Slashdot Mirror
Rubio, Cruz Try To Kill Neutrality On 1-Year Rule Anniversary (dslreports.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Presidential hopefuls Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have joined six other Senators in pushing the new Restoring Internet Freedom Act, which would dismantle the rules, walk-back the FCC's Title II reclassification of ISPs as common carriers, and prevent the FCC from trying to pass net neutrality rules in the future. In a statement posted to the Rubio website, the presidential hopeful states the new law is necessary because the FCC's "burdensome" net neutrality rules are destroying innovation, diversity, and network investment. "Through burdensome regulations and tight control like the net neutrality rule, the government only hinders accessibility and the diversity of content," said Rubio. "Consumers should be driving the market, and we can help by encouraging innovation, incentivizing investment, and promoting the competitive environment this industry needs."
Unless you plan on packin' up and headin' up the mountain to enjoy life as a hand to mouth subsistence farmer, you should be backing their positions. You probably take your paycheck for granted, or consider it your god-given right, but every bit of that money comes from a corporation and anything you or anyone else does that hurts the corporation will also hurt you in the end. I get sick of all the people that fail to understand this because they're blinded by the smokescreen the liberals put out painting corporations as monsters. They're simply a vehicle to get money into your wallet. Treat them well and they'll return the favor.
...how bought-and-sold by special interest groups all the establishment politicians opposing Trump actually are.
Bernie. He's the only one who has a sane plan and who seemingly gives a shit about liberty.
Proposing $19 trillion in new give-aways that only those who don't pay income taxes could love, and which the other half of the country (which DOES pay income taxes) won't support, is sane?
... that's liberty?
Forcing one half of the country to shoulder vastly more taxes in order to give it to the half that already doesn't pay income taxes is liberty? Forcing someone who wants to sell some shares of Starbucks in order to buy some shares of Amazon because they think that will help better position their retirement self-sufficiency to pay a new tax so that Bernie can buy votes from empty-headed young people who foolishly went six figures into debt because they really, really like the fraternity scene at a famous university
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Over regulation will and has destroy profit and wealth generation in the areas. Look at all the companies who have moved the bulk of their operations off shore to avoid those. They adapt by leaving for a more hospitable place.
You are correct, they will still make a profit. It's just that most of it will be realized without us. What the over regulation will end up doing is destroying the possibilities for competition to start up. It protects the already entrenched and places all sorts of barriers to entry for others that require huge amounts of capital investment and hoops to jump through.
That isn't over regulation, it's under regulation. What we haven't done is prohibit companies that move their work overseas from doing business in this country or from importing their goods.
Other companies will get the message and step in to fill the void.
Excessive regulation can and does hurt the little guy. I expect that isn't something you've really looked into or thought much about.
Regulations can serve as a barrier to entry to both individuals and businesses. It isn't unknown for large companies to lobby or otherwise influence the nature of regulations to make it more difficult for small companies to form, or challenge them.
Some food for thought:
An Economy Buried by Regulations
Another unintended consequence is the stifling of entrepreneurship. Regulations can create barriers to people interested in selling goods or services or starting a small business. For example, 17 states require an individual to earn a license to do hair braiding. To obtain a license in Pennsylvania, you have to train for 300 hours, pass a practical and theoretical exam and then pay a fee. Barriers such as these give consumers fewer choices, and with fewer practitioners offering their services in a particular field, customers may face higher prices.
Over-regulated America
But red tape in America is no laughing matter. The problem is not the rules that are self-evidently absurd. It is the ones that sound reasonable on their own but impose a huge burden collectively. America is meant to be the home of laissez-faire. Unlike Europeans, whose lives have long been circumscribed by meddling governments and diktats from Brussels, Americans are supposed to be free to choose, for better or for worse. Yet for some time America has been straying from this ideal.
Consider the Dodd-Frank law of 2010. Its aim was noble: to prevent another financial crisis. Its strategy was sensible, too: improve transparency, stop banks from taking excessive risks, prevent abusive financial practices and end âoetoo big to failâ by authorising regulators to seize any big, tottering financial firm and wind it down. This newspaper supported these goals at the time, and we still do. But Dodd-Frank is far too complex, and becoming more so. At 848 pages, it is 23 times longer than Glass-Steagall, the reform that followed the Wall Street crash of 1929. Worse, every other page demands that regulators fill in further detail. Some of these clarifications are hundreds of pages long. Just one bit, the âoeVolcker ruleâ, which aims to curb risky proprietary trading by banks, includes 383 questions that break down into 1,420 subquestions. . . .
Dodd-Frank is part of a wider trend. Governments of both parties keep adding stacks of rules, few of which are ever rescinded. Republicans write rules to thwart terrorists, which make flying in America an ordeal and prompt legions of brainy migrants to move to Canada instead. Democrats write rules to expand the welfare state. Barack Obama's health-care reform of 2010 had many virtues, especially its attempt to make health insurance universal. But it does little to reduce the system's staggering and increasing complexity. Every hour spent treating a patient in America creates at least 30 minutes of paperwork, and often a whole hour. Next year the number of federally mandated categories of illness and injury for which hospitals may claim reimbursement will rise from 18,000 to 140,000. There are nine codes relating to injuries caused by parrots, and three relating to burns from flaming water-skis.
Two forces make American laws too complex. One is hubris. Many lawmakers seem to believe that they can lay down rules to govern every eventuality. Examples range from the merely annoying (eg, a proposed code for nurseries in Colorado that specifies how many crayons each box must contain) to the delusional (eg, the conceit of Dodd-Frank that you can anticipate and ban every nasty trick financiers will dream up in the future). Far from preventing abuses, complexity creates loopholes that the
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
It is over regulation and you are a complete fool if you think starting a trade war is a viable alternative.
Rarely have I seen a post use so many words to say so little. You must really be proud of yourself for the nothing you added to this conversation. Perhaps if you focused on the topic instead of my moniker you wouldn't come off as densely as you think I am.