cars are more like packets. Roads are more like cables. It isn't necessary to make the distinction at the broad level we are discussing (see next section), but an extra factor with roads, cables, and spectrum is that there's only enough room for a very small number of them (at least relative to packets or cars). This means there is usually a small-order n-opoly in communications, for cost efficiency's sake. Likewise in roadways (see Manhattan bridges and tunnels). In some cases there is even an extra artificial monopoly granted to the network provider, regardless of whether space is available for more cabling.
No one, however, expects that automobile drivers have to act in the public interest because they use public roadways.
They pay society cash for their licenses, and must act in the public interest in a number of ways: They must not drive while intoxicated, they must keep their emissions system properly maintained, they must give way to emergency vehicles, and they must obey traffic laws which are designed in the public interest of maximizing the safe flow of traffic.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
If SlashDot was today's lawmakers, this discussion would be proof we are incapable of ruling ourselves. With that observation in mind, consider these thoughts on...
The authority of law
The Bible tells the story of how men often reject God and do what they want to do.
The God of the Bible provided laws to try to help men hold society together (a fallback parachute for those people who are not in fellowship with God), but men ignored the laws, or rationalized their own way of obeying the laws. Because the heart and spirit of laws were not being followed, the laws became more complex to convict men intent on rebelling against law.
Complex laws do not stop someone intent on breaking the law - the added complexity can actually be used to find more ways to break the law as it gets more disassociated from its heart and spirit. The complication of laws stem from the law-enforcers (judges) disassociation with the giver/authority of law, and inability to discern and apply the heart and spirit of law.
What is the heart and spirit of law? "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets."
Who is the authority behind law? If it is man, the authority can be challenged at any time. Man is fallible - he can be tricked and manipulated. Man's power can be overthrown and bought. When man acts as the authority behind law, the laws will change over time as the authority is challenged and as the perspectives of men change.
When men create law, it is imperfect and may be corrupt too. In a free society of equals, any man may challenge another. The law of any man may be challenged, because the laws of men are imperfect and are fair game for scrutiny. Our court systems are full of such challenges. The growth rate of these cases might be a good indicator of the effectiveness of man's ability to create law and govern himself.
If the authority behind law is God - the God described in the Bible - then the law and lawgiver are perfect and uncorruptable. This kind of law does not change - nor does the penalty for lawbreakers. Although a man may challenge such law, he cannot win because the power of the lawgiver is unconquerable.
What is the destiny of a government that rejects God and his law?
1. Increasing social unrest and chaos (society will begin to disintegrate). Since men declare that the law is theirs to take and give, and since all men are fallible, man's law is imperfect and without supreme authority. Just as children with boundaries have peace and stability in a God-honoring home, society needs the kingship of God and the rule of His law to hold together.
2. The law will have no morality in itself (laws will begin to promote immorality). Morality is an action of man to follow Godly behavior even while not in relationship with Him. As God is rejected from government, morality is also rejected because it reminds the ungodly, of godly behavior. They will not tolerate such a reminder.
3. The government will persecute those who follow God. Such persecution is prosecution for lack of obeying the laws of men, which promote ungodly behavior. God is the lawgiver his followers will obey, and some of these laws will be diametrically opposed to the ungodly laws of men.
4. God will not bless a government or people that rejects Him. They will lack love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.
5. God will shake them, and allow them to be conquered - in hopes that they will turn to Him as their savior and King.
6. An ungodly government will eradicate God, reminders of God, and godly men from itself. Worse, in a government-run state, it will seek to prevent the people it governs from pursuing God too. In the United States, because the Government is "of the people", the concept of separation of church and state will be impose
those ideas don't translate to anything real.
A full audit of the Fed just passed out of committee unanimously. When he wrote the book "End the Fed" in 2008, he was the lone voice in the Congress even showing an interest in the subject. He's spent the past four years building support for it (Bernie Sanders, of all people, is his key ally in the Senate), and if it happens it will cause the single largest power shift in the USG is the past century.
But, go ahead and measure success based on bills brought forward if that's what keeps your narrative comfortable.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
This manifesto isn't about internet freedom for the individual, it is a push to end Net Neutrality.
Except it won't. One of the things they want to do is remove Government regulation from the Carriers and let them set terms and usage based on the "free market". In my area (SE Va) you can get Verizon or Cox cable. There is no competition and lacking any regulation we would be pretty much screwed. The concept of "Net Neutrality" where you can get what you want from whom you want would be out the door and gone. Because there is virtually no viable alternative you would be helpless in the face of your Carrier. But I'm sure they would do the right thing, that's how the "invisible hand' works isn't it?
Here on Slashdot many of us have been championing Internet freedom for years, except that we call it net neutrality. Oh wait; Ron Paul is AGAINST net neutrality regulation. Labeling this pig as the opposite of what it really is doesn't change the fact that it's a pig.
Paul is just another in a long line of elected officials who do not understand "The Internet". I use that term to encompass all of the issues and technologies that surround it and make it go.That's a lot of stuff to understand. Used to be that we appointed experts to advise the policy makers on such things so that they had at least some hope of getting it right and that the interests of the people whom they (the policy makers) represented were looked after. Now, we appoint "industry experts", which is the polite term for "paid lackey" to advise the policy makers so that they can see to the interests of the industry. "Fuck 'the people'. They don't write the checks." Paul has clearly been taking his "advice" from this lot. Still, I would almost be inclined to go with a completely hands-off approach when it comes to government meddling in defining how we use the Internet. Almost. Sadly, the telecommunication industry, who effectively owns and runs the Internet in the U.S. has pretty sorry history of looking out for our rights, much less our interests as consumers. Every single major telco save one (QWest) happily held the chair whilst our rights were then bent over it and given a good ass-ramming. That's called fascism and I'll have part of it, thank you. And the Paul's can shove it.
So RP has found another shiny trinket to lure some of the politically illiterate youth.
Creating a system that forces people to buy things (Obamacare) is unconstitutional
The conservative Supreme Court disagrees. Your slippery slope is not slippery and not a slope. And health care does make for a better life.
greedy people seeking to milk the system
Insurance companies? Unnecessary middlemen.
people from countries with socialized medicine come to the USA for treatment
Nobody I've heard disagrees that the U.S. has some of the best care that money can buy. The disagreement is regarding those that can't afford quality care.
Sure, Obama gets credit for saying, "Make it so," but ANY president would have said that.
Except that other potential presidents said they would not have said that, and criticized Obama for his stance.
As for mortgage relief ...
Did you read anything about the excesses and dirty tricks in the mortgage industry? And you still don't want any regulation? I do agree that the mortgage relief was not enough to make much of a difference.
As for people having insurance canceled...
Wendell Potter, former VP of Cigna says it happens. But even if it didn't happen, why fight against the provision barring that practice? What's the harm in it?
I would be livid to put it mildly
You would be livid at someone brought here as a child, who knows no other country? Seems rather extreme.
(1) raising the debt
Who's the last one who didn't?
(2) increasing racial tension
IOW, why is he so provocatively black?
Zimmerman...let alone presented in court?
I don't know what you wanted Obama to say, but the general outrage around the case was mostly that there wasn't going to be any facts presented in court.
(3) adding mountains of legalese to the U.S. Code
A single payer system would have been much simpler, so I agree with that.
If someone wanted to collapse a government
That's some serious paranoia.
Maybe you should read the 13th amendment of the constitution sometime. It's illegal in the US, period.
Hate net neutrality? Vote for Ron or Rand Paul!
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120705/10581919594/ron-rand-paul-net-neutrality-public-domain-are-really-evil-collectivist-plots.shtml
It seems "Internet Freedom" is Orwellian doublespeak for corporate ownership and control.
Guys, you can all do the thought experiment that convinces you government control of any part of the economy, social system or international affairs is impossible. At least control that improves the world. You probably all have some control systems theory. What to control systems apply to? Mechanisms. Maybe complex mechanisms, but definitely not open, evolving, complex systems. We do not have any of the information, theory, computer systems, ... to do that.
And, you may have noticed, no country has been successful in the effort. In fact, the harder they try ( authoritarian and totalatarian), the faster they fail. The rest of us are falling into a world-wide Greater Depression.
You can't possibly believe, based on your own CS and EE and Control Systems theory, otherwise.
Map foreign affairs -> multilateral diplomacy with war, dozens of countries, 100s of players in every country, multiple simultaneous move for every player --> game complexity. Ditto, you can't possibly believe that.
You don't think out of the political box, I think.
Regulatory bodies are always captured by the companies regulated, and the regulator then enforces the cartel.
Looking at the sequence, the better (more onerous) the regulations, the faster than happens.
Money buys power, always has, always will.
"Alternative medicine is called quackery". No there are some very effective treatments. Alternative medicine's remedies are often turned into drugs that go through the FDA's hoops. Life Extension Foundation has a lot of cases on the web site, I believe.
Most of the alternative medicine treatments never make it out of that world, because they use 'natural substances' which cannot be patented, and there is therefore no economic incentive to do the clinical trials. DCA, reovirus, ... are examples.
The FDA's regulations are now the major killer of people in the US. 10s of 1000s of people die waiting for drugs 'in process'. But far more die, 100s of 1000s every year, because the FDA has made it too expensive to develop drugs and treatments for their condition.
First of all, I really appreciate the effort you put into your reply. That may be one of the most intelligent responses I've ever gotten on a message board when having this sort of debate/discussion!
You probably noticed that in my criticism of Obama's presidency, I didn't even touch on the healthcare issue. That's because to a large extent, I agree with you. It's a topic charged with so much political mud-slinging, it's hard to step back from the mess and try to sort it all out rationally. As you say, it's largely a plan proposed by the Republicans (and specifically, by the guy now trying to challenge the plan as presidential contender!).
I guess my biggest problems with it as it now stands are as follows though:
1. Yes, the mandate portion is a problem (and I don't really care WHICH party came up with it first). I really believe almost all of the other big changes/points people like about the whole plan could have remained in place if the Supreme Court ruled the individual mandate part unconstitutional. In fact, insurance companies were ALREADY voluntarily agreeing to insure kids through age 26, no matter WHAT happened with the healthcare law, because it proved to be so popular with customers. By giving the individual mandate a green light, they created this "it's a tax, but no, it's not really a TAX you see" double-speak. I really do get the dilemma the Justices faced with this one. (How can you say Federal govt. doesn't have the legal power to mandate you pay for your healthcare insurance, when you've already decided it's ok to do so for Medicare, by way of a mandatory payroll deduction from each paycheck?) But maybe that just means we needed to dig a little deeper, and start questioning the way that whole system works? IMO, the Medicare and social security system is severely broken too -- and constitutes part of what needs addressing to truly fix the nation's healthcare problems.
2. The healthcare act is an absolutely HUGE piece of legislation, and it's really not a fair explanation of what it does to simply list off the 5 or 6 "bullet points" people like to hear about what it claims to change. There are certainly other "devils in the details" of that multi-hundred page law that we've not yet even begun to realize. Off the top of my head, I can think of one potential issue right away. Many of our hospitals are essentially owned or partnered up with the Catholic church -- a group strongly opposing the idea of paying for health insurance giving its employees free birth control. As a former Catholic myself (born and raised a Catholic but decided to reject it as an adult), I'm just as likely as a lot of other people to laugh it off and say, "Pppftt.... Time they get out of the dark ages anyway, isn't it?" But at the same time, I realize this is still a serious issue for these people. Government is directly interfering with their religious beliefs, and if some kind of exception isn't made? I could easily see the Church deciding they can no longer support these hospitals and medical facilities -- which means a big loss for everyone.
3. I've always thought a big, and necessary part of healthcare reform comes by way of addressing medical malpractice lawsuits -- and Obama seemed afraid to so much as touch any of that. That's actually one area where I'm not surprised the Republicans wouldn't tread, but you'd hope a Democrat might be more likely to go there. I know a number of doctors who have to pay so much for malpractice insurance, it results in adding at least 1/3rd. to the prices they'd otherwise charge their patients. That wouldn't have to be the case if it was regulated on both sides of the fence -- meaning caps on what insurers could charge a doctor (especially one with no prior claims) AND caps on awards possible to award in court cases. IMO, we all know that medicine offers us no guarantees. Almost all of it involves various levels of risk -- and eventually, some people will wind up with the short end of the stick. I don't think it really makes sense to raise the costs of healthcare
You make Romney sound quite appealing: a candidate who isn't trying to reshape American society or the world, who doesn't have a grand economic plan, and who isn't trying to fix everybody's little booboos with photogenic, costly and ineffective government programs.
Why do people think it aboutAmerican is going to be FREE !
back in 1996 iit was Free and there was Jobs what about 1977 it was free I can tell you this
in 2012
a) America is Number 1 for Womens & Mens being "LOCK_UP) !
b) America is Number 1 for the Polices (Police talke to Womens & Mens like dogs ) !
c) America is Number 1 for the Tea-Party & the House of Republicans Why ? they do not like Blacks & Brown !
d) Aerica is Number 25 for jobs, Why ? ( the Republicans do not want obama to get in again, so the GOP told Obama NO on everthing !
e) America is 59 for Schools, Why ? (the Republicans do not want the Kids to know anything ) Cut Taxs
f) America was Number 1 ? to Vote !
g) But now Americ is Number 78, Why the Uk,Canoda, Mexico and lot move Counrtys can Vote
h) But the Tea-Party & the House Republica & 1 % told the People NO you can not Vote if you are "Black" or "Brown" you "Can-Not Vote"
j) If Mitt Romney get in the White House all of you will be Sorry, so do-not "Cry-LIKE a Baby"
k) Do you re-call November 2,2010 ?
for the American Womens & Mens, (What I'm going to tell you is the "Truth"!) ( I'm not Mitt Romney or G.W.Bush who Lie to you )
Do you know why the Tea -Party is doing now to the 98%
if you get LOCK_UP (jail) you will have to pay $31.00 a day $217.00 a week, $2,604.00 3 Months, 6 Months, $15,624.00
so you pay tax to keep the Womens & Mens in jail ? or the big House ?
so where is the Money the tea_Party get for keeper them in Jail ?
That why they do not tell you the inmate pays to be Lock_Up
That how Mitt Romney make his Monety ! and the Tea_Party !
if you like you can look it up Why ?
What the Tea_Party is doing is the "Truth"
Only government can obtain actual monopoly. Corporations can have dominant position (usually temporarily) and make it difficult for new entrants, but they CANNOT block entry. Only government has true monopoly power.
If there is respect for private property then there is free speech online. You can host your own server or rent space. You can host your video on a competitor's website if the big and evil corporations don't want to help you. You can even create your own protocol and means of diffusing information.
Corporations may have some competitive advantages, but they don't have power to stop you. In return they should not be forced to abide to your wishes.
From your comment I sense that you recognize the evil of corporation and government symbiosis. Your error is to blame corporations over government. Government, unlike the rest of civil society, has unique powers (monopoly on taxation and legislation, all backed by guns). Such power is uncivil and harms society. Such power cannot be controlled and used for good, it is corrupt. The end (well-intentioned goals) don't justify the means (force and disrespect of individuals).
These comments are mine; I do not speak for my employer.
What evidence do you bring to support your claim?
These comments are mine; I do not speak for my employer.
But then Rand Paul's watered down TSA bill hit the floor and I withdrew. This is not a libertarian organization; it is a front for more Republican hooey. If you want a libertarian in office, vote Libertarian. No brainer.
Grar II
The document is loaded with contradictions and seems to call for more Internet regulation, according to their "7 questions" list.
#1 Is this a core function of the federal government?
#2 Does it execute Constitutionally defined duties?
#3 Does it protect Constitutionally defined rights?
#4 Does it protect property rights?
#5 Does it protect individual rights?
#6 If the federal government does not do this, will others?
#7 Will this policy or regulation allow the market to decide outcomes or will it distort the market for political ends?
#8 Is this policy or regulation clear and specific, with defined metrics and limitations?
In addition, he seems to be hinting at trying to ban voluntary use of copyleft, permissive licensing, and banning public domain status as much as he possibly can. He is calling voluntary contracts like GPL and CC "collectivism" which according to every libertarian figure is the exactopposite of collectivism.
Why regulate the Internet at all?
That should be the only question:
#1 Will it regulate the Internet?
I am extremely disappointed in the Pauls for having abandoning libertarianism in favor of statist regulation.
Maybe Ron Paul's goal should be coming clean on his involvement with the Ron Paul Newsletter he published.
> "I disagree with poetry". What does that even mean?
It means that E.E. Cummings should've stayed in school long enough to learn about capital letters.
Libertarians are so evil. Its a ideology designed to justify greed and selfishness while throwing up the banner of "freedom". Stupid assholes
Yes, wrong-headed attempts like INVENTING THE INTERNET. The fact is that the private sector didn't even arrive at the Net until the infamous Green-Card spam some *25* years after the net was conceived, designed and built by scientists funded by the US government-funded DARPA. Argh. There's a reason the average age of a Libertarian fanboy is under 25: people grow up and start grasping how economics *actually* works. They discover that the world is not -- and never was -- the black-and-white free market so lovingly depicted by Libertarian utopianists -- and never will be. [SOP] On the plus side, it is good that Libfans exist -- their constant screeching keeps the creeping fascism of neoliberalism somewhat at bay.[/SOP]. Hooray for dynamic tension.
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
More like Internet Freedom from protection. Any idiot who complains about "government meddling" in a global network that was created and maintained by the United States government through much of its history is simply clueless and uninformed.
Port triggering and central servers for services will pretty much invalidate the need of ipv6 for the average Joe...