7 ms·
Logician and Philosopher Raymond Smullyan had a story about this in one of his books. He had gone on a trip with a woman with a little girl. The adults wanted t
by stcredzero 9y ago
Logician and Philosopher Raymond Smullyan had a story about this in one of his books. He had gone on a trip with a woman with a little girl. The adults wanted to eat at colorful local cafes, while the girl wanted to eat at McDonalds. He suggested that they vote, and the little girl replied, "That's no fair. I'd lose!"
Our republic isn't designed just to do what the people want. It's intentionally designed so that good people can sometimes do something unpopular in the public interest. For this to work, it's incumbent on the voting public to elect good people.
- nickbauman 9y agoAjit Pai is an appointee, not an elected official.
- coltonv 9y agoAppointed by a candidate who lost by 3 million votes
- komali2 9y agoDo you mean Trump? President Obama appointed Pai. EDIT: I am not factually incorrect, so could you please explain why you are downvoting?
- alexeldeib 9y ago> Appointed by a candidate who lost by 3 million votes Obama won by ~5 million and ~10 million votes in 2012 and 2008, respectively.
- nickbauman 9y agoThe appointment was chosen by a Republican congress.
- coltonv 9y agoDesignated as Chairman by Donald Trump - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_Pai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_Pai Obama Designated Tom Wheeler chairman, and he put in place the regulations that Pai dismantled today - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler
- turc1656 9y agoThat's not true. He was appointed in 2012 by Obama and confirmed unanimously by the Senate. Trump merely renominated him to keep the position for another 5 year term.
- dragonwriter 9y agoNo, Trump selected him to be the chair, he didn't merely renominate him. But, in any case, Obama nominated him but did not choose him so much as he choose not to violate long-standing precedent as to how the seats that cannot (because the 3 members of one party limit has been reached) be from the President’s party are selected. Now, he could have violated that precedent, but that wouldn't have likely gotten someone else into the seat, just given up any chance of Senate confirmation.
- turc1656 9y agoObama still made the decision to nominate him. Plain and simple. And Trump did renominate him for another 5 years. Yes, he elevated him to chairman, but he still gets the same 1 vote, so it doesn't matter. Not quite sure what point you were trying to make.
- gdulli 9y agoBut it's predictable that one party would have appointed someone like him and not the other.
- lostapathy 9y agoExcept Obama originally appointed him to the commission, Trump just promoted him.
- Avenger42 9y agoPeople keep saying this like he's the person who chose Pai. The way these commissions work is: - it's staffed by members of each party - each party's leaders (typically in the Senate) choose the people who will be appointed - the President typically rubber-stamps those appointments - the President at the time really only gets to choose which member of the commission is the Chairman So if you want to blame someone for Pai, you should be blaming Senator McConnell for telling President Obama "here's the Republican we want you to put on the commission".
- alexeldeib 9y agoThe general point being: it goes back to elected officials.
- lostapathy 9y agoNot disagreeing with you - I'm taking issue with the parent poster who wanted to blame this on trump. There's plenty of blame to go around in our government, but it doesn't all fall on Trump (as the post I replied to implied)
- Avenger42 9y agoTrue, but the parent poster didn't blame it on Trump, he blamed it on the Republican party: > But it's predictable that one party would have appointed someone like him and not the other. It is fair to blame this vote on Republicans, given that the vote fell along "party lines".
- new-account-9 9y agoAjit Pai was appointed to the FCC by Obama, your elected official, and was designated FCC Chairman by Trump, your other elected official. So it looks like you voted wrong twice in a row!
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- mojomark 9y agowho was appointed by an elected official (Pres. Barrack Obama) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_Pai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_Pai I'm simply pointing out that we empower and trust the "good people" we elect to choose "good people" they appoint.
- ComradeTaco 9y agoWhile technically correct, your comment is misleading because the seat legally belonged to the Republicans and he was chosen by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Obama could have rejected the nomination but anyone that the Republicans have a say in will be anti-net neutrality.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- komali2 9y agoAppointed by President Obama allegedly as a sort of "Olive Branch" to the Republicans. I really wish the Democrats had just started firing broadsides at Republicans in the last decade, given that the Republicans clearly can stomach the lowest of the low political gamesmanship.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> Appointed by President Obama allegedly as a sort of "Olive Branch" to the Republicans. It was an “olive branch” to Republicans in much the same sense as the British sovereign offering the leader of the party that has secured a majority the opportunity to form a government is an “olive branch” to that party; it is, through combination of law (limiting the number of members of one party, and mandating Senate confirmation before a nomination becomes an actual appointment) and established custom (as to how nominees that are not of the President’s party are chosen), a requirement that, if violated, would produce a major crisis.
- dsr_ 9y agoIt's not an olive branch. The President is required to appoint no more than 3 members of one (his own) party, and 5 total. The chair is then designated by the President.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- lr4444lr 9y agoYes, but I took the OP to mean that you could press your congressional rep to sponsor or support a Net Neutrality bill that would override agency regulations.
- vijayr 9y agoIt's intentionally designed so that good people can sometimes do something unpopular in the public interest. Except in this case, it is not in public interest
- dmix 9y agoYep, there's a reason populism is commonly derided even in democratic societies. The founding fathers and "The Federalist Papers" [1] talked heavily about this problem (aka the influence of the "lowest common denominator" in popular voting). Where these popular ideas do matter is in the marketplace. The entire tech industry, including some of the wealthiest companies in the world, will most certainly rebel against any attempt by ISPs to threaten net neutrality. And there will similarly be a revolt by customers. Google Fiber was created merely to promote the deployment of fiber, Net Neutrality is a far bigger issue than fiber to both the tech industry and ISP consumers. Even without FCC rules it will still be very dangerous for any ISP to make any significant changes to how the internet works. The most likely scenario is that a few mobile internet providers may offer niche small packages of limited internet to mobile users for $5-10/month (which so far is the only real world example of "net neutrality" being violated in the world, by a Portuguese ISP)... basically a way to offer cheaper packages to some users who can't afford full broadband. This is basically the only thing I could see ISPs getting away with. I highly doubt any ISP would risk limiting the internet for any average home broadband users. Most American ISPs are public companies who still have worry about their bottom line. The backlash even without FCC laws will be a significant deterrence. [1] https://www.wikiwand.com/en/The_Federalist_Papers https://www.wikiwand.com/en/The_Federalist_Papers
- charleslmunger 9y ago> which so far is the only real world example of "net neutrality" being violated in the world, by a Portuguese ISP How would you describe Comcast's throttling of bittorrent or Rogers throttling of all encrypted traffic in Canada?
- dmix 9y agoApologies, I should clarify, my Portuguese ISP example is the only real world example of the "TV-style limited internet packages" being deployed by a real-world ISP (which is the primary scenario nearly ever pro-net neutrality article warns about). > Comcast's throttling of bittorrent Were these FCC laws blocking Comcast from throttling Bittorrent traffic? Canada was also the first country to throttle bittorrent traffic as well and the adoption of encryption in Bittorrent clients was largely able to bypass this issue AFAIK (I haven't experienced any slow downs in years in Canada since I toggled "force encrypted peers"). > Rogers throttling of all encrypted traffic in Canada Source? I used Rogers for years and I've never heard of this problem.
- mankash666 9y agoAll these allegories are well and good. Explain how repealing net neutrality is in the public good, as that's what your post suggests
- ikeboy 9y agoStart with https://www.recode.net/2017/12/14/16777356/full-transcript-ajit-pai-brendan-carr-fcc-statements-net-neutrality-repeal https://www.recode.net/2017/12/14/16777356/full-transcript-a..., and maybe read through the several hundred pages of arguments and citations at http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1122/DOC-347927A1.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017...
- zimmund 9y agoSure, it's easy to drown people with a link and a 210 pages document, but can you briefly explain it with your own words and voice your opinion for us?
- ikeboy 9y agoPersonally I defer to economists http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/net-neutrality-ii http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/net-neutrality-ii
- mcguire 9y agoWait just a gosh-darn minute there... "Considering both distributional effects and changes in efficiency, it is a good idea to let companies that send video or other content to consumers pay more to Internet service providers for the right to send that traffic using faster or higher quality service." I believe Netflix and YouTube and what-not already pay their service providers for the bandwidth they use.
- ikeboy 9y agoActually they peer directly with last mile ISPs, in some cases for free
- tolmasky 9y agoThis is pretty disingenuous because one elected official is oftentimes overloaded with multiple responsibilities. In this case the FCC chairman was appointed by the president (Barack Obama). Are you implying that the REAL way to deal with the Net Neutrality issue is that we need to become single-issue voters with respect to net neutrality next presidential election cycle? That seems a bit silly, and yet seems like the only reasonable way to affect change in this situation by "playing by the rules". It would be a lot less anxiety producing if people had a more direct way of affecting FCC rules without having to possibly sacrifice some other completely unrelated issue they care about (such as Supreme Court appointment, or health care direction, etc. etc.). It would be a lot easier to get behind the idea that we should elect "good people" if we weren't concentrating so many responsibilities to the one magic "good person" we get to choose.
- stcredzero 9y agoAre you implying that the REAL way to deal with the Net Neutrality issue that we need to become single-issue voters with respect to net neutrality next presidential election cycle? No. I'm not trolling either. Raymond Smullyan's stories are meant to be like Zen Koan. My factual and historical observations are much the same. It's more like a Rorschach blot. It would be a lot easier to get behind the idea that we should elect "good people" if we weren't concentrating so many responsibilities to the one magic "good person" we get to choose. Our world is considerably more complex than it was in 1800.
- wilg 9y agoTo clarify Pai was appointed to a Republican seat on the FCC by Barack Obama, but was designated Chairman by Donald Trump.
- CalChris 9y agoTo further clarify, the FCC rules state that Only three commissioners can be of the same political party at any given time. Pai was Obama's nomination but he was not Obama's choice. He was McConnell's choice. https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/what-we-do https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/what-we-do
- syshum 9y agoAnd you believe that Ajit Pai is "one of the good people" doing the "good thing" against public interest? Funny because I believe Ajit Pai is a corporate shill doing what his Friends at Verizon wanted and I am sure he is hoping the land a nice 6 figure job in the private sector in a couple years.... This move today for the FCC has absolutely nothing to with public interest
- s73ver_ 9y ago"In the public interest" Key phrase. There is zero evidence that repealing Net Neutrality is anywhere close to the public interest.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]