Slashdot Mirror
Rand Paul Moves To Block New "Net Neutrality" Rules
SonicSpike writes with news about another bump in the road for net neutrality. U.S. Senator Rand Paul, a Republican presidential hopeful, on Wednesday introduced a resolution to block new regulations on Internet service providers, saying they would 'wrap the Internet in red tape.' The 'net neutrality' rules, which are slated to take effect in June, are backed by the Obama administration and were passed by the Democratic majority of the Federal Communications Commission in February. AT&T Inc and wireless and cable trade associations are challenging them in court. Paul's resolution, if adopted, would allow the Senate to fast-track a vote to establish that Congress disapproves of the FCC's new rules and moves to nullify them.
Effectively 3 parties? That's effectively 2 parties more than we have in the US.
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
Rand Paul: I want to be president...whats a guy gotta do?
Republican Party: We're glad you asked rand and happy to hear youve considered being a republican brand president. In order to best serve the interests of our constituents, their yachts, and various institutions named in their honour, we're going to ask you to toe-the-line with our conservative fiscal policy and principal of small government. Please select from one or more of the following principles we believe assists in small government and lower taxes:
1. Repealing affordable healthcare for millions of americans and replacing it with a faint mumbling noise.
2. Outlawing homosexual marriage
3. Outlawing abortion
4. obstruct or repeal a meaningful federal regulation: EPA, FDA, FCC.
5. Funnel billions of dollars into a foreign war with no clear objective other than amorphous freedom/patriotism/democracy
6. oppose decriminalization of marijuana and/or prison reform.
as a bonus you may call for a government shutdown but only while affirming 'in god we trust' on the currency.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Right, so, unchecked corporate power takes the place of government regulation.
At least with the government we hold elections. I think there are good reasons Libertarianism has never been fully implemented anywhere.
No, we have two parties here:
1) The rich & powerful
2) Everyone else
But since #1 always wins, it's an easy mistake to make.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
People think he's the citizenry's friend because he occasionally backs some civil liberties bill that he knows will never pass anyway. In reality, his only real masters are the rich & powerful. He just tosses the occasional meaningless symbolic bone to the public to pretend he isn't just another Republican. "Here, I'll back this civil liberties bill that I know has no chance of ever passing, so you won't notice that my REAL agenda is just abolishing taxes on the wealthy and letting corporations do whatever the fuck they want to this country."
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
ProTip: Nobody who's going to get a lick of camera time in the upcoming election isn't someone whose "masters" are the "rich and powerful."
They make sure to make it impossible for anyone other than the Janus Party to participate.
"Pick almost ANY topic and the parties are going to take polar opposite views of it."
So long as those two topics are popular yet inconsequential.
In a free country, businesses don't get massive government subsidies and de-facto monopolies. Also, in a free country, governments can decide no business serves their constituents well and decide to serve their constituents directly.
But that's not the ISP landscape right now.
Only the ones that don't matter, but make for good sound bites. On the actual important topics, both halves of our oligarchic regime enthusiastically agree:
And that's just off the top of my head, not anywhere close to a complete list.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Ahm, libertarianism at its core is the desire to have power for themselves and trample others, with the focus being on preventing government from protecting those weaker than themselves.
It's difficult to have a functioning market when local municipalities grant monopolies to individual companies and then turn around and get the state to ban municipal networks entirely.
In theory, the FCC shouldn't need to regulate the internet at all, but because other government has created a wholly fucked up system, I agree that it's necessary at this point for them to step in.
Paul is just blindly sticking to principles without considering the reality of the situation. If he wants to block the government from regulating the internet, first he needs to remove the roadblocks that prevent such government regulation from being necessary. You can't have a market-based solution when there is no market and the chances of having one have been made practically impossible.
lol you made up your mind long before that and just wanted an excuse to generalize and bash a party you do not agree with.
Okay, so you're saying lumping an entire party together and generalizing and bashing them is a bad thing. That's a reasonable argument to make.
That's why we refer to you democrats as "sheeple" and you fit the status quo.
And yet you lump both yourself ("we") into one camp, and others you disagree with into another camp, and use childish* name-calling to bash the ones you disagree with and have preconceived notions about? You're either a brilliant troll or have the self-awareness and memory of a goldfish**.
* yes, I am generalizing about children being immature
** and goldfish