Along the Road To Serfdom: Net Neutrality (Hayek's prophetic manuscript of tyranny)

"The subtle change in meaning to which the word 'freedom' was subjected in order that this argument sound plausible is important. To the great apostles of political freedom the word had meant freedom from coercion, freedom from the arbitrary power of other men, release from the ties which left the individual no choice but obedience to the orders of a superior to whom he was attached...The demand for the new freedom was [in contrast]...only a name for the old demand of an equal distribution of wealth."

I know I've said this before, but I want to separate it. Friedrich Hayek talks about Net Neutrality. Yes, I know the book was written in '44, but that doesn't matter. Tyranny is what it is. And those of you who have read this book will likely agree with me. It's in there several times. Primarily when Hayek talks about new freedom. That's exactly what Net Neutrality is.

Net Neutrality does not "free" you from much. Just a bunch of telcos.(According to the sales pitch, anyways) But at what cost? The real dirty issue is that it puts you into bondage to the central planners by offering an unlimited freedom for the planners to do with our internet as they see fit.

Anybody familiar with tyranny will immediately spot the obvious: Control of the on/off ramps means control of everything. Net neutrality is in the paragraph above as quoted from the book; the FCC becomes the ultimate coercive body.

Unlimited freedom for the planners upon our internet. That's net neutrality. In Hayek's Road to Serfdom. Pages 76/77, and 174/175.

Surprisingly, they did a good job encapsulating much of what I wanted to reference in quoting that one part of the book.

(so that the page numbers I list match)Also, I know there's several versions of this book. I have the definitive edition; grey cover; bruce caldwell)

Here is my son’s response to your comments on this thread.

**********************************

You miss my point entirely. You have two options here:

1. The president controls the internet kill switch directly.
2. A government agency oversees the process.

At this point you’re I really don’t think we’re going to get option three. (No internet kill switch.) This is especially true since both parties want it. (It’s seen as a national security issue by many conservatives and don’t tell me it isn’t. Cyber warfare is one of the biggest national security hot-issues right now. This is just the kind of issue that splits the Republican party because it divides the libertarians from the social conservatives.)

As for net neutrality all I can say is that I’m sorry you see it that way. You know I agree that less government is better but government has one true roll which generally falls under “make sure we don’t kill each other”. The problem is that the internet is controlled by gatekeepers. We can’t just “get” it by walking to the supermarket. Net neutrality is not a government control mandate. It is a policy of zero tolerance for internet censorship. The first amendment is a zero tolerance policy on censorship.

I’m NOT supporting FCC oversite of the internet. I AM supporting a particular idea that says “you can’t censor data or discriminate access based on what you have to say.” Anything beyond that is a rider of something else entirely. It just happens to be that the FCC is one of the few organizations championing the idea at the federal level. If they push for anything further than that then I’ll be glad to help you verbally go for their scalps.

I must say, this is the most interesting discussion I’ve ever engaged in.

——————At this point you’re I really don’t think we’re going to get option three. (No internet kill switch.)-————

“Nothing is inevitable until it happens.” - Thomas Sowell

-————————As for net neutrality all I can say is that I’m sorry you see it that way.-——————

I don’t have a choice. These six pieces of information:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2733953/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2713730/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2729438/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2711488/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2699462/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2699677/posts

Form the basis for my beliefs on this, because they’re all fact. Not opinion. In their own words or their own documents, these people are as serious as a heart attack, they are not on the side of freedom, and they have large amounts of real power to implement their schemes.

And, they have a completely different definition of net neutrality than you do.

If you learn *THEIR* definition of net neutrality, as I have endeavoured to do, you will oppose it too.

——————I AM supporting a particular idea that says “you can’t censor data or discriminate access based on what you have to say.”—————

If you learn what these people really mean when they talk about “net neutrality”, you will see that they reject that idea. If they want to control the on/off ramps, they HAVE to reject that idea. It can’t be both ways. History is very clear on this.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.