3 ms·

> None of that changes the basic principle that the US government was supposed to uphold, namely, that the role of government is not to solve whatever problem s

> None of that changes the basic principle that the US government was supposed to uphold, namely, that the role of government is not to solve whatever problem someone thinks should be solved, but to protect everyone's basic rights and make sure there is a level legal playing field, and stopping there. Where is this said in the constitution ? Or any papers that isn’t the Federalist papers? > Net neutrality is a case in point: it's only necessary in the first place to undo the effects of all the government-granted privileges that ISPs have. In a US that was run according to the way the US was supposed to be run, ISPs would have to compete in a free market and none of them would have monopoly privileges over particular areas, and none of them would have been able to get huge government grants supposedly to build infrastructure and then pocket the money instead. In that US there would be no need for net neutrality because nobody wants to buy Internet service that gets throttled depending on what website you go to. The only reason ISPs can even think of offering such a non-service is that they have monopolies granted by the government. The only means in which these infrastructures can be built is either: Companies with enough capital to do so without governmental assistance, the government, or not at all. The later is at odds with your first point (unless you believe the restriction not to apply to state and local governments) and the first leads to the same issues since competition is impossible for an eventual finite resource

pdonis 2y ago
> Where is this said in the constitution ? "Protect everyone's basic rights and make sure there is a level playing field" is mainly in the Bill of Rights. (Some aspects of it are in the original Constitution.) "Stopping there" means the government only doing the things the Constitution specifically says it can do. For example, it would mean Congress only passing laws that are actually within what Article I, Section 8 says Congress can do. And it would mean the other branches of government holding Congress to that. It would also mean Congress not delegating legislative power to Executive branch agencies; Article I says all legislative power is vested in Congress. It doesn't allow Congress to delegate it to any other body. Of course we have long since stopped holding the US government to such standards. But that just means we've stopped holding the government accountable for actually obeying the Constitution. > the first leads to the same issues since competition is impossible for an eventual finite resource Not at all. If a local municipality builds, say, common use fiber optic infrastructure that the municipality owns, sure, that's technically a finite resource, but it's still perfectly possible for the municipality to make companies compete to provide services using that infrastructure. There is nothing forcing them to give monopoly privileges to any one company--except that in the US as it actually is, ISPs sue municipalities into oblivion when they try it, on the grounds that higher levels of government (mainly state although there are Federal fingers in the pie as well) have granted them exclusive access to that particular region.
- bediger4000 2y ago
  "some aspects" You know what? No. If a right to privacy doesn't exist because it's not explicitly spelled out, and "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" gets shaved so thin you can see through it, then vibes don't count and neither does "some aspects".
  - pdonis 2y ago
    > If a right to privacy doesn't exist because it's not explicitly spelled out, and "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" gets shaved so thin you can see through it I'm not sure how this relates to what I was saying.
Dalewyn 2y ago
>Where is this said in the constitution ? Or any papers that isn’t the Federalist papers? From the preamble of the Declaration of Independence: >We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ... Emphasis mine.

pdonis 2y ago

> Where is this said in the constitution ? "Protect everyone's basic rights and make sure there is a level playing field" is mainly in the Bill of Rights. (Some aspects of it are in the original Constitution.) "Stopping there" means the government only doing the things the Constitution specifically says it can do. For example, it would mean Congress only passing laws that are actually within what Article I, Section 8 says Congress can do. And it would mean the other branches of government holding Congress to that. It would also mean Congress not delegating legislative power to Executive branch agencies; Article I says all legislative power is vested in Congress. It doesn't allow Congress to delegate it to any other body. Of course we have long since stopped holding the US government to such standards. But that just means we've stopped holding the government accountable for actually obeying the Constitution. > the first leads to the same issues since competition is impossible for an eventual finite resource Not at all. If a local municipality builds, say, common use fiber optic infrastructure that the municipality owns, sure, that's technically a finite resource, but it's still perfectly possible for the municipality to make companies compete to provide services using that infrastructure. There is nothing forcing them to give monopoly privileges to any one company--except that in the US as it actually is, ISPs sue municipalities into oblivion when they try it, on the grounds that higher levels of government (mainly state although there are Federal fingers in the pie as well) have granted them exclusive access to that particular region.

bediger4000 2y ago
"some aspects" You know what? No. If a right to privacy doesn't exist because it's not explicitly spelled out, and "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" gets shaved so thin you can see through it, then vibes don't count and neither does "some aspects".
- pdonis 2y ago
  > If a right to privacy doesn't exist because it's not explicitly spelled out, and "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" gets shaved so thin you can see through it I'm not sure how this relates to what I was saying.

Dalewyn 2y ago

>Where is this said in the constitution ? Or any papers that isn’t the Federalist papers? From the preamble of the Declaration of Independence: >We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ... Emphasis mine.