5 ms·

> 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

> 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 (Though, truth be told, there is a hell of a lot of other legislation I'd like to be repealed first, if it can't be done all at once.)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.
  - betenoire 9y ago
    Instead of going deeper on the philosophy of /libertarians/i in general, why not answer his question about removing net neutrality from a perspective of whatever form of libertarianism justifies it?
    - burntsushi 9y ago
      I'm not interested in participating in this debate in this place. I'm clarifying what I perceive is a communication problem.
- Cyberdog 9y ago
  > But you're talking about corporations which are already state created entities. I wasn't specifically, but that's besides the point. From a fundamental principle, libertarians don't want a government to designate and classify collections of people and determine their legality, no. But regardless, if you have a group of people that consists of what we colloquially - not necessarily legally - would call a corporation, small-ell libertarianism does not permit a government to be able to commandeer its behavior any more than that of an individual.
  - CalChris 9y ago
    I was talking about corporations and if you're talking about net neutrality then you have to be talking about corporations. And corporations are a government construct. When you created your corporation, you got an entity, and a collection of rights and also a collection of rules. You freely entered into that agreement with the government to get this. Now you're trying to libertarian your way out of that agreement.
    - Cyberdog 9y ago
      > I was talking about corporations and if you're talking about net neutrality then you have to be talking about corporations. Why, though? You asked for an argument against net neutrality from libertarian first principles. I gave you one that's so basic that it applies to all other government legislation as well. So if you'd like, you could take it as an argument against corporations as a government construct as well, since such a construct comes about by legislation. Does that satisfy you? If I must make my argument under the assumption that legal corporations exist and must continue to exist, that really doesn't change anything. Libertarians still fundamentally don't want the government to tell people or groups of people what they can or can't do, regardless of how that group came about.
      - CalChris 9y ago
        I agree that it's an argument but it does not satisfy me. If libertarians were on record and known for objecting to the corporation itself as the infringement on individual liberties that it is, then that would be one thing. But applying libertarian principles to something which is an inherently unlibertarian government construct is just nonsense.

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.
- betenoire 9y ago
  Instead of going deeper on the philosophy of /libertarians/i in general, why not answer his question about removing net neutrality from a perspective of whatever form of libertarianism justifies it?
  - burntsushi 9y ago
    I'm not interested in participating in this debate in this place. I'm clarifying what I perceive is a communication problem.
Cyberdog 9y ago
> But you're talking about corporations which are already state created entities. I wasn't specifically, but that's besides the point. From a fundamental principle, libertarians don't want a government to designate and classify collections of people and determine their legality, no. But regardless, if you have a group of people that consists of what we colloquially - not necessarily legally - would call a corporation, small-ell libertarianism does not permit a government to be able to commandeer its behavior any more than that of an individual.
- CalChris 9y ago
  I was talking about corporations and if you're talking about net neutrality then you have to be talking about corporations. And corporations are a government construct. When you created your corporation, you got an entity, and a collection of rights and also a collection of rules. You freely entered into that agreement with the government to get this. Now you're trying to libertarian your way out of that agreement.
  - Cyberdog 9y ago
    > I was talking about corporations and if you're talking about net neutrality then you have to be talking about corporations. Why, though? You asked for an argument against net neutrality from libertarian first principles. I gave you one that's so basic that it applies to all other government legislation as well. So if you'd like, you could take it as an argument against corporations as a government construct as well, since such a construct comes about by legislation. Does that satisfy you? If I must make my argument under the assumption that legal corporations exist and must continue to exist, that really doesn't change anything. Libertarians still fundamentally don't want the government to tell people or groups of people what they can or can't do, regardless of how that group came about.
    - CalChris 9y ago
      I agree that it's an argument but it does not satisfy me. If libertarians were on record and known for objecting to the corporation itself as the infringement on individual liberties that it is, then that would be one thing. But applying libertarian principles to something which is an inherently unlibertarian government construct is just nonsense.