5 ms·

I understand libertarianism. But I can't see an argument for or against net neutrality from a libertarian point of view. You'd be talking about the political li

I understand libertarianism. But I can't see an argument for or against net neutrality from a libertarian point of view. You'd be talking about the political liberties of state created corporate persons. From the Libertarian Party platform: As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others. We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized. https://www.lp.org/platform/ https://www.lp.org/platform/ Yeah, they do mention corporations: Libertarians support free markets. We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of entities based on voluntary association. But corporations are created and recognized by the state, particularly for reasons of non-liability of their owners. That is a decidedly non-libertarian bargain. It isn't a libertarian space to argue in. Really, someone has to explain how to argue for+against net neutrality from a libertarian POV, from first principles.

Cyberdog 9y ago
> Really, someone has to explain how to argue for or against net neutrality from a libertarianism point of view, from first principles. Others can probably do it better, but I'll try. The (small-ell) libertarian argument from first principles against this legislation would be the same as the libertarian argument from first principles against any legislation; it is wrong for any person or entity to use violence or the threat thereof to coerce any other person or entity to do or not do something against their will, and legislation is basically a declaration of a government's intent to use its monopoly on violence against people doing or not doing certain behavior. I do not abide by my government legislating internet access any more than I do anything else, even if it is "for my own good." So I do not mind it if net neutrality dies. (Though, truth be told, there is a hell of a lot of other legislation I'd like to be repealed first, if it can't be done all at once.)
- CalChris 9y ago
  legislation is basically a declaration of a government's intent to use its monopoly on violence against people doing or not doing certain behavior But you're talking about corporations which are already state created entities. You've already bargained with the state to create this entity, the purpose of which is to avoid personal liability for losses incurred by the corporation. You got something in that bargain. You gave something up, too. So you are applying liberatarianism with respect to something which is inherently unlibertarian, the corporation. An example: If Joe sells BigCorp $1M of widgets and BigCorp fails to pay and goes out of business, Joe is without recourse against BigCorp's owners because it is a corporation. There's a law (any legislation) which prevents him from getting his money. You can't pick and choose. You're either a libertarian or you're not. Libertarianism doesn't apply to corporations.
  - burntsushi 9y ago
    You are talking about Libertarians. The GP is talking about libertarians. This distinction might be baffling to you if you haven't heard of it, but you can actually google it and read up on the difference between big-el and small-el libertarians. It gets worse than that though. There are other types of libertarians that distinguish between left and right libertarianism. It goes deeper but I'll stop here.
    - CalChris 9y ago
      I quoted the Libertarian Party platform for clarity. In fact, I'm talking about any sort of libertarian. If you have a counter example from your particular species of libertarian with an accepted set of principles, awesome, cite it. Otherwise yours is a variation on No True Scotsman.
      - burntsushi 9y ago
        A No True Scotsman would require an attempt on my behalf to refute something you're saying. "In fact," I did no such thing. It was just clear to me that y'all were talking about two different species of libertarianism without explicitly acknowledging it. This leads to long drawn conversations full of misunderstandings. I made an attempt to add some explicitness.

Cyberdog 9y ago

> Really, someone has to explain how to argue for or against net neutrality from a libertarianism point of view, from first principles. Others can probably do it better, but I'll try. The (small-ell) libertarian argument from first principles against this legislation would be the same as the libertarian argument from first principles against any legislation; it is wrong for any person or entity to use violence or the threat thereof to coerce any other person or entity to do or not do something against their will, and legislation is basically a declaration of a government's intent to use its monopoly on violence against people doing or not doing certain behavior. I do not abide by my government legislating internet access any more than I do anything else, even if it is "for my own good." So I do not mind it if net neutrality dies. (Though, truth be told, there is a hell of a lot of other legislation I'd like to be repealed first, if it can't be done all at once.)

CalChris 9y ago
legislation is basically a declaration of a government's intent to use its monopoly on violence against people doing or not doing certain behavior But you're talking about corporations which are already state created entities. You've already bargained with the state to create this entity, the purpose of which is to avoid personal liability for losses incurred by the corporation. You got something in that bargain. You gave something up, too. So you are applying liberatarianism with respect to something which is inherently unlibertarian, the corporation. An example: If Joe sells BigCorp $1M of widgets and BigCorp fails to pay and goes out of business, Joe is without recourse against BigCorp's owners because it is a corporation. There's a law (any legislation) which prevents him from getting his money. You can't pick and choose. You're either a libertarian or you're not. Libertarianism doesn't apply to corporations.
- burntsushi 9y ago
  You are talking about Libertarians. The GP is talking about libertarians. This distinction might be baffling to you if you haven't heard of it, but you can actually google it and read up on the difference between big-el and small-el libertarians. It gets worse than that though. There are other types of libertarians that distinguish between left and right libertarianism. It goes deeper but I'll stop here.
  - CalChris 9y ago
    I quoted the Libertarian Party platform for clarity. In fact, I'm talking about any sort of libertarian. If you have a counter example from your particular species of libertarian with an accepted set of principles, awesome, cite it. Otherwise yours is a variation on No True Scotsman.
    - burntsushi 9y ago
      A No True Scotsman would require an attempt on my behalf to refute something you're saying. "In fact," I did no such thing. It was just clear to me that y'all were talking about two different species of libertarianism without explicitly acknowledging it. This leads to long drawn conversations full of misunderstandings. I made an attempt to add some explicitness.