Against net neutrality(Read article summary)
How can the government regulate the neutrality of the Internet? Isn't that a contradiction in terms?
Jacquelyn Martin / AP
As a recent column in the Wall Street Journal reminds us, online freedom is jeopardized in the name of ânet neutralityâ (The FCCâs Threat to Internet Freedom). This is just another case of the state re-labeling things to sound benign but that are really invasions of liberty and property rightsâanother good example being use of the term âintellectual propertyâ to masque the true nature of state-granted monopoly privilege rights (patent and copyright) (see my post Intellectual Properganda).
It is true that some corporations probably have extra-market power to control aspects of the Internet, as the result of state interventions such as IP, FCC licensing, antitrust law, big business favoritism, and so on. But the solution is not to grant the state even more power to regulate private companies.This is the criminal gang that has fouled things up in the first place. Another recent example of federal Chutzpah is the Obama administrationâs proposal to provide a âWeb Privacy âBill of Rightsâââhow obscene. The mob that is the greatest threat to online privacy freedom, and rights will protect us? Iâm reminded of the phrase, âWeâre from the government. And weâre here to help.â Thanks, but no thanks, guys.
These are the same parasites who do everything they can to hobble and destroy business and innovationâthey impose costly regulations; tax individuals, making employees more costly; inflate the money supply and cause destructive business cycles; impose insane, murderous policies on pharmaceutical and medical innovations via the FDA; and then impose double tax by taxing corporations too, after imposing Sarbannes Oxley on them for the âprivilegeâ to exist as a corporation (a privilege that is not a privilege; corporations do not need state privileges to existâsee Legitimizing the Corporation and Other Posts; Richman and Carson on the BP Oil Spill; Should Libertarians Oppose âCapitalismâ?; Rothbard on Corporations and Limited Liability for Tort; Comment on Knappâs Big Government, Big Business â Conjoined Twins; Pilon on Corporations: A Discussion with Kevin Carson; Defending Corporations: Block and Huebert).
And then, as a solution to the damage done to innovation by the stateâs malicious hobbbling, the maniacal intellectual properteers urge giving the state more power to grant intellectual monopoly privilege grants to companies. (But then, if the companies use these monopoly grants âtoo muchâ, itâs called âabuseâ and the state persecutes them under its evil antitrust laws.) (See State Antitrust (anti-monopoly) law versus state IP (pro-monopoly) law.)
Likewise, net neutrality is an attempt by the state to see more power to control private property rights as an ostensible response to various âmarket failuresâ that are really themselves caused by state intervention. In this, it is anohter example of the stateâs creating a crisis and using this as a justification to seize more power under the pretense of saving the people from the crisis that it caused. (See Robert Higgs, Crisis & Leviathan.)
Libertarians should oppose net neutralityâand the state interventions that gives rise to the problems net neutrality pretends to address. (See my posts Net Neutrality Developments and Libertarian Take on Net Neutrality (both reposted below); also Harvardâs Yochai Benkler on Net Neutrality and Innovation.) Donât trust the state to âprotectâ you. Ever.
The Christian Science Monitor has assembled a diverse group of the best economy-related bloggers out there. Our guest bloggers are not employed or directed by the Monitor and the views expressed are the bloggers' own, as is responsibility for the content of their blogs. To contact us about a blogger, click here. To add or view a comment on a guest blog, please go to the blogger's own site by clicking on the link above.