Re:We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality
by argumentum on Sunday December 29, 2013 @10:16PM
(#6982830)
> I believe that governments ought to put consumer interests first, even though presently they have a track record of doing the exact opposite.
For me, this is the part I'd emphasize, and probably where we could create a great deal of consensus. Whether or not we agree that the government should be interfering for the benefit of the consumer, we definitely agree that it shouldn't be interfering for the benefit of big business.
> Whether or not we agree that the government should be interfering for the benefit of the consumer, we definitely agree that it shouldn't be interfering for the benefit of big business.
But government is largely bought and paid for by special interests. Given that, it seems there's very little point in asking what the gov't should do.
What it will do, is quite obvious: it will serve the interests of the highest bidder.
Re:We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality
by jjoonathan on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @07:53PM
(#6993643)
Not necessarily. Right now our system has a policy of mandatory bribery built into the system by way of campaign finance rules. It's relatively easy to go from "mandatory bribery" to "optional bribery" through public campaign funding, which I think is a step in the right direction.
Campaign finance reform is a boring but necessary first step towards fixing this mess.
Re:We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality
by argumentum on Monday December 30, 2013 @03:03PM
(#6986561)
I agree, that's the real world result, but we can't win that argument easily. Instead we can point out each instance of it happening and hopefully the more pragmatic liberals will come around eventually.
I think cam_l meant libertarian.
Re:We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality
by jjoonathan on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @08:29PM
(#6993743)
I think it's more likely that cam_l was from a country where the term "liberal" was associated with the concept of Classical Liberalism.
It's worth noting that in the US, the term "liberal" is often used in association with those who are skeptical of the free market (moreso than their political opponents, anyway). Classical liberalism does promote laissez-faire economic policy, so you aren't incorrect, but the term is a bit ambiguous in context (see the 2nd paragraph in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism )
Anyway, I agree completely with your point. Business interests and consumer interests often oppose one another, and I believe that governments ought to put consumer interests first, even though presently they have a track record of doing the exact opposite.
Campaign finance reform would be a good start (private campaign finance => bribery is a prerequisite for obtaining power).