Fantastic post! Succinct, to the point, and hard to refute!
I can’t believe that some Freepers support “net neutrality.” It’s pure marxism!
Exactly. The issue is whether the government will concede that the Internet "backbone" is a privately owned asset or a publicly-owned utility. If it's the latter, the government can force net neutrality. If it's the former, the government can play socialist, nationalize it, and then force net neutrality.
I humbly suggest it goes back even further - to the mid 1600s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_Order_of_1643
The Licensing Order of 1643 instituted pre-publication censorship upon Parliamentary England. Milton’s Areopagitica was written specifically against this Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_1662
The Licensing of the Press Act 1662 is an Act of the Parliament of England (14 Car. II. c. 33), long title “An Act for preventing the frequent Abuses in printing seditious treasonable and unlicensed Bookes and Pamphlets and for regulating of Printing and Printing Presses.” It was repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1863.
When an organization has been shown to be corrupt, has been shown to be breaking the law, isn't it normal to confiscate some of that organization's property? Normally that's in the form of a monetary fine, but then I've always been a fan of alternative, targeted sentencing.
it can indeed be confirmed that the concept of net neutrality goes back to the 1800's. it can indeed be confirmed that the concept of net neutrality goes back to the 1800's. To be exact, it goes back to 1848.
I taught you that, and now you're corrupting it. Marxism had basically no influence in American government until much later, certainly not enough to set telecommunications policy. The general policy continued through the telephone age, both in monopoly and after, during times of nationalization (yes, our phone system has been nationalized before) and privatization.
You seem to have a misunderstanding of what net neutrality is. The government removes their power to interfere with commerce. Do you mind the government preventing interference with commerce? That's what trademark does. Should we eliminate trademark enforcement?
Increasingly with most Federal regulatory and legislative endeavors, the titled “objective” has to be twisted 180 degrees to arrive at a proximation of the truth of the deal they're trying o cram down our throats. “Net Neutrality” being a primo example.
BTTT!