Leaderboard

Oh yes, "just move to another state"! It's just a "hassle"! For many people - myself included - moving that far is impossible for one reason or another, primarily money. I mean, at this point all you're saying is "Well, if that's what happens then too bad, it's what The Free Market wants." This could literally leave whole swaths of people with no internet in the likely event that ISPs decide to do what they've done in the past. Just because some people would still have it doesn't excuse the fact that there'd still be people without. "Well, wouldn't you rather have some people be without instead of everyone being without?" Fuck no, I'd rather that nobody be without without their own choice in the matter, and this is taking the choice out of the people's hands. Corporations should not have that much control over something that has become a pillar of the nation's - and global - society. We don't need ISPs deciding they want to create their own "soft" versions of the Great Firewall of China to gate you into content that's only Comcast/Verizon/AT&T/Dish/etc. Approved - Purchase a two-week pass for just $14.99 and get faster speeds! Dear god, no! We're already having to deal with the consequences of having so many different sets of laws and regulations - the easiest examples are the wildly varying minimum wages, education standards, and gun laws - we don't need to add more hammers to the cracking foundations! We don't need more individual sets of laws and regulations, we don't need to add NN to the list of state-by-state variances! The "freedom of choice to live where you want" is not so free, Caveson, you cannot honestly expect people to just pack up and move out because of some of the things you just listed about yourself moving. What about those who can't move? Are they supposed to just suffer in silence until they can oust everyone responsible for preventing NN from being established in their state? That would take years, maybe even decades! You can't boycott the major ISPs, you'll find yourself out of options, the smaller ISPs either can't deliver the same kind of service, or get indirectly shut down by the well-established giants and life gets more difficult if you can't get internet in some fashion. I'll say it again. Corporations should not have that much power over something that's become a pillar of today's society.

I think I tried explaining this in another thread, but I'll reiterate for clarity: http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/ The whole point of "states rights", a.k.a. the 10th Amendment, and really, the Bill of Rights as a whole, is to limit and decentralize federal power. The 10th Amendment helps accomplish this by making sure that States by default have natural autonomy over there territory, unless otherwise outright prohibited by the Constitution or its additional amendments. This hearkens back to one of the main reasons for the American Revolution, that is legislation without representation by a central power an ocean away. This provides numerous benefits: 1.) It ensures politicians are physically closer to their constituents.... 2.) ...Which allows for more efficient governing and experimentation of laws at the state levels before being proposed to the federal level, with the added side effect of... 3.) ...That if an experimental law goes wrong or becomes tyrannical at the state level, the damage will be contained within that state's borders, and while it would suck if you were in that state, at least the rest of the country doesn't have to share in your suffering (would you really want the possibility of Texas's laws to run your life? I know I don't want California's laws nationalized). Which leads me to..... 4.) ....The fact that you can move to a different state if you really can't stand how that state is run, which a lot easier and less time-consuming than moving to a different country altogether. This freedom of choice of where you want to live without being subject to the same laws is one of the greatest attributes the country has going for it. As for having fewer states, on the contrary, I say the more the merrier. For example, there have been multiple proposals to split California into multiple state, and I'm all behind it, since that would benefit: 1.) Me personally, since I won't have to move since I might be able to stay in a state that actually knows what it is doing. 2.) The balance of the electoral college, since that means no more free 55 electoral votes for whichever party happens to run the state (in this case, Democrats) 3.) The American people as a whole, since it means even more choice in where to live. I won't deny that there is a certain cost to these freedoms, namely the responsibility needed to study other state's laws before moving, and staying up to date with your own state, and weighing your options. For example, I am seriously considering moving out of California one day, however I realize that there are disadvantages to leaving: 1.) Most of my family lives here. 2.) The diverse climate and living environments make it feel like a mini country in itself. 3.) Cali makes up most most of the west coast, thus, has most of the tourist attractions are within easy traveling distance. 4.) If I do decide to move to a red state like say Texas, the minimum wage is lower, which means I would be making less, however, everything would be cheaper, so I guess that one balances itself out. These are all very serious considerations to take into account. Thankfully it'll be a couple years before I'll have to cross that bridge. But, the point is, I would rather deal with this hassle then not having the choice at all aside from renouncing my own citizenship from the country that I love, all because of some stiffs a thousand miles away from me got their panties in a bunch. In which case if it bothers you so much, then I'm sorry, then you would just have to move to a different state. And yes I know, it is a hassle, but compared to renouncing your citizenship, I'd recommend the former option. And besides, if Net Neutrality is thrown out, then it's thrown out federally, as it affects everyone. If you want your state to keep NN, then I;m not against that. Which is why I oppose the notion that states can't make their own NN laws, which thinking on it now, seems unconstitutional.

Oh yes, I forgot to mention that. In which case a good compromise would be to repeal Net Neutrality at the federal level, allow states to implement their own NN laws and outlaw those territorial agreements. I think could both agree to that. That again.

You can say that again

Agreed on the anarchy statement. It is fundamentally Utopian, however, they do raise a fair point that time and time again, the state, more often than not, tramples on liberty whenever it gets involved with the free market, whether here or around the world. On the other hand, law and order is needed for protection for consumers, such as anti-trust, no false advertising, scams, etc., in which case, government is a necessary evil. Call it my biases getting in the way of rational thought, but when I see something that is universally supported by everyone, seemingly immediately, for the federal government getting involved, or in this case staying involved, in an economic industry that is a crucial part of the modern economy, I think you can forgive me for being a wee bit suspicious and try to find the merits of the other side. The concept? No. Title II? Cautiously yes, if only to uphold free speech. If net neutrality was handled at the state/local levels and not the federal level, then I'd have even less of a problem with it.