"Net Neutrality", Dishonest Name, Dangerous Doctrine

The folks who want to decide what "neutral" means for you.

The head of the FCC is pushing for something he calls "net neutrality". When he does so he is being, as so many government officials are, dishonest. Government, when stripped of all the niceties and seen in its essence, is force. Government consists of making people do things that they would not otherwise choose to do under the threat of taking their property and/or freedom if they do not. Any good that it does, it does by first using force. Any bad it does, it does through force. The very definition of government is "that institution which claims a monopoly use on force over a given geographic area."

That's why its absurd to describe government intervention in the internet as "net neutrality". There is nothing neutral about government. Government consists of forcing people to do things that they would not otherwise do. There is nothing neutral about that. It's all about picking sides. They will determine whose side to be "neutral" on. There is nothing neutral about the government overriding the combined free choices of individuals, known as "the free market" and imposing rules about how much of whose content should get what slice of the band width.

Government virtually always has a side in any dispute- its own. The last century is an almost unbroken witness of government working in its own interests to expand its own reach into our lives. Government acts in its own interests, even when it cloaks its intentions by claiming to represent the interests of some oppressed group. At the end of the day, those in poverty will still be in poverty even after the government has acted, but government will have grown and its officials will have become more numerous, powerful, and prosperous.

Public officials who support Clyburn's falsely named "net neutrality" intervention are your enemy. It's that simple. The internet is the last free media. Newspaper's are dying, and increasingly controlled by corporate interests that are aligned with the government. Broadcast media is worse. Not only are they also owned by global corporations which do a lot of business with the government, but they actually require a license from the federal government to operate. Why would you expect them to risk that by actually informing you of the really explosive issues, such as the federal reserve's discount window scam or Obama's eligibility for office? They may make some off hand references to cloud the issue, but mostly they go to 24/7 coverage of some unstable pop-tart's latest trip to re-hab. They don't inform, they distract people who otherwise might get informed.

You won't see the newspapers sounding the alarm about net neutrality. The net is killing them, and they won't shed a tear if their rival gets hobbled by government regulation. You won't find broadcast media sounding the alarm- its one of those issues so important that they will risk government sanction if they tell you the truth about it in plain words. It's their regulators, the FCC, that are pushing this. Do you think they are going to hit the alarm button for you?

It's up to We the People to defend true Net Neutrality, the free market, by defeating attempts at government intervention dishonestly named Net Neutrality. W e should do this not only by voting against any elected official who will not actively protect our net freedom to express our political views, but if necessary by civil disobedience. It's that important.