4 ms·

This sounds very George Orwell, like "Freedom is Slavery". It's going to take a very strong argument to support the idea that freedom is enhanced by limiting f

This sounds very George Orwell, like "Freedom is Slavery". It's going to take a very strong argument to support the idea that freedom is enhanced by limiting freedom. Not that it's impossible; my glib statement plays fast-and-loose with "freedom", using the same word in one sentence to mean both the overall amount of freedom as well as in a microcosm. But even so, the apparent contradiction should make us think before jumping in.

rudolf0 12y ago
Well, it depends if you consider monolithic monopolies or governments a greater threat to freedom. In the case of US ISPs, most people simply have no choice and are locked into one company. This creates a difficult situation and allows ISPs to easily collude. You theoretically have freedom to switch to another company, but in practice it's not possible because most people would have to up and move their entire family.
djur 12y ago
The Roman republic was preserved so long in part because Roman law and tradition forbade the bearing of arms within the city, and the entry of armed legions from the provinces into Italy proper. The loss of Roman liberty corresponded directly with the progressive breakdown of those regulations, starting with Sulla marching into Rome, Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon, and continuing with Augustus' Praetorian Guard. Sometimes liberty is best preserved by limiting the ability of the powerful to bring that power to bear. The alternative is "might makes right", or private tyranny.
vor_ 12y ago
Monopoly of force is necessary to maintain order in a state.
nathan_long 12y ago
Freedom can be enhanced by limiting freedom. In the US, you may not have a slave or be a slave. It is illegal, even if both parties are willing. Why can't we decide? Because if we could, it would open the door to trickery and coercion. The fact that no slavery arrangement is legal keeps a lot of people from being tricked or coerced into one. Hence, limiting freedom (of agreements) can enhance freedom generally (no slavery). Similarly, you can't sell me a house made of popsicle sticks even if I'm informed. We want a market where houses below a certain level of quality just don't exist, because it's better for everyone. It's possible that net neutrality is like this. "An internet connection where ComCastMovies.com works great but Netflix is severely throttled" would be a crappy product that Comcast is incentivized to sell, and consumers may be tricked (fine print) or coerced (no other options) into buying. It may be in the public interest to outlaw it.
- CWuestefeld 12y ago
  We want a market where houses below a certain level of quality just don't exist, because it's better for everyone. But are we sure that's true? A couple months ago I recall seeing that one of the major wireless providers was planning a level of service that was (a) very cheap; (b) allowed unlimited access to Facebook and a couple of other major social apps; and (c) was very expensive for data usage outside that area. It would be marketed toward poorer people as a cheaper means of getting that basic connectivity. One outcome of the arguments for net neutrality, and your argument in particular, is that there's no means for providing low-cost services designed for the less-rich. It's not obvious to me that setting a bar this high is a good thing for the lower economic rung in our society.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    But those are artificial bottom-rung services. We all know that an internet connection is an internet connections, right? So restricting this bogus program to certain websites was an attempt to capture the consumer, nothing more. Its somewhat like offering the poor special-price moldy bread, deliberately poisoned to make them have to buy your medicine or whatever. There's no point to it, except evil.
    - CWuestefeld 12y ago
      Its somewhat like offering the poor special-price moldy bread, deliberately poisoned to make them have to buy your medicine No, that's a completely unfair characterization. There's nothing "poisoned" about the lower level of service being contemplated here, it's just a lot less capable. You seem to be putting yourself into the position of deciding for these hypothetical poor customers that if they can't have the A+ level of service for top dollars, then they shouldn't have anything at all. It's all or nothing. If you think that we should limit things in this way, then let's be up-front about it. Admit from the beginning that the result will be that we're preventing low-cost plans, so the industry will be forbidden from selling plans designed for disadvantaged people.
      - 12y ago
dasmithii 12y ago
"Freedom from whom, and to do what?"

rudolf0 12y ago

Well, it depends if you consider monolithic monopolies or governments a greater threat to freedom. In the case of US ISPs, most people simply have no choice and are locked into one company. This creates a difficult situation and allows ISPs to easily collude. You theoretically have freedom to switch to another company, but in practice it's not possible because most people would have to up and move their entire family.

djur 12y ago

The Roman republic was preserved so long in part because Roman law and tradition forbade the bearing of arms within the city, and the entry of armed legions from the provinces into Italy proper. The loss of Roman liberty corresponded directly with the progressive breakdown of those regulations, starting with Sulla marching into Rome, Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon, and continuing with Augustus' Praetorian Guard. Sometimes liberty is best preserved by limiting the ability of the powerful to bring that power to bear. The alternative is "might makes right", or private tyranny.

vor_ 12y ago

Monopoly of force is necessary to maintain order in a state.

nathan_long 12y ago

Freedom can be enhanced by limiting freedom. In the US, you may not have a slave or be a slave. It is illegal, even if both parties are willing. Why can't we decide? Because if we could, it would open the door to trickery and coercion. The fact that no slavery arrangement is legal keeps a lot of people from being tricked or coerced into one. Hence, limiting freedom (of agreements) can enhance freedom generally (no slavery). Similarly, you can't sell me a house made of popsicle sticks even if I'm informed. We want a market where houses below a certain level of quality just don't exist, because it's better for everyone. It's possible that net neutrality is like this. "An internet connection where ComCastMovies.com works great but Netflix is severely throttled" would be a crappy product that Comcast is incentivized to sell, and consumers may be tricked (fine print) or coerced (no other options) into buying. It may be in the public interest to outlaw it.

CWuestefeld 12y ago
We want a market where houses below a certain level of quality just don't exist, because it's better for everyone. But are we sure that's true? A couple months ago I recall seeing that one of the major wireless providers was planning a level of service that was (a) very cheap; (b) allowed unlimited access to Facebook and a couple of other major social apps; and (c) was very expensive for data usage outside that area. It would be marketed toward poorer people as a cheaper means of getting that basic connectivity. One outcome of the arguments for net neutrality, and your argument in particular, is that there's no means for providing low-cost services designed for the less-rich. It's not obvious to me that setting a bar this high is a good thing for the lower economic rung in our society.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  But those are artificial bottom-rung services. We all know that an internet connection is an internet connections, right? So restricting this bogus program to certain websites was an attempt to capture the consumer, nothing more. Its somewhat like offering the poor special-price moldy bread, deliberately poisoned to make them have to buy your medicine or whatever. There's no point to it, except evil.
  - CWuestefeld 12y ago
    Its somewhat like offering the poor special-price moldy bread, deliberately poisoned to make them have to buy your medicine No, that's a completely unfair characterization. There's nothing "poisoned" about the lower level of service being contemplated here, it's just a lot less capable. You seem to be putting yourself into the position of deciding for these hypothetical poor customers that if they can't have the A+ level of service for top dollars, then they shouldn't have anything at all. It's all or nothing. If you think that we should limit things in this way, then let's be up-front about it. Admit from the beginning that the result will be that we're preventing low-cost plans, so the industry will be forbidden from selling plans designed for disadvantaged people.
    - 12y ago

dasmithii 12y ago

"Freedom from whom, and to do what?"