5 ms·

What strikes me is how Republicans didn't realize net neutrality translates to equal opportunity on the internet, which fits really well with free-market capita

What strikes me is how Republicans didn't realize net neutrality translates to equal opportunity on the internet, which fits really well with free-market capitalism.

anarchy8 8y ago
Free-market capitalism and crony capitalism are subtly different in that way
ekianjo 8y ago
Republicans aren't that much in favor of Free-market as they used to be.
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  Democrats are far more socialist than they used to be. Do you suggest all of the USA political spectrum has moved to the left? I don’t have an opinion on that but I bet lots of people would argue a shift the other way. I think that’s a problem of perspective. Republicans have always had big government establishment RINOs clashing with small government fiscal conservatives who feel they are too far left for fiscal issues and mixed bag on social issues. Bush era “neocons” get little love today (Romney for example). If you are truly on the center today (rare breed) you might be interested that the neocons hate Trump, and how the GOP establishment is begrudgingly stuck with him. Polar opposite, if you find yourself agreeing with every socialist proposal and bemoaning yourself that Dems are too far right, it’s probably just perspective of how extreme left you are. So... are Republicans less free-market than they “used” to be? Or does it only seem that way from your perspective? When you say Republicans, do you mean base, establishment, or Trump?
  - int_19h 8y ago
    The US political spectrum has moved towards being more authoritarian in general. As in, large-scale government solutions to whatever is perceived as problems are in vogue on both the left and the right.
SN76477 8y ago
They were sold it as a fast lane for emergency use. Which is a good idea, but would end up being abused as well as it undermines the entire system.
mellow-lake-day 8y ago
Not sure why you are being downvoted but you are exactly right Republicans do claim they support free-market capitalism (you can of course argue the opposite is true with things like subsidies/welfare for farmers)
- dd36 8y ago
  And socialism for the wealthy.
  - ionised 8y ago
    Hmm. And bailouts for repeatedly failing companies.
- swebs 8y ago
  Is that why Trump tore up the TPP, started restricting immigration, and raised tariffs on Chinese produced goods?
IIAOPSW 8y ago
Free markets, like any ideology, usually doesn't serve as first principals from which you derive positions. Rather, feelings dictate positions and ideology is used to justify those positions post hoc. Welcome to the world kid.
- black_bird 8y ago
  I don't know if it's sarcasm or not. Positions are dictated by empirical evidence, not feelings. What is false does not become true because I feel it is true. Free markets are efficient in terms of supply and demand. My opinion is that those who are still guided by feelings and always with their backs to reality are the people who ask for more socialism, more regulations and less freedom for all.
paulddraper 8y ago
That's not really true. "Free" means "lacking from government intervention" or laissez-faire, not "free of charge". Good or bad, allowing ISPs to set their own rates are prices structures is more laissez-faire than regulating them.
- dd36 8y ago
  *if they weren’t already granted monopoly status locally.
  - donatj 8y ago
    Which I'd say outlawing would be a more generally useful law than net neutrality ever was.
    - dd36 8y ago
      certainly but it’s one or the other. unregulated monopolies are lose-lose.
- int_19h 8y ago
  That's an Austrian school conflation, and that largely because it refuses to recognize that market failure is a thing. Originally, "free" meant "where actors compete freely" - this excludes not just government regulation, but also monopolies. Since in practice monopolies form in unregulated markets over time, at some point, such a market can become less free than one with active intervention to bust monopolies.
  - DebtDeflation 8y ago
    >refuses to recognize that market failure is a thing So much this. I call it "Econ 101 Syndrome". My undergrad was in Economics, and the amount of damage that has been done by requiring Business majors (and others) to take Econ 101 and only Econ 101 is staggering. People walk away from those courses seeing the world through a lens of perfect competition, no externalities, no information asymmetries, no transaction costs, etc. and so end up coming to a faulty conclusion on every major policy question.
buboard 8y ago
free market means options, and NN is just one option
mlindner 8y ago
Net Neutrality has nothing to do with free market nor equal opportunity. If anything, it hinders new entrants because it entrenches the interests of Netflix and similar companies that dominate all internet traffic. Net Neutrality has always and will always be about Netflix and similar companies not wanting to be billed for constantly increasing the costs of the ISPs. Pro-net neutrality is pro-regulatory capture for companies like Netflix. No free market capitalist would ever be for regulatory capture.

What strikes me is how Republicans didn't realize net neutrality translates to equal opportunity on the internet, which fits really well with free-market capitalism.

anarchy8 8y ago

Free-market capitalism and crony capitalism are subtly different in that way

ekianjo 8y ago

Republicans aren't that much in favor of Free-market as they used to be.

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
Democrats are far more socialist than they used to be. Do you suggest all of the USA political spectrum has moved to the left? I don’t have an opinion on that but I bet lots of people would argue a shift the other way. I think that’s a problem of perspective. Republicans have always had big government establishment RINOs clashing with small government fiscal conservatives who feel they are too far left for fiscal issues and mixed bag on social issues. Bush era “neocons” get little love today (Romney for example). If you are truly on the center today (rare breed) you might be interested that the neocons hate Trump, and how the GOP establishment is begrudgingly stuck with him. Polar opposite, if you find yourself agreeing with every socialist proposal and bemoaning yourself that Dems are too far right, it’s probably just perspective of how extreme left you are. So... are Republicans less free-market than they “used” to be? Or does it only seem that way from your perspective? When you say Republicans, do you mean base, establishment, or Trump?
- int_19h 8y ago
  The US political spectrum has moved towards being more authoritarian in general. As in, large-scale government solutions to whatever is perceived as problems are in vogue on both the left and the right.

SN76477 8y ago

They were sold it as a fast lane for emergency use. Which is a good idea, but would end up being abused as well as it undermines the entire system.

mellow-lake-day 8y ago

Not sure why you are being downvoted but you are exactly right Republicans do claim they support free-market capitalism (you can of course argue the opposite is true with things like subsidies/welfare for farmers)

dd36 8y ago
And socialism for the wealthy.
- ionised 8y ago
  Hmm. And bailouts for repeatedly failing companies.
swebs 8y ago
Is that why Trump tore up the TPP, started restricting immigration, and raised tariffs on Chinese produced goods?

IIAOPSW 8y ago

Free markets, like any ideology, usually doesn't serve as first principals from which you derive positions. Rather, feelings dictate positions and ideology is used to justify those positions post hoc. Welcome to the world kid.

black_bird 8y ago
I don't know if it's sarcasm or not. Positions are dictated by empirical evidence, not feelings. What is false does not become true because I feel it is true. Free markets are efficient in terms of supply and demand. My opinion is that those who are still guided by feelings and always with their backs to reality are the people who ask for more socialism, more regulations and less freedom for all.

paulddraper 8y ago

That's not really true. "Free" means "lacking from government intervention" or laissez-faire, not "free of charge". Good or bad, allowing ISPs to set their own rates are prices structures is more laissez-faire than regulating them.

dd36 8y ago
*if they weren’t already granted monopoly status locally.
- donatj 8y ago
  Which I'd say outlawing would be a more generally useful law than net neutrality ever was.
  - dd36 8y ago
    certainly but it’s one or the other. unregulated monopolies are lose-lose.
int_19h 8y ago
That's an Austrian school conflation, and that largely because it refuses to recognize that market failure is a thing. Originally, "free" meant "where actors compete freely" - this excludes not just government regulation, but also monopolies. Since in practice monopolies form in unregulated markets over time, at some point, such a market can become less free than one with active intervention to bust monopolies.
- DebtDeflation 8y ago
  >refuses to recognize that market failure is a thing So much this. I call it "Econ 101 Syndrome". My undergrad was in Economics, and the amount of damage that has been done by requiring Business majors (and others) to take Econ 101 and only Econ 101 is staggering. People walk away from those courses seeing the world through a lens of perfect competition, no externalities, no information asymmetries, no transaction costs, etc. and so end up coming to a faulty conclusion on every major policy question.

buboard 8y ago

free market means options, and NN is just one option

mlindner 8y ago

Net Neutrality has nothing to do with free market nor equal opportunity. If anything, it hinders new entrants because it entrenches the interests of Netflix and similar companies that dominate all internet traffic. Net Neutrality has always and will always be about Netflix and similar companies not wanting to be billed for constantly increasing the costs of the ISPs. Pro-net neutrality is pro-regulatory capture for companies like Netflix. No free market capitalist would ever be for regulatory capture.