4 ms·

> 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 princ

> 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.
    - Cyberdog 9y ago
      > If libertarians were on record and known for objecting to the corporation itself as the infringement on individual liberties that it is Libertarians are on record for that, including myself (at least) in this thread. > But applying libertarian principles to something which is an inherently unlibertarian government construct is just nonsense. Agreed, but you're the only one trying to square that circle here. You're overthinking it. EDIT: Actually, I don't agree. To go back to my previous comment, ideally - in Libertopia - corporations do not exist as a legal entity, so we don't have to worry about this contradiction. But if we must live in a world where they do exist, it is not a logical fallacy to wish for them to be as free as possible, just as with everyone else.
      - jhanschoo 9y ago
        Then, to discuss Libertopia; should not a libertarian view present-day corporations as an extension of government and their violence, to be demolished and replaced with libertarian organizations? The first order of business would then be to stop recognizing present-day corporations as legal persons that can sue in courts for justice. Because in the present day people have a freedom to associate, and organizations that are not legally recognized (and hence not legally protected) are possible.
        Cyberdog 9y ago
        Yay, at least someone in this thread is getting it.
        CalChris 9y ago
        We’re getting it. We’re just not agreeing with you. One does not have to be a libertarian (and I’m not) to understand libertarianism (and I do).
        Cyberdog 9y ago
        With all due respect, you are not getting it, and you do not understand libertarianism nearly as well as you think you do.
mindslight 9y ago
> 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. You're actually reversing the directionality and stating the contrapositive - being able to call something a corporation does not imply it should be shielded from government interference. For example, government bodies themselves can be considered (and often are even legally constituted as) corporations, and obviously libertarianism has much to say about constraining those! This is not simply an academic distinction - this entire debate hinges on whether individuals actually have a choice between ISPs, or whether the local ISP basically constitutes a de facto government. Furthermore, most incumbent ISPs were even built using government money and privileges! We wouldn't be having this debate if there were a vibrant market for Internet access.
- Cyberdog 9y ago
  > being able to call something a corporation does not imply it should be shielded from government interference. Everything should be shielded from government interference. That's the point. > Furthermore, most incumbent ISPs were even built using government money and privileges! We wouldn't be having this debate if there were a vibrant market for Internet access. Agreed. Governments (if they must exist) should not grant funds, tax breaks, or monopoly privileges to ISPs or any other service providers.
  - mindslight 9y ago
    > Everything should be shielded from government interference. That's the point. Except, implicitly, government itself. A "libertarian IRS" does not mean an IRS that is unfettered by Congress. > Agreed. Governments (if they must exist) should not grant funds, tax breaks, monopoly privileges to ISPs. The problem is that these things have already been granted, and these government-founded corporations are basically wriggling out of their charters (/contractual obligations) more and more.
    - Cyberdog 9y ago

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.
  - Cyberdog 9y ago
    > If libertarians were on record and known for objecting to the corporation itself as the infringement on individual liberties that it is Libertarians are on record for that, including myself (at least) in this thread. > But applying libertarian principles to something which is an inherently unlibertarian government construct is just nonsense. Agreed, but you're the only one trying to square that circle here. You're overthinking it. EDIT: Actually, I don't agree. To go back to my previous comment, ideally - in Libertopia - corporations do not exist as a legal entity, so we don't have to worry about this contradiction. But if we must live in a world where they do exist, it is not a logical fallacy to wish for them to be as free as possible, just as with everyone else.
    - jhanschoo 9y ago
      Then, to discuss Libertopia; should not a libertarian view present-day corporations as an extension of government and their violence, to be demolished and replaced with libertarian organizations? The first order of business would then be to stop recognizing present-day corporations as legal persons that can sue in courts for justice. Because in the present day people have a freedom to associate, and organizations that are not legally recognized (and hence not legally protected) are possible.
      - Cyberdog 9y ago
        Yay, at least someone in this thread is getting it.
        CalChris 9y ago
        We’re getting it. We’re just not agreeing with you. One does not have to be a libertarian (and I’m not) to understand libertarianism (and I do).
        Cyberdog 9y ago
        With all due respect, you are not getting it, and you do not understand libertarianism nearly as well as you think you do.

mindslight 9y ago

> 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. You're actually reversing the directionality and stating the contrapositive - being able to call something a corporation does not imply it should be shielded from government interference. For example, government bodies themselves can be considered (and often are even legally constituted as) corporations, and obviously libertarianism has much to say about constraining those! This is not simply an academic distinction - this entire debate hinges on whether individuals actually have a choice between ISPs, or whether the local ISP basically constitutes a de facto government. Furthermore, most incumbent ISPs were even built using government money and privileges! We wouldn't be having this debate if there were a vibrant market for Internet access.

Cyberdog 9y ago
> being able to call something a corporation does not imply it should be shielded from government interference. Everything should be shielded from government interference. That's the point. > Furthermore, most incumbent ISPs were even built using government money and privileges! We wouldn't be having this debate if there were a vibrant market for Internet access. Agreed. Governments (if they must exist) should not grant funds, tax breaks, or monopoly privileges to ISPs or any other service providers.
- mindslight 9y ago
  > Everything should be shielded from government interference. That's the point. Except, implicitly, government itself. A "libertarian IRS" does not mean an IRS that is unfettered by Congress. > Agreed. Governments (if they must exist) should not grant funds, tax breaks, monopoly privileges to ISPs. The problem is that these things have already been granted, and these government-founded corporations are basically wriggling out of their charters (/contractual obligations) more and more.
  - Cyberdog 9y ago