> After reading about Pai, it seems like he was hand selected to be the figure head with which the ISPs would finally take down Net Neutrality.
He's not. He's a generic Republican, appointed by Obama (since the commission is obligated by Congress to have no more than a simple majority of appointees from any one party).
The problem is, this is what all Republicans are like nowadays. Any other person that Obama could have appointed would be doing the exact same thing in these circumstances. And in fact, virtually every other regulatory agency and department is doing the exact same thing thanks to Trump appointees. They are un-interested in any semblance of reasonable governance, it's siphoning your money to their backers in the most direct and aggressive fashion, plain and simple.
Elections have consequences. A lot of prominent Silicon Valley figures backed Trump figuring it would be an easy tax cut for them, and this is the result. What's that story Trump liked to tell around the campaign trail, the frog and the scorpion?
Everyone fantasizes they'd be the ones to come out on top (Ayn Rand wrote a whole book about it!), but there is always a bigger fish. Welcome to laissez-faire capitalism, where buying the government is part of the game. Free Markets are not a stable social structure by themselves, they need government regulation to keep the playing field level.
The truth is not in the middle, and not all viewpoints have equal merit. We have one reasonable party whose positions you may or may not like, and one batshit insane party that begins tearing everything down as soon as they're in power. Shame it takes a lesson like this for people to realize that.
Sorry to be blunt, and sorry to bring politics into this forum. But that's the way it is.
Point of clarification: Pai was appointed to the 5 person FCC commission by Obama. He was named chairman by Trump. FWIW, the previous chairman, Tom Wheeler (ostensibly a Democrat), probably would've dismantled net neutrality if Obama hadn't come out strongly in favor of it.
I find it incredibly frustrating that people clearly see the need for referees in sports, but not in business. Nobody's saying that the NFL or the NBA would have better competition if there were no refs.
What your proposing is more like a league which will solidify the rules as they currently exist. An example of this is banning innovations like Aluminum bats.
The court system isn't suited for this anymore. It was a different time in 1776 when corporations were not allowed to live in perpetuity, amassing as much of the valuable resources as they can, handing it off to ancestors upon the owners death (sounds a bit like monarchism, IMO).
"What your proposing is more like a league which will solidify the rules as they currently exist."
According to Thomas Jefferson, this is exactly what Constitution and laws are for.
Thomas Jefferson:
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
"The world" during the high days of the VOC was only 8% of the population today so it's kind of difficult to honestly compare, IMHO.
But more importantly, the VOC "perished under corruption" not because it was dragged to court :) It's not really fair to say that "the system" dealt with it when it obviously just succumbed over time under the inevitability of impermanence.
The Dutch east India company had standing armies and war ships. To say that modern companies are more powerfully merely because of population growth is a bit of a stretch.
How they came to an end is irrelevant to whether courts are effective referees unless you believe the only fair thing is to destroy large companies.
Thomas Jefferson had more direct opinions on corporations, having tried (and failed) to add an 11th amendment limiting their power. For example:
"I hope we shall take warning from the example [of England] and crush in it’s birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and to bid defiance to the laws of their country."
There isn't a "reasonable" party, the Democrats could have made this a law making repealing it difficult. They found the to give ISPs billions of dollars, and to legalize spying on their customers though.
Both parties are a joke, voting for either is an awful choice.
That's a lie, plain and simple. 2017 is the year that the claim that both parties are just as bad went from being a somewhat valid commentary on American politics to the cries of the intellectually lazy.
One party would not attempt to ram throw a bill that took away health insurance for millions without a back plan. One party would not attempt to ram through a tax reform bill that was literally being amended on the floor before the vote. One party would not let a federal agency make a sweeping change that the overwhelming majority of Americans do not support. One party would not allow the president of the United States to use Twitter to incite violence and spread out racist messages. I can go on, but the point is that had Clinton won, this year would not have been such a mess as the Republican party bungles it's way around trying to pillage and loot America for the benefit of its donors.
Not a lie, supported third parties for my voting life as it's clear the system is a broken joke. Voting Hillary in wouldn't have created a liberal paradise, just changed the details of the mess we are in.
Electing Clinton would have given us 4 more years of Obama. That means Congress would be busy wasting time, but as I said, we wouldn’t be dealing with any of the issues of healthcare, taxes, or net neutrality we are now.
So my poor friend would still be struggling to choose between healthcare or slightly more money, our taxes would still be used to indiscriminately kill thousands of innocents worldwide, and we might have the government spying on all our internet traffic for slightly less money. Huge improvement, I can see why I should support a party promising that.
One of my examples was before 2010, the other was introduced by a Democrat and signed into law by one.
They didn't consider universal health care an option, saying they cared about privacy is a sick joke, they didn't make net neutrality a law. They may be slightly less bad but voting for them is still a terrible choice.
The thing about the lesser of two evils is that it’s the lesser of two evils and picking it over the greater of two evils is a good choice. That said, the most important issue of our time is climate change and the difference there is utterly clear.
The idea that it is a binary choice is a false one. The two parties will drone on about how other candidates are "spoilers" who only benefit who you see as the worse choice. That's nonsense, your vote should go towards who you think represents your interests best.
Yes, that vision ultimately needs more than just a third party win. The system itself is broken. It's still a better choice.
I'm not knowledgeable enough about various industrial wastes to comment on environmental issues. If that's what you see as the most important issue, why would you vote anything but Green? That's been a core of their platform for fourty years.
> The two parties will drone on about how other candidates are "spoilers" who only benefit who you see as the worse choice. That's nonsense, your vote should go towards who you think represents your interests best.
You need to learn Civics. I could write in my own name since my opinions are closer to my opinions than the Green candidate. What would that accomplish?
If, one day, the US introduces proportional or preferred representation then the calculations will change. In Australia, for example, you can vote (1) Green, (2) Labor (say) and then if the Green candidate is eliminated your vote is counted for your second choice. But if the Green candidate gets enough support then you get your first choice.
Even then, Democracy is difficult. In proportional systems, small parties can have disproportionate influence.
>I could write in my own name since my opinions are closer to my opinions than the Green candidate. What would that accomplish?
I don't think I have the political knowledge or general knowledge to represent my interests best in government, and failing to campaign shows I'm not prepared for the responsibility. I can't say for certain, but I assume it's the same for you. If I'm wrong, you should vote for yourself. I imagine most candidates do.
Yes, some better form of representation is part of my ultimate goal. The fear of small parties having a disproportionate influence doesn't worry me, small groups already have a disproportionate influence.
>They are un-interested in any semblance of reasonable governance, it's siphoning your money to their backers in the most direct and aggressive fashion, plain and simple.
They are uninterested in your view of reasonable governance. Reasonable people can and do disagree with things like net neutrality.
>They are uninterested in your view of reasonable governance. Reasonable people can and do disagree with things like net neutrality.
Really? On what grounds? Because I've literally not run into a single person, democrat or republican, who thinks net neutrality should go away.
*Mind you, I'm not personally friends with any executives from one of the big 8 companies that stand to benefit from it... but outside of them and shareholders I'm struggling to come up with the "reasonable" person who thinks this will be a good thing.
> Because I've literally not run into a single person, democrat or republican, who thinks net neutrality should go away.
My father. In his opinion, businesses should be allowed to manage themselves as they see fit, without outside interference.
Various people I've had 1-on-1 conversations with online. Often some variation on the regulations being difficult to enforce, and pointless because companies weren't doing things that were that bad before net neutrality anyhow.
We could debate the extent to which they were "reasonable" people, but I think that their opinions were reasoned out. They just started from assumptions that I disagree with.
>My father. In his opinion, businesses should be allowed to manage themselves as they see fit, without outside interference.
So consumers are just at the mercy of the corporate monopolies then? I'm curious how he expects a democracy to survive in the face of monopolies owning the media and controlling our "free" press. History has shown that's basically impossible, but I assume he's got a solution given you've said he's reasonable.
>Various people I've had 1-on-1 conversations with online. Often some variation on the regulations being difficult to enforce, and pointless because companies weren't doing things that were that bad before net neutrality anyhow
Then they haven't bothered to do basic research. It isn't hard to enforce and there was a framework in place already.
The argument I'd expect him to make: You're making the assumption that monopolies are inherently bad, and that alternatives wouldn't spring up out of the American spirit of entrepreneurship if they were actually required. Clearly, alternatives haven't arisen because we're doing well enough with what we have. Oh, the government grants exclusive franchise to specific companies? Just another example of the evils of government interference in the market.
I mean... In my lifetime we have had literally this exact thing. AT&T was a monopoly. It was inherently bad for literally everyone that wasn't employed by AT&T, and even most of them. The government didn't grant them exclusive rights, but they did step in to fix the situation. Assuming he doesn't have Alzheimers (literally), that would be a really, really bad argument given we've lived it and seen the results.
The US was under the impression that they were special snowflakes. Every country has rules about corporate involvement in political campaigns. But Americans knew better. Our politicians can't be bribed because America fuck yeah!
All citizens are equal but some are more equal than others.
Thank you for the bluntness, after taking a minute I cannot refute anything you said.
There are many complaints these days about the increasing level of political discourse on HN. But the way things are going, we’ll come to the point where we have to talk about things with the people next to us in the grocery store line. This is a dangerous road we are on.
The country in control of some deeply unhappy few that never queue for a checkout counter.
> Why didn't Obama appoint someone from the green party?
Because aside from the law governing appointments, there is also the Senate confirmation process, and such a violation of both the spirit of the law and the established informal norms would both be unlikely to survive that process, and complicate other matters before the Senate, which was blocking more routine nominees.
He's not. He's a generic Republican, appointed by Obama (since the commission is obligated by Congress to have no more than a simple majority of appointees from any one party).
The problem is, this is what all Republicans are like nowadays. Any other person that Obama could have appointed would be doing the exact same thing in these circumstances. And in fact, virtually every other regulatory agency and department is doing the exact same thing thanks to Trump appointees. They are un-interested in any semblance of reasonable governance, it's siphoning your money to their backers in the most direct and aggressive fashion, plain and simple.
Elections have consequences. A lot of prominent Silicon Valley figures backed Trump figuring it would be an easy tax cut for them, and this is the result. What's that story Trump liked to tell around the campaign trail, the frog and the scorpion?
Everyone fantasizes they'd be the ones to come out on top (Ayn Rand wrote a whole book about it!), but there is always a bigger fish. Welcome to laissez-faire capitalism, where buying the government is part of the game. Free Markets are not a stable social structure by themselves, they need government regulation to keep the playing field level.
The truth is not in the middle, and not all viewpoints have equal merit. We have one reasonable party whose positions you may or may not like, and one batshit insane party that begins tearing everything down as soon as they're in power. Shame it takes a lesson like this for people to realize that.
Sorry to be blunt, and sorry to bring politics into this forum. But that's the way it is.