Being classified as a public utility does not necessarily mean it will become a government entity. As you identify, there is very little if any separation between American corporations and our government, which are quite clearly engaged in rather fascist heavy-petting.

All we really need is competition, we don't even really need the ISPs to be classified as public utilities. What needs to happen, by whatever means necessary is for the delivery and content to be firewalled and enforcement of regulations that prevent the infrastructure from discriminating against content. Infrastructure (i.e., spectrum, wires, etc.) should not be able to discriminate between sources of content and should solely be competing against one another and be forced to break up once they reach a certain size and market share.

Yes, we need competition but... Even if we changed our laws today (which would still require federal action and money) how long would it take to have 3 or 4 players in most markets? A decade? The Internet will already be useless by then if Net Neutrality is eliminated.

One of the (few) thing Google Fiber looks at when deciding to enter a new market is access. There's no reason to believe that Google would take a decade to cover the US if they could get the access issues sorted.

The more poignant question is, what will your neutral internet connection look like after a decade of full-blown monopoly? Title II is monopoly regulation, and there's no reason to believe the cost of Title II won't be formalised monopoly.

Why wouldn't you think that? Google doesn't have unlimited money to build a nation wide network overnight and even so this would only give us two players. You need at least 3-4 players if not more to have real competition.

Your second statement is just wrong...

Competition isn't the end goal; what we really want is the service and prices to be at least as good as what a competitive market would yield. Google Fiber may not be all the way there, but it's close enough to be a great interim option.

Yes, Google fiber looks great right because they are only in a couple of markets. Building out nation wide would cost a lot of money and time...

Google already runs most people's cell phones, search, browser, email, mapping service, etc. so it seems to me being one's ISP also potentially could be really bad.

The alternative you seem to propose is potentially dangerous legislation that will effectively be permanent and the model for a lot of other countries.

And you are not taking into account that any large-scale legislation will not take affect immediately and will likely be a ramp-up style similar to the Healthcare Laws spread out over 5-8 years.

In that same timespan, a lot can be done to help foster new players in the ISP market and spur a lot of fierce competition. I think option 2 is the better option to really get better service with lower prices.

Nothing that has been regulated has ever been done better than the free market. USPS (that is changing now that they are privatish), DMV, POTS lines, Utility companies (power, water, gas), etc. We have seen time over time over time that when a market gets heavily regulated, innovation almost completely stops and things settle to a "just barely good enough". Do most US citizens have a choice of power companies? Nope. Land Line telephone providers? Nope. etc. Whens the last time your power company called you and said we're going to slash prices on all power because company X is slashing prices and we really value your business? Never.

Almost every sentence you wrote is wrong...

All regulation is not "bad" or you must be totally ignorant on the history of regulation in the US and having some regulation does not mean being "heavily regulated".

Nothing that has been regulated has ever done better then the free market? One example you give, the USPS is certainly not becoming better because of being privatized. You must be under 25... At one time, the USPS did mostly one thing, delivering first class mail and they did it really well, to anywhere in the US for like 10 cents. It WAS THE MODEL for the rest of the world. Now? They raise first class postage like every six months and keep entering into more deals with direct marketers to distribute even more junk mail to us. Not better...

Hey, totally government controlled nor a "free market" is going to be the answer. Any solution will take time and one thing we can't do right now is end Net Neutrality which will only make things worse. I have said this like 10x now in this thread...

> At one time, the USPS did mostly one thing, delivering first class mail and they did it really well, to anywhere in the US for like 10 cents.

Is this your version of, "back in my day a candy bar was a nickle"?

Because the last time a stamp was 10 cents was 1975.. which would be 43 cents today.

It's called inflation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_States_postag...

You say with inflation the price of a first class stamp should be 43 cents? It's 49 cents right now...

Thanks, your link seems to prove my point... Approximately, in the first 100 years of the postal service the price went form 2 cents to 10 cents which is a 5x increase. In the year 1971, which is when the government stopped managing the postal service (this is close to our year of 1975) the price has increased another 5x to today but that has only been 39 years.

Inflation has only been one factor in the changing price of first class postage over the years but thanks for your comment...

On that same page, you'll see an inflation adjusted chart of postage prices since the postage service started:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_States_postag...

The light purple is the inflation adjusted price (2008 prices); and the dark purple is the nominal price.

That is remarkably flat (inflation adjusted).

Fact is, it's been roughly 45 cents to mail a letter since the postal service began.

Sure, there were times when it was cheaper.. but it was ~43 cents in 1890; 40 cents in 1975 (2008 prices); and 45 cents today (49 cents is 45 cents in 2008 prices.. which is what the chart uses).

I guess my argument has not been clear...

I am glad you are good at reading Wikipedia charts but ONCE AGAIN inflation has never been the only factor in first class stamp pricing then or now. Sure, over the long term the cost of anything will tend to match inflation. I have been mainly talking about recent short term pricing of stamps...

The original argument (by Alupis) was that the government privatizing the postal system has been making things better for consumers (compared to when it was a government agency). It has not... There has been nine price increases since 2001! This has NOT been because of inflation which has been minimal and stable. The reason has been pension mandates by the government (due to politics) and the decline of first class mail usage.

First class mail service has never been overly profitable which is why I argued a essential service like that is better run by the government (especially since the post office is not totally an independent enterprise anyway) and not a private profit-driven organization. The government never would have raised stamp prices nine times in the last 13 years (based on past history) if they were still running the post office which means stamp prices would not have keep pace with inflation (over the last 100 years) incidentally. They would most likely have addressed the pension mandate and taken other measures to keep stamp prices more stable (to not piss off the consumers aka voters). It is also doubtful they would be making deals with direct marketers to flood us with more junk mail.

> There has been nine price increases since 2001! This has NOT been because of inflation which has been minimal and stable. ... The government never would have raised stamp prices nine times in the last 13 years (based on past history)

A stamp in 2001 was 34 cents. That would be 45 cents in 2013 money.

The same price as a stamp in 1890.

And while you blame USPS for adjusted prices for inflation, it's actually mandated by the government. USPS prices are tied to the CPI-U index by Congress.

So clearly the government is happy to raise prices, since they've mandated this, and they've kept a stamp at roughly 45 cents for over 100 years.

The fact (or not) that stamp prices have been increasing along side inflation is irrelevant and is still not (and shouldn't be) the only factor in raising prices! What don't you understand about raising prices "because of inflation" for an essential, constitutionally mandated service is not good for consumers aka citizens?

My whole point(again) is that first class mail delivery should be handled by the government and NOT privatized. The government is supposed to handle certain things for it's citizens. Let's say in 1965 (when the postal service was running the postal service) paper costs, because of some crisis jumped 1000%. The government would not have raised the price of a stamp 1000%. A private postal service would have had to (not exactly because supply and demand is also in play) which I hope you understand.

Thank God we outlawed poll taxes and didn't privatize polling places. Adjusted for inflation, we would probably be paying $50 to vote on election day.

We won't get into why the government requires USPS prices be tied to the CPI-U or the pension fund mandates. Hint, union busting and lobbing money via UPS and FedEx.

This wasn't really even about the postal service but why the government needs to regulate ISPs. The Internet is now an essential service and citizens shouldn't be at the whim of monopolized private companies.

Well, this thread has been beat to death but thanks for playing...

Even though USPS isn't "managed" by the government, the government still meddles in its affairs: http://www.cnbc.com/id/45018432

> You must be under 25

Great to see you fall to personal attacks in attempt of proving your point. You are wrong btw...

The point I'm making and the point you're missing is that any regulations/legislation is not going to change anything overnight. It will take years, no matter what it done. Perhaps longer with legislation due to the speed of government.

A slowly rolled out, 5-8 year legislated plan is a lot worse than a slowly ramped up 5-8 year private business competition and proliferation.

When businesses compete, the consumer wins. When businesses get regulated but still have no competition, the consumer loses. You seem to be completely glossing over this very important point. We need more competition -- not more regulation.

One does not simply regulate their way into competition.

> At one time, the USPS did mostly one thing, delivering first class mail and they did it really well, to anywhere in the US for like 10 cents

There are realities here you are not addressing. Dramatic increase in gasoline prices -- dramatic decrease in volume of mail, to name a few. This is why the USPS system is struggling today, and the reason they've been allowed to mostly "go private". The old system was also heavily subsidized by the US Gov't, which isn't happening anymore.

If you look at package mail transport (since only USPS can deliver letters to mailboxes), the competition is fierce between USPS, FedEX and UPS. Often times, UPS/FedEX are a lot cheaper to send a package through. (I know because I work for an distribution company w/ warehouse). We've seen some initiatives from USPS to recapture the package shipment market since they went privatish with their "if it fits, it ships campaign", but they still have a long ways to go. This is a great example where private companies in competition have way outbeat the regulated portions in the same industry.

You're "we should regulate today to save tomorrow" attitude holds no water here. Contrary, we should develop today to save tomorrow; develop more competition.

Saying "you must be under 25" counts as a personal attack? Dude, the Internet may be a little to intense for you. My apologizes if that really offended you...

I don't know what 5-8 year legislated plan you are talking about. My immediate concern is preserving Net Neutrality (the way the Internet has always worked) and that can be corrected right now with the reclassification of ISPs. That is only step one...

The USPS should have been split up... First class mail delivery (no profit) run by the government and a private entity for package delivery. They could have shared resources and faculties. Requiring UPS and FedEx to also do first class mail delivery would have been another idea. Just privatizing the USPS with the burden of first class mail delivery and thinking they will ever be able to compete with UPS and FedEx in the long run was stupid.

What? The USPS is unique in it's relation to the US government and is not similar to a regular industry being regulated by the federal government.

I much rather have the government regulating my ISP which (in theory) I have a say in then my local monopoly Internet service provider calling all the shots.

> I much rather have the government regulating my ISP

You probably don't really wish this... because it will ultimately be bad (think of your local power or gas company).

What you really wish for is more competition on a level playing field, ie. 6-10 ISP's per city who compete with each other for your business.

> You probably don't really wish this... because it will ultimately be bad

Only because the US apparently can't do regulation properly. In the UK, Ofcom regulate properly, and therefore we have plenty of competition and all the forces in place to ensure that the last mile infrastructure company doesn't touch content, allows any ISP to use its services at the same rates, and does its job of keeping the cables working. I can get Internet from any number of providers, all competing with each other fairly on top of this company's cables (and one or two providing their own cables instead).

The thing is, the last mile infrastructure company doesn't run an ISP itself, so it doesn't have any reason to muck it up for the ISPs. That's the key. That's all you need to do - split the ISPs apart from the infrastructure companies.

Sorry, the UK's ISP situation is not much better. BT basically controls most of it, and the government thinks they can force-regulate things like a "porn filter" and content filters (censorship via legislation). That seems worse to me... and with statements from the US President like: "legal content" hints that in the future of government regulated ISP's, the government may step in and decide what is legal content to send over the pipes, and what should be blocked.

That is not net neutrality.

> Sorry, the UK's ISP situation is not much better.

Sure it is. There's competition, semi-regular speed upgrades, if I don't like my ISP I can take my business elsewhere. As a result, I'm currently on an entirely unlimited plan with no throttling, and no angry letter if I download more than some hidden limit. My understanding is that a significant amount, if not the majority of the US is unable to do that.

> the government thinks they can force-regulate things like a "porn filter" and content filters

They could do that in the USA already, monopoly regulation or no monopoly regulation. Monopoly regulation is practically entirely separate from content regulation.

In any case, they only regulate that the porn filter and content filters must be an option - I've certainly never had such a thing on my connection. The only sites that are blocked for me are blocked under court order. This is practically equivalent to regulating that ISPs must provide a free copy of Net Nanny to all customers to use if they so choose, it's just done on their end rather than mine. (Also, hilariously, there isn't actually any regulation on this - ISPs are currently doing it willingly.)

> if not the majority of the US is unable to do that.

I think you are thinking of the state of US mobile industry and it's data plans. I'm not aware of any large ISP that has throttles or bandwidth caps (comcast has a supposed 300GB cap but has never to this day enforced it).

> In any case, they only regulate that the porn filter and content filters must be an option

You're forgetting that it's by default on, and that one must call their ISP and "opt-in" to seeing porn. Social stigma aside, how can you realistically and with 100% accuracy block only true porn websites? You cannot, and the UK has shown that over and over as legitimate websites get blocked, including news websites that run stories that relate to porn, etc. The same is true if the filters were expanded to say download websites. And who's to say a website is illegal or not - I for one certainly don't want my government telling me some download sites are legal and others are not.

Not to mention who's to say I intend to break the law simply by visiting a website? Maybe I'm doing research (Brian Krebs), etc.

The very notion of filtering some content goes completely against what net neutrality means.

> I'm not aware of any large ISP that has throttles or bandwidth caps

Really? I've heard countless stories of US ISPs doing deep packet inspection to throttle torrents and other peer-to-peer traffic. If they've stopped that, my googling suggests it's primarily due to FCC regulation.

> You're forgetting that it's by default on, and that one must call their ISP and "opt-in" to seeing porn.

Ah, incorrect. All major ISPs (a) ask during sign-up, and (b) provide a web-based tool for turning it off. There's no need to ever talk to anybody.

> Social stigma aside, how can you realistically and with 100% accuracy block only true porn websites?

You can't, but there's already products on the market which claim to provide content filters which block porn. Net Nanny is a personal one, a good many companies implement one.

> And who's to say a website is illegal or not - I for one certainly don't want my government telling me some download sites are legal and others are not.

Your Government actually decides that more websites are illegal than any other country, delisting them from the .com DNS space for everybody, whether in the US or not. Perhaps you should fix that before worrying about an optional content filter that nobody in the US is currently talking about creating.

> Not to mention who's to say I intend to break the law simply by visiting a website?

Nobody. It's an optional content filter.

>I'm not aware of any large ISP that has throttles or bandwidth caps (comcast has a supposed 300GB cap but has never to this day enforced it).

Then you haven't been paying attention[1]. I live in one of these areas, and have already been getting 1-2 robocalls a day this month about my data usage. They're calling it a "trial", but the costs are very real, and it's all in place to go national when people here don't complain enough. If I go over in the next two months, I will start getting hit with that charge.

[1] https://customer.comcast.com/help-and-support/internet/data-...

It's already illegal to move stuff like child pornography over the internet, and you'd find few objectors to the legal shutdown of sites engaged in obvious criminal enterprise eg a download-lotsa-warez.com or stolen-credit-card-data.com or recreational-cocaine-supply.com.

As was pointed out in an earlier thread (I think to you, but perhaps I'm misremembering) it's reasonable for the President to include a qualifier like 'legal content' in order to avoid headlines like 'Obama supports child porn?!' in the sensationalist media.

You are missing the point. Yes it's illegal to operate a child porn website. But we don't need ISP's inspecting all packets for signs of child porn to put a stop to that. That is very a la NSA inspection that most Americans object to -- only instead of being under the guise of "anti-terrorism" it would be under "save our children", a common theme with most politicians.

Furthermore, just because a website's activities are illegal does not mean I intend to break the law simply by visiting them. If that were the case, Brian Krebs would be in prison by now.

What we don't need is mandated filters by the government like they have over across the pond. Opt-out but defaulted to opted-in - and impossible filters that catch up a lot of legitimate websites and content which then have to file some sort of petition to be unblocked, meanwhile costing them all traffic and a lot of business (look it up, news websites have been taken down numerous times by the UK "porn filter" because they ran a story relating to porn and the entire site was blocked).

I'm not missing the point. I'm disagreeing with you about the significance of the word 'legal' in Obama's remarks on net neutrality - no more and no less.

You might be interested to learn that so far since the major deregulation wave in electric utilities over the past 20 years or so, no one has been able to show any real pricing benefits for the end consumer.

Certain industries are inherently slanted towards a monopoly, and a regulated monopoly is often preferable to an attempt at forcing market conditions. The two industries aren't the same, and I think electric/gas utilities are significantly more inclined towards a natural monopoly, but it is important to realize what situation we currently have, rather than applying an idealized narrative.

Yes, I would... Should I make a list of all the shit Time Warner has done and tried to do to me over the years? I don't have any issues that are comparable with my power/gas companies (which I have more choices with by the way).

I have already addressed the competition thing in a couple of comments on this thread... It does not exist right now and it would take a while to be a reality so ending Net Neutrality right now just makes things worse.

These are symptoms of lack of competition. That's not a reason to make the government regulate these businesses like you seem to want. Instead we need to spur growth of competition.

We can look at the cities Google Fiber has rolled out to. In every instance, competitor's pricing has decreased while bandwidth speed has increased. That is what we are fighting for -- we are not fighting for a government set bare-minimum level of service for government set price. That will get your DSL-like service -- just barely "good enough" and no innovation because there's no real competition.

We need to somehow get to having 6-10 ISP's in every major city. This will drive quality of service up, and pricing down.

I also think it's a conflict of interest to be a content provider while also an ISP (comcast, time-warner, etc). Either deliver bits, or create the bits -- not both.

The competition thing already has been addressed my me and others a number of times in this thread. Google is not the cure all... The bigger they get the less incentive they would be for them to drive down prices and speeds. We would need 3 to 4 players in most markets at least for real competition so we agree about that but... How long would this take? A decade?

The reality RIGHT NOW is that their is no competition in 99% of the US. Ending Net Neutrality right now and hoping in a decade things change would be stupid.

Nobody says Google is the answer -- that was just one small example of a situation where someone upset the incumbent and caused decreased price and better service purely through competition with no additional government legislation.

We need more of that from more companies.

Perhaps a better solution is to government fund small ISP's (they exist, look for them) and help them develop their own infrastructure in major cities. It will not be an overnight solution no, but it's far better imo than permanent legislation that might just kill the innovation you seek to spur.

Look at the state of DSL. It's delivered over POTS lines and falls under the legislation governing said lines. If an ISP runs lines to provide DSL service, they are required to lease the lines to whoever wants them (other isp's) for cost (not much profit made from this transaction). Suddenly everyone abandoned DSL in favor of Fiber and Cable services, and we've seen speeds exponentially grow in this area.

POTS lines already exist to every home in the USA, why not use them? DSL2+ has greatly increased the speeds, but still few ISP's use it. It's because of the huge legislative hurdles they have to jump over just to provide the service (I have a friend who is a WISP in the bay area of CA, and this is the reason he gave me for why he's not currently also running DSL to homes in his service region).

We risk doing the same if we regulate all internet carrying lines.

I really think it's better to somehow grow a lot more ISP's that operate in great competition. I don't know the perfect solution or how to go about accomplishing this -- but I do know free competition almost always trumps legislation. What we don't have right now is free competition (we have monopolies/duopolies).

I don't know why you repeating yourself... We all know competition is the answer. I agree that the government partnering with small localized ISPs is a great idea to spur more competition but...

The thinking that government regulation is always bad is wrong. There is no reason why the government can't classify ISPs as public utilities AND help create more players.

Any solution would take time so what we can't do right now is allow Net Neutrality to end and make the situation worse.

Government should create ISP's to encourage them to lower their prices?

I'll take Comcast's terrible pricing and service. Give me some of my taxes back. If me and a few buddies want to start an ISP then that's on us.

Forgive my ignorance but what problems do you have with your local electricity/gas utility?

you usually don't have a choice of who services your address. you usually don't have a choice in pricing. they have no real compelling reason to go above and beyond the "just good enough" service.

Well, the power/gas companies "just good enough" service is better then my ISP service. My ISP tries to raise the price more often and goes out more then my power.

I live in a cold place. The only heat in my building is electric. Wednesday's minimum is 0°Fahrenheit (-18°C). People will probably die of cold if the power goes out for extended periods of time.

Yes, that is precisely the problem with Net Neutrality.

We really don't want ISPs to be common carriers. Keep them private and competitive.

I would agree with you if there was real competition; if I had 5 or 10 or 15 choices in who I got broadband from at reasonable, consumer prices I'd be 100% against any kind of regulation.

Personally I'd rather see the federal government overrule states which have made laws against municipal ownership of the last mile. And to start handing out small seed grants to get more places to install fiber everywhere and lease it to whatever company cares to re-sell it.

For example I live in Houston where there utility company only owns the power distribution infrastructure. There are 100 (or so) companies that sell power at retail after buying it wholesale. http://www.powertochoose.org/

I consider that to be excellent competition. Getting to choose between two power companies, however, I would not consider competition.

What are you talking about? The reality is ISPs are not competitive in the US and are monopolies. That won't change overnight either so we need Net Neutrality (ISPs would still be private???) regulation even if temporary right now.

There are downsides to keeping them private that are apparent to most customers of Comcast/AT&T/Time Warner. Nor has there been any indication that the private nature of the telecoms has served to act as a buffer against federal intrusion. If anything, the monolithic and centralized nature of the ISPs has made it easier for the intelligence agencies to get what they want.

> Keep them private and competitive.

Hah!

I'm hearing the following rebuttals:

- Comcast/AT&T/Time Warner is not real/enough competition, more like a monopoly

This problem could be solved with the antitrust laws already in place. Despite being a libertarian I'm not opposed to breaking up these private monopolies that government policies have made possible.

- Being private hasn't protected them against federal intrusion

Being private citizens has also not protected us against the NSA spying on us. That does not mean the solution is more government intrusion to offset the existing one.

I oppose the federal government overruling state laws in any sense (so I'd rather the laws against municipal ownership of the last mile be abolished by market forces) as that obviously stifles competition between states.

The government isn't responsible for utilities tending towards monopoly - it's a natural outcome of any market with small unit costs and high barriers to entry.

For a self-proclaimed libertarian, you're ignoring a very basic tendency of market systems. Natural monopolies are Econ 100 level stuff, and utilities are the textbook example.

> The government isn't responsible for utilities tending towards monopoly - it's a natural outcome of any market with small unit costs and high barriers to entry.

Murray Rothbard once said:

"In general, I urge everybody to look at a government measure [...] not in terms of a tragic failure to achieve the common good, public interest, or general welfare, but [rather] as a conscious agency for doing all sorts of monopolizing, cartelizing, and other restrictive things. In other words, the government is not that dumb!"

If you read about how the FCC came to be and how they were politically set on displacing competitors, you will change your mind.

Free markets can't generate monopolies because they can't use the threat of force by hooking up with the government. If you disagree, all you need to do is come forward with a single example of a monopoly that exists without any government backing (regulations, cronyism, etc).

And if I were you I'd drop this cliche of "oh this is Econ 101". It doesn't help the conversation and is just a veiled attack. In this case though, since the government influences what gets taught in universities, even Econ 400 isn't enough to understand free markets, and most Econ graduates come out of university with little to no understanding of the Austrian school.

How to keep an Austrian-school believer busy:

* Tell them the government should abolish all regulation which interferes with "the free market".

* Then remind them that this would be an action taken by a government, and thus by definition the incorrect thing to do.

That little trick also works for things we believe in:

How to keep a State-Church Separation believer busy:

* Tell them the government should abolish all regulation which interferes with "freedom of religion"

* Then remind them that this would be an action taken by a government, and thus by definition the incorrect thing to do.

You believe in separation of church and state, right? I believe in separation of market and state. Before you post another childish remark, remember you can always make that comparison yourself to see if your remark has any weight.

Not really; the difference is that most people want only some types of government actions to be off-limits, and will list the things they want to forbid.

Other people start from a principle of "if a government did it, it was wrong". Which places all government actions off-limits.

> Other people start from a principle of "if a government did it, it was wrong". Which places all government actions off-limits.

Of course. Think of it this way:

- I don't have the right to take your money.

- My friends and I voting unanimously to take your money still doesn't give us the right to take your money.

- No matter how many friends I vote with, we as a group never have the right to take your money, or anyone else's.

- Then how did government get the right to take my money and yours?

You may say because it owns the land and if we don't like it we can leave. But think of it this way:

- I don't have the right to keep others from using unused land that even I am not using.

- And so on, same as above.

- Then how did government get the right to keep others from using unused land that even itself isn't using?

The problem here is that no one can grant another person or group with rights that they themselves don't possess.

It follows that the governemnt has no way to acquire this right, and so it does those things illegitimately (not authorized by any person or group of persons, since no person or group of persons has those rights to give up to the government). That's why anything a government does with tax money is wrong, because that revenue is ill-gotten.

That's why the excuse is usually "oh, there's a social contract"; this is a red herring. Even if the people had actually read and signed such a contract, they still don't possess those rights in order to be able to give them up to another party.

We allow ourselves to be taxed and to pay the government for land not by consent [1] but by threat of force, since if we disagree, we are fined, and if we don't pay we eventually go to jail.

[1] consent means voluntarily agreeing to do something. voluntarily means without coercion or threat of violence.

The problem with your argument is, of course, that you presume there is private ownership of property, but neglect to specify how that ownership originated.

Absent the threat of violent force against anyone who does not obey conventions with respect to ownership, there is no such thing as ownership. So in order to have even the concept of private property and "rights" thereto you must postulate some entity which recognizes those "rights" and will enact violence on your behalf against certain classes of others who would "violate" them.