4 ms·

I guess I spend so much time on reddit, I tend to think the internet community in general is much more liberal and Democrat-leaning. Certainly, there is a stron

by Finster 14y ago

I guess I spend so much time on reddit, I tend to think the internet community in general is much more liberal and Democrat-leaning. Certainly, there is a strong Libertarian thread, but most of the online communities that I interact with are definitely socialist-leaning. Net neutrality, for example, is decidedly an anti-capitalist stance. On the other hand, copyleft certainly seems compatible with certain anarcho-capitalist ideals. So, I don't know.

baddox 14y ago
> Net neutrality, for example, is decidedly an anti-capitalist stance. I don't see how. If customers of ISPs value neutrality, then there is profit motive for ISPs to offer it. Obviously, it's a balance between how many potential customers care about neutrality and how much they're willing to pay for it. Net neutrality legislation, along with any regulations or subsidies on privately-owned infrastructure, is definitely anti-capitalist, just like legislation that says McDonald's must always offer the McRib.
- sethrin 14y ago
  Yes and no. To the degree that capitalism is about efficiency by means of competitive markets, net neutrality is no more "anti-capitalist" than, e.g. requiring all drugs to be tested for efficacy. To the degree that capitalism is about blind accumulation of capital, then net neutrality is anti-capitalist. You could consider Government as the solution to the problem of natural monopolies.
- prodigal_erik 14y ago
  Without network neutrality legislation, an incumbent can simply pay for the privilege of having no viable competitors. Is there a strain of capitalism that doesn't hold it critically important that new entrants should have unfettered access to the market?
  - baddox 14y ago
    > an incumbent can simply pay for the privilege of having no viable competitors. Pay who exactly? They could pay the government, of course, and that's usually how things go, but that's what I am opposed to. > Is there a strain of capitalism that doesn't hold it critically important that new entrants should have unfettered access to the market? It depends on your definition of "unfettered access." Most capitalists, for example, are fine with the failure of a competitor who has no idea how to run a business, even though his incompetence certainly fetters him. Pro-capitalists are generally strong advocates of private property, so the only types of fettering they would oppose would be violations of property rights (like theft, assault, or threats thereof). Simply using capital to one's advantage and to the disadvantage of one's competitors is, as the name suggests, not generally considered a bad thing in capitalism.

by Finster 14y ago

baddox 14y ago

> Net neutrality, for example, is decidedly an anti-capitalist stance. I don't see how. If customers of ISPs value neutrality, then there is profit motive for ISPs to offer it. Obviously, it's a balance between how many potential customers care about neutrality and how much they're willing to pay for it. Net neutrality legislation, along with any regulations or subsidies on privately-owned infrastructure, is definitely anti-capitalist, just like legislation that says McDonald's must always offer the McRib.

sethrin 14y ago
Yes and no. To the degree that capitalism is about efficiency by means of competitive markets, net neutrality is no more "anti-capitalist" than, e.g. requiring all drugs to be tested for efficacy. To the degree that capitalism is about blind accumulation of capital, then net neutrality is anti-capitalist. You could consider Government as the solution to the problem of natural monopolies.
prodigal_erik 14y ago
Without network neutrality legislation, an incumbent can simply pay for the privilege of having no viable competitors. Is there a strain of capitalism that doesn't hold it critically important that new entrants should have unfettered access to the market?
- baddox 14y ago
  > an incumbent can simply pay for the privilege of having no viable competitors. Pay who exactly? They could pay the government, of course, and that's usually how things go, but that's what I am opposed to. > Is there a strain of capitalism that doesn't hold it critically important that new entrants should have unfettered access to the market? It depends on your definition of "unfettered access." Most capitalists, for example, are fine with the failure of a competitor who has no idea how to run a business, even though his incompetence certainly fetters him. Pro-capitalists are generally strong advocates of private property, so the only types of fettering they would oppose would be violations of property rights (like theft, assault, or threats thereof). Simply using capital to one's advantage and to the disadvantage of one's competitors is, as the name suggests, not generally considered a bad thing in capitalism.