Are you saying that todays legislators are acting differently from legislators during the time of our countries founding?
How so?
Do you feel they are acting extra-constitutionally?
I feel the founders believed in limited government and did not want to pass every law to increase their power at the time. Laws today seem to favor bigger government. Also the separation of powers is becoming less separate as legislators are giving the executive branch more discretion in enforcing the law. When the president says he will act on his own where Congress does not act, and Congress applauds him, they make my point for me.
That's not what Net Neutrality is. It's not that the government dictates who gets bandwidth. It's that the government mandates that an ISP cannot charge one customer more than another for bandwidth, or slow down one's connection because they don't want to pay more for the same service. It's actually about the government making sure your concern above does not happen.
I just want to make sure if we empower our government with this that it is enforced fairly and as written, with no special exemptions and favoritism of one ISP over another. Recent history has shown selective enforcement of our laws, with special exemptions and delays in execution.
From reading everyone's comments, I wonder if our representatives and senators would actually know enough about the debate to author a bill, then vote in a way that represents the people. Or will we get another bill that we need to pass before we can find out what is in it?
And what's to stop the government from "leveling the playing field," giving additional network resources to failing energy companies, state education systems in favor of Common Core, public companies who need to better compete against private ones etc. ?
Um, net neutrality perhaps? That's what net neutrality is about. Not giving any one content provider preference over another is the definition of net neutrality.
True, but there is an assumption that government will hold itself accountable. What if they pass a law exempting themselves so that they can then grant certain entities the preference that net neutrality is intended to prevent?
You can block corporations from corrupt practice, but who will protect us from government corruption? Are we then going to empower the IRS to penalize companies who do not comply?
Cable TV is heavily regulated. Market entry requires all kinds of approval and look at the potential Comcast-Time Warner merger. Something which arguably gets a company closer to a monopoly and leads to less competition will likely go through unhindered by the government who will be approving this merger.
Some of us try to offer opposing views and the response is to get personally attacked for thinking differently. Government has proven to selectively enforce laws, e.g. the 4th Amendment. I would expect unintended consequences we have not yet anticipated when it comes to Net Neutrality; if it is truly a free market idea as previously stated then sign me up. I'm just skeptical to it being such in practice.
I think most people would agree net neutrality is a great idea in theory. You could say socialism is also good in theory. I don't mean to compare the two, but the problem with both is the practice and enforcement is done by people, who are fallible and often selfish.
With any government enforcement, how do you ensure full accountability that net neutrality is actually being followed and fair in enforcement? And what's to stop the government from "leveling the playing field," giving additional network resources to failing energy companies, state education systems in favor of Common Core, public companies who need to better compete against private ones etc. ?
I guess he's OK with putting labels on things without any proof, so let's put this label on cars:
"Starting this vehicle will cause catastrophic global warming."
- Increasing funding for charter schools so that even poor people can have school choice?
Charter schools are generally supported by Republicans. Obama changed his position on charters.
- Ending an immoral war by setting concrete timelines, but recognizing that they may have to be modified depending on the conditions on the ground?
I'd question Obama's definition of "concrete timelines" based on this statement. What a stance he's taking here.
- Better sex education, so that there are fewer unexpected pregnancies, and so that when there are unexpected pregnancies, the women know there are options BESIDES abortion?
He's on tape in front of Planned Parenthood saying this is a good idea for kindergarteners
Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous was me - I misclicked.
And the Constitution starts with "We, the People" and not "We, the Government of the People."
Are you saying that todays legislators are acting differently from legislators during the time of our countries founding? How so? Do you feel they are acting extra-constitutionally?
I feel the founders believed in limited government and did not want to pass every law to increase their power at the time. Laws today seem to favor bigger government. Also the separation of powers is becoming less separate as legislators are giving the executive branch more discretion in enforcing the law. When the president says he will act on his own where Congress does not act, and Congress applauds him, they make my point for me.
That's not what Net Neutrality is. It's not that the government dictates who gets bandwidth. It's that the government mandates that an ISP cannot charge one customer more than another for bandwidth, or slow down one's connection because they don't want to pay more for the same service. It's actually about the government making sure your concern above does not happen.
I just want to make sure if we empower our government with this that it is enforced fairly and as written, with no special exemptions and favoritism of one ISP over another. Recent history has shown selective enforcement of our laws, with special exemptions and delays in execution.
From reading everyone's comments, I wonder if our representatives and senators would actually know enough about the debate to author a bill, then vote in a way that represents the people. Or will we get another bill that we need to pass before we can find out what is in it?
And what's to stop the government from "leveling the playing field," giving additional network resources to failing energy companies, state education systems in favor of Common Core, public companies who need to better compete against private ones etc. ?
Um, net neutrality perhaps? That's what net neutrality is about. Not giving any one content provider preference over another is the definition of net neutrality.
True, but there is an assumption that government will hold itself accountable. What if they pass a law exempting themselves so that they can then grant certain entities the preference that net neutrality is intended to prevent?
I passed on GWB both times and will pass on Jeb Bush also.
You can block corporations from corrupt practice, but who will protect us from government corruption? Are we then going to empower the IRS to penalize companies who do not comply?
Cable TV is heavily regulated. Market entry requires all kinds of approval and look at the potential Comcast-Time Warner merger. Something which arguably gets a company closer to a monopoly and leads to less competition will likely go through unhindered by the government who will be approving this merger.
Some of us try to offer opposing views and the response is to get personally attacked for thinking differently. Government has proven to selectively enforce laws, e.g. the 4th Amendment. I would expect unintended consequences we have not yet anticipated when it comes to Net Neutrality; if it is truly a free market idea as previously stated then sign me up. I'm just skeptical to it being such in practice.
The founders wrote the Constitution telling the government what it cannot do. It's quite a distinction from today's legislators in my opinion.
Your handle is awesome, durrr. BTW when you play poker your bluffs are amazing :)
I'm not Republican.
I think most people would agree net neutrality is a great idea in theory. You could say socialism is also good in theory. I don't mean to compare the two, but the problem with both is the practice and enforcement is done by people, who are fallible and often selfish. With any government enforcement, how do you ensure full accountability that net neutrality is actually being followed and fair in enforcement? And what's to stop the government from "leveling the playing field," giving additional network resources to failing energy companies, state education systems in favor of Common Core, public companies who need to better compete against private ones etc. ?
Yet you're probably ok when George Soros and Michael Bloomberg do the same thing...
He is not available to accept this $1m, so I accept it on his behalf.
United States Congress: After Dark
You don't wanna know.
I guess he's OK with putting labels on things without any proof, so let's put this label on cars: "Starting this vehicle will cause catastrophic global warming."
What is his political affiliation? I'll guess Democrat.
I have no idea what was just said.
Fuzzy Math
I'm Chuck Norris.
- Increasing funding for charter schools so that even poor people can have school choice? Charter schools are generally supported by Republicans. Obama changed his position on charters. - Ending an immoral war by setting concrete timelines, but recognizing that they may have to be modified depending on the conditions on the ground? I'd question Obama's definition of "concrete timelines" based on this statement. What a stance he's taking here. - Better sex education, so that there are fewer unexpected pregnancies, and so that when there are unexpected pregnancies, the women know there are options BESIDES abortion? He's on tape in front of Planned Parenthood saying this is a good idea for kindergarteners