If only I had mod points. More people need to see this and understand what's really going on here before the "OMG NET NEUTRALITIES!" bandwagon starts up in full.
First, calm down a bit if you want to have a civil discussion. Next, let's get back to basics. Your original argument was that libertarians are tools of big business, because they want the government out of the economic sector. "Killing union organizers" does not fall under the heading of "deregulation", and you won't find a libertarian who says it does, so that's a red herring. We're talking economic policy here, and if you exclude the violence in the middle of your list, the first half has an easy recourse: don't work there, and everything in the latter half the government is neck-deep in too (The expansion of "intellectual property" stifles innovation like you wouldn't believe, but big business's push for more IP would be meaningless without the government's hand behind it).
When people want to breach the wall between government and business to create more government involvement in economics, they forget that the breach goes both ways. Trust me when I say that corporations annoy the shit out of libertarians every bit as much as the government does, which is why we are especially pissy when the government is the one forcing us to deal with abusive corporations.
Annoyed by the greedy insurance companies? Well the obvious solution is to force everyone to pay them, or the government will come and hurt you. Problem solved, populace protected from big money, right?
There is nothing big money likes better than total deregulation
False. Big money uses regulation to stay big money. See: Regulatory Capture
Most big businesses would shit themselves if regulations were ever removed, because then they'd have to actually compete. Much easier to buy a politician to put up huge barriers to market entry and high government fees. Sure, they have to pay the fees too (sometimes), but in return they get a near-monopoly in their market, which is so much more lucrative.
Corporation were already dumping money into elections. Citizens United basically told the government that they didn't get to pick and choose which groups get to speak.
Previously, an editorial in the New York Times (a for-profit corporation) on how great Hillary Clinton is would be allowed, but a video by the Citizens United group on how much she sucks wouldn't be. How was that "good for democracy"?
I itemize my taxes at the end of the year in such a way as to end up paying as little in taxes as possible. I'm relatively certain that the people here complaining do the same. Why is it okay for us to look for legal ways to pay less, but not Google?
Slashdot Mirror
Use an old-fashioned encyclopedia.
Are you arguing that printed encyclopedias are more accurate and less biased than Wikipedia?
"by showing a man a lot of people respect"
Adam or Jamie?
If only I had mod points. More people need to see this and understand what's really going on here before the "OMG NET NEUTRALITIES!" bandwagon starts up in full.
First, calm down a bit if you want to have a civil discussion. Next, let's get back to basics. Your original argument was that libertarians are tools of big business, because they want the government out of the economic sector. "Killing union organizers" does not fall under the heading of "deregulation", and you won't find a libertarian who says it does, so that's a red herring. We're talking economic policy here, and if you exclude the violence in the middle of your list, the first half has an easy recourse: don't work there, and everything in the latter half the government is neck-deep in too (The expansion of "intellectual property" stifles innovation like you wouldn't believe, but big business's push for more IP would be meaningless without the government's hand behind it).
When people want to breach the wall between government and business to create more government involvement in economics, they forget that the breach goes both ways. Trust me when I say that corporations annoy the shit out of libertarians every bit as much as the government does, which is why we are especially pissy when the government is the one forcing us to deal with abusive corporations.
Annoyed by the greedy insurance companies? Well the obvious solution is to force everyone to pay them, or the government will come and hurt you. Problem solved, populace protected from big money, right?
We can at least agree that allowing the powerful to abuse the less fortunate is a bad thing, right?
Yes, but we probably have different definitions of "abuse".
No corporation can ever abuse me like the government can (and does).
There is nothing big money likes better than total deregulation
False. Big money uses regulation to stay big money. See: Regulatory Capture
Most big businesses would shit themselves if regulations were ever removed, because then they'd have to actually compete. Much easier to buy a politician to put up huge barriers to market entry and high government fees. Sure, they have to pay the fees too (sometimes), but in return they get a near-monopoly in their market, which is so much more lucrative.
Corporation were already dumping money into elections. Citizens United basically told the government that they didn't get to pick and choose which groups get to speak.
Previously, an editorial in the New York Times (a for-profit corporation) on how great Hillary Clinton is would be allowed, but a video by the Citizens United group on how much she sucks wouldn't be. How was that "good for democracy"?
I itemize my taxes at the end of the year in such a way as to end up paying as little in taxes as possible. I'm relatively certain that the people here complaining do the same. Why is it okay for us to look for legal ways to pay less, but not Google?
Lotta hypocrites around these parts . . .
the free market fairy solves all problems and is always superior to public solutions
Are you seriously claiming that the US broadband market is an example of the free market at work?