ReiverCorrupter said:
Erm... from what I understand the bill lays out negative powers. It says what internet providers can't do. I guess the government could use it for censorship indirectly by deciding which companies violate the rules: i.e. a republican appointed FCC (remember it's the government appointed bureaucrats that actually carry out the legislation, not the politicians) would choose to ignore conservative ISP providers and prosecute the ones that speed up access to liberal content. But that's still pretty indirect. There's no way that the government can directly control the content of the internet (through this bill at least).
As to the old capitalism/libertarianism vs. communism/liberalism argument I have two things to say:
1) Free market capitalism inevitably leads to monopolies in certain areas, which hurts the consumer. The irony is that in order for 'free' market capitalism to function the way it's supposed to it needs constant government intervention. Otherwise we would have 1 oil company, 1 steel company, 1 electric company, 1 phone company and 1 internet provider. To be sure, some things won't lead to monopoly: Coke will probably never buy out Pepsi because it comes down to different tastes. One really isn't a 'better' product than the other. However, the internet is DEFINITELY a natural monopoly because it comes down to infrastructure wherein the biggest company will have the advantage.
2) Anyone who thinks tyranny can only come through the government is, in the words of Yahtzee, pants-on-head-retarded. Listen and listen closely: there is no inherent difference between the power that a government can have and the power that a corporation can have. A corporation can have it's own freaking military for god's sakes! They're called private military contractors.
WITHOUT GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION AND GIVEN ENOUGH TIME A CORPORATION CAN BECOME POWERFUL ENOUGH TO BE A DIRECT THREAT TO HUMAN FREEDOM.
I'm not saying that business is evil. What I am saying is this: power is power. I don't understand why you would think that the government is out to censor the internet, but that business are somehow incapable of this. It baffles my mind. What's more is the fact that we live in a democracy where the government is supposed to answer directly to the people. Businesses have no such obligation. If we were to entrust the freedom of the internet to anyone it would be the government. The government was created for the explicit purpose of protecting our freedoms. I'm not saying that it is incapable of corruption, it is. But the burden of eliminating this corruption comes down to the voters.
In a certain sense, businesses are incapable of corruption because their only goal is to acquire profits. Thus censorship, shoddy safety practices, deliberate intent to influence the government, hell, even the violation of human rights: none of these are really acts of corruption for a business as long as they help the business increase it's profit margins. The burden of stopping these practices are placed upon the consumer: if you don't agree with a companies' practices, then don't buy their product. However, lest one forget, the consumer is also a voter, and so voting for a representative who intends to regulate business is perfectly in line with free market capitalism: it's just another power the consumer has.
It's negative in the form of what it allows for companies to do, however, the bill also outlines government authority in regards to the internet, which makes it positive in that sense. And as I've said, from what I've seen from the bill, the powers maintained are still incredibly arbitrary and could easily be exploited. That's the danger. To sum up my position on net neutrality very simply: legislation based on it is so ill-defined that can grant too much power to too few people and it promotes unproductive use of resources. I support free market internet service largely because I argue that divided ownership and competing companies vying for consumer benefits promotes innovation and change, while broad regulation promotes stagnation and too many opportunities for government abuse.
Also, to your more broad points on capitalism: Free market capitalism promotes monopolies? Far less so then government-corporate alliances in their current form, i.e. crony capitalism or corporatism. Free market capitalism promotes competition for goods and services, creating a constant conflict between companies trying to provide either better or cheaper services, which benefits consumers. Historically speaking, monopolies primarily emerge as a result of the government intervention you so crave. There is no such thing as a 'natural' monopoly. You could say that railroads are a 'natural' monopoly, as whoever constructs the most infrastructure would inherently own the system as a whole. Yet historically this did not happen, new railroads emerged that provided cheaper transit and passenger fees. It was only with the lobby of big railroad companies that the United States government passed regulations that ensured that new railroad companies would have a difficult time emerging and providing alternatives. Thus, it wasn't a 'natural' monopoly at all, but an artificially constructed one.
The same applies for the internet, even if one megacorp somehow gained control of a vast market share, new companies would openly compete with them in order to provide, again, better and cheaper services, which would shift consumers to their side. Internet monopolies, such as the one we have with Bell and Rogers in Canada, are a product of regulatory committees like the CRTC. The result? Canada is rated one of the worst developed countries in terms of internet service. In Ontario we basically have one electric company as well, closely allied with the provincial government. The result? The company spikes fees and claims everything from 'maintaining the infrastructure' to 'environmentally conscious energy use' to justify it. My dad owns a solar panel system, he can't even KEEP THE POWER HE MAKES because of this corporatism. Instead, he's forced to sell the power off to Hydro, then buy his own power back. In a free market, he would be able to keep his own power, and then sell the rest off to the neighbourhood if he wished. The result of government intervention is that companies can get away with far more by buying off committees and politicians, ensuring that smaller businesses are unable to develop, services and products are of poorer quality, and companies that are 'too big to fail' get money shoveled at them in recessions. Intervention breeds monopolies based on political favouritism, competition ensures that companies have to actually take consumer demand into account.
Secondly, as to tyranny of corporations: I agree. And that's exactly why we need a free market. I'm not entirely sure, but you seem to believe that a free market society would basically be completely lawless in regards to company action, as if the companies would then control all social and political interaction as well. Not true at all. A free market system still maintains the rule of law, all it means is that the economics are based on mutually beneficial trade with a lack of government intervention. The government would still exist to maintain the rule of law. A free market society does not mean that companies could kill, steal or commit fraud on their own whims. The government would still maintain order through the military, police, and objective courts. As to the idea of companies developing military groups: why would they? PMCs exist to back up wars created by the government, i.e. an inherently statist action. Why would they develop them for anything else? To take over other companies? That violates both free market principles and the rule of law. To rule over consumers? Fails on the grounds that it is inherently not profitable. To serve as a police force? Once again, in this kind of society the rule of law is still maintained. I just don't see how you draw this conclusion that in a free market society companies would develop PMCs for their own use when it really isn't a profitable venture. Free markets are about economics, nothing more. The danger of corporate tyranny goes hand-and-hand with government intervention. Companies can buy off politicians in order to benefit themselves and undermine the citizenry. When you allow for rampant intervention you create a system that promotes government-corporate alliances through mutual benefits for both sides. And that's when you begin to see a system of tyranny, when governments and corporations partially merge, i.e. corporatist big government.
Also, to the notion that regulation of the free market, because the free market is democratic and thus it gains consumers this power: No. Simply no. The free market ideal of ECONOMIC democracy is meant to apply to the ECONOMIC sphere only, not used as form of justification for political intervention. The reasons for this is twofold: one, regulation undermines the notion of mutually beneficial trade by forcing individuals to follow abstract trading rules. And two, government regulation is based on threats or the use of violence, an inherently anti-free market concept. Put in this way: if I decide not to buy something from you in a free market due to the price, do you pull a gun on me a force me to buy it? No, because it undermines the notion of mutually beneficial trade. If a businessmen ignores regulation because it ensures that his trade isn't beneficial, what happens to him? He may be fined, or he may be thrown in jail due to the regulations. Regulations introduce the threats and use of violence to maintain an economy, thus undermining a core principle of free markets.
As to your final point about government: I really wish that was the case. I really do. However, there are two problems inherent in that: 1. The nature of a big government democratic system does not mean necessarily mean that politicians will do what is in the best interests of the voting public, and 2. Even if they are following the will of the majority, said will is not necessarily RIGHT. Allow me to explain these two points:
1. We are educated to believe that the government acts in the best interest of their citizens, with the exception of corruption. The problem is that in a big government system, said corruption is basically assimilated into the system structure due to broadly-based power and political careers. Democratic systems encourage politicians to choose policy that is popular in order to gain voters. The problem in a big government system is that politicians are always aiming for short-term solutions in order to encourage voter support. For example, in the case of the U.S., Obama pushed for his Jobs Bill to order to encourage employment. In the short term, this will have some benefits. In the long term, it fails to take into account numerous things: i.e. that the current infrastructure is already falling apart, so building more is excessive, that said bill puts a further strain on the debt issue, that the plan requires a large bureaucracy to maintain meaning that taxes will have to go up, etc. Another example is his plan for student debt, which benefits the student population but will place a larger tax burden on the working population. But these are not problems that he's considering, because its a short term benefit to his political career with long term consequences. Due to the nature of the democratic system, i.e. the most popular wins, career politicians focus on furthering their own position through policy that benefits them at the current time because of their short terms. It's basically 'bread and circuses for the masses', you offer up the people what makes them happy regardless of how damaging it could be when you're out of office. Politicians in big government do have their own agendas simply due to their nature of the system they work in. And yes, that can easily undermine the individual freedom of citizens in the long run.
2. Even when the will of the majority is represented, there's still the problem of whether the majority is right. For example, take Jim Crow laws. Amazingly, before the establishment of these laws many businesses maintained a mixed race consumer base. Obviously there were still some race-specific businesses of course, but many businessmen could see the profits they would gain from serving both. Trolley cars in San Francisco, for example, were originally privately owned and multiracial, because the owners knew that it was more profitable. But as a result of the voting public's demands, segregation was gradually established in businesses via regulation. This was something that was the will of the people, and wasn't moral. Obviously this isn't always the case, but the demands of the majority must have limitations when it comes to government. I'm not trying to say that 'the government is racist and businessmen are not' or anything silly like that, but what I'm trying to say is that if you're worried about tyranny in government or corporations, the 'dictatorship of the majority' is also a threat in a big government system.
So I guess to conclude (cause this is a goddamn wall of text): I'm aware that businessmen can be corrupt or untrustworthy. But as your other opponent argued, I view that as the lesser of two evils in comparison to government control. The possibility of a monopoly seems unlikely without direct intervention from the government to favour certain companies. Free markets aren't about giving companies free-rein in all aspects of life. The system is about economic freedom and allowing consumers to have choice in their products and services. It is inherently economic, and not political. The government would still exist and maintain the rule of law. It is in a corporatist system that politics and economics are fused, resulting in abuse on both sides and the tyranny you understandably fear.
This is how all advertising ever works. How is it okay for, say, The Escapist to plaster ads on the site--hoping to steer you toward selected products/services/content, but it's NOT okay for the ISP to do it?
