The issue of net neutrality is a good proxy for political ideology. We have the internet, a network of connected nodes that more or less routes around difficulties. Any node may pass on information as its owner pleases, so long as it is in a recognizable format. Perfect anarchy, each node making its own decisions about what packets to pass on and when to pass them. We have an emergent order of packet passing nodes, each node acting freely according to its own choices. You can see how libertarians would like this. But the proponents of planned order, the authoritarians of the internet, want to order each node to prioritize packets by the planners’ favored criteria - first come, first serve. These people want to set rules, enforceable by violence, to control the internet - for what they claim is “the public good.” You can see how statists would like this. Disclaimer: I like to watch Netflix and YouTube videos. Thus, net neutrality would screw me over big time. No one who watches streaming video like to see glitches and stoppages in the middle of a show! Proposed “net neutrality” mandates would prohibit video streaming services from buying priority channels from nodes. It forces time sensitive packets like streaming video to wait for email, web page data, and even file downloads. This is analogous to a trucking neutrality law that prohibits prioritizing perishable foods over dry goods, or a mail neutrality law that outlaws priority mail. It’s not only a violation of rights, but has perverse consequences. In short, in general statists favor “net neutrality” mandates, while libertarians oppose them. This is a perfect example of libertarian support for emergent “spontaneous” order versus statist support for planned imposed order - cosmos versus taxis.
Posted on: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:58:47 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015