3 ms·

I didn't quite understand why you are against net neutrality.

by borplk 9y ago

maxharris 9y ago
Because it's just another intervention, more rules. And what I'm saying is that the rules themselves are the problem in this case. Ever have a piece of busted code, where you can see the underlying problem? And instead of just fixing that, you end up just piling on more code to patch the problem? Then time goes by, and something changes underneath you - a requirement, for example. And now that hack you did is part of the problem. That's what I know is going to happen with these net neutrality rules.
- TheAsprngHacker 9y ago
  Are you a libertarian? You remind me of John Stossel. https://youtu.be/5hqzpD9drdc?t=5m29s https://youtu.be/5hqzpD9drdc?t=5m29s
  - maxharris 9y ago
    I'm not actually a libertarian either. Of course the particular reasons depend on what kind of libertarian you're talking about, but I have different and serious disagreements with all of them. For example: I'm not an anarchist. I don't think there can be a market in courts, police, armies. (Yes, I've read Nozick.) Another example: I don't think that non-intervention is the fundamental on which to base a proper foreign policy. A third example: I don't think that fractional reserve banking is a form of fraud. Or that gold is the ultimate currency. Fourth example: I neither lionize nor demonize the police as an institution. Civil asset forfeiture is an abomination, to be sure, as is police racism, brutality, and their present "warrior mentality." These are definitely problems, to be sure. However, they are neither solved by markets, nor by simply eliminating a necessary and important pillar of society. Fifth example: Libertarians seem to despise the idea of intellectual property. While I have seen my share of asinine software patents, I generally think that IP is extremely important to protect. I think it's proper for the government to protect innovators (not as a matter of utilitarian principle, but rather as a matter of justice.) I could keep going from here, but that should be sufficient... I'm no libertarian!

I didn't quite understand why you are against net neutrality.

by borplk 9y ago

I didn't quite understand why you are against net neutrality.

Because it's just another intervention, more rules. And what I'm saying is that the rules themselves are the problem in this case. Ever have a piece of busted code, where you can see the underlying problem? And instead of just fixing that, you end up just piling on more code to patch the problem? Then time goes by, and something changes underneath you - a requirement, for example. And now that hack you did is part of the problem. That's what I know is going to happen with these net neutrality rules.

TheAsprngHacker 9y ago
Are you a libertarian? You remind me of John Stossel. https://youtu.be/5hqzpD9drdc?t=5m29s https://youtu.be/5hqzpD9drdc?t=5m29s
- maxharris 9y ago
  I'm not actually a libertarian either. Of course the particular reasons depend on what kind of libertarian you're talking about, but I have different and serious disagreements with all of them. For example: I'm not an anarchist. I don't think there can be a market in courts, police, armies. (Yes, I've read Nozick.) Another example: I don't think that non-intervention is the fundamental on which to base a proper foreign policy. A third example: I don't think that fractional reserve banking is a form of fraud. Or that gold is the ultimate currency. Fourth example: I neither lionize nor demonize the police as an institution. Civil asset forfeiture is an abomination, to be sure, as is police racism, brutality, and their present "warrior mentality." These are definitely problems, to be sure. However, they are neither solved by markets, nor by simply eliminating a necessary and important pillar of society. Fifth example: Libertarians seem to despise the idea of intellectual property. While I have seen my share of asinine software patents, I generally think that IP is extremely important to protect. I think it's proper for the government to protect innovators (not as a matter of utilitarian principle, but rather as a matter of justice.) I could keep going from here, but that should be sufficient... I'm no libertarian!