Net Neutrality is what we had until today

"The government that governs least, governs best."  Thomas Jefferson

 

Freedom is where there is unrestrained choice.  Law exists to restrain some of those choices, such as murder and theft.  Law provides a framework for a civil society but it also limits freedom.  As such, one desires just enough law to maintain a civil society but not so much as to create a totalitarian regime.  Lack of law leads to anarchy (e.g. Libya or Somalia) where excess of law leads to oppressive dictatorships (e.g. North Korea, Cuba).

The internet and the technology sector, which has existed mostly outside the bounds of government regulation, has been the most dynamic part of the economy.  Coincidence?  No.  One does not put a pallet of bricks in the trunk of the car and then expect that to improve the acceleration.  The same is true with government regulation.  Regulations have both costs and benefits.  The question should be asked if the benefits outweigh the costs.  Government does not ask that question because the answer would lead to less regulation and therefore less government power.  It is a rare person who voluntarily surrenders power.  The regulations and the inevitably lawsuits they will trigger will send the internet into a decade of stagnation.  There is no point investing when there is so much doubt about the future.  Prices will rise and service will get worse.

 

On another point, has the government really demonstrated such good custodianship of late that it should be trusted to stick its fingers into another sector of the economy?  How did that Stimulus fare?  At the end of it, the president admitted that there had been no shovel-ready jobs after all.  Nearly a trillion dollars of stimulus that was supposed to restore our ailing infrastructure and still the administration claims we have a crumbling infrastructure.  Huh?  Or how about the Affordable Care Act?  That is great, right?  Keep your doctor, he said.  Well, maybe not.  Save $2500 per family, he said.  Well, not so much.  Costs went up instead.  Maybe it has done better with foreign policy?  No, it's one embarrassing mess after another.  Yes, this is the government I want to entrust with policing the internet.

 

I am sure the regulations will be balanced, not weighing more heavily on those with views opposite the regulators (3 Democrats to 2 Republicans).  You know, like the IRS jumped on MoveOn.Org just as much as various Tea Party groups.  Oh, they didn't jump on MoveOn.Org?  The regulators have used a 1930s law to regulate the internet.  Maybe they should wait for Congress to pass a law?  Really, shouldn't this be a decision by the elected representative of the people rather than a majority of 5 non-elective bureaucrats?