I am perfectly content to define everyone who would prefer less taxation and fewer government restrictions as libertarian. I think in a broader and practical sense that is an accurate description. But the fundamental underpinning of libertarianism is the ideal of a society that only uses government force and coercion in order to counter force and coercion.

And although therefore libertarians traditionally view just defense, police and the courts to be absolutely necessary to the function of government most libertarian leaning leaders are usually just seeking modest reductions in taxation and spending as a gradual approach to reverse long term trends.

Since the libertarian viewpoint is based on freedom, prosperity and reducing the use of force and violence in society then it isn't good to go cold turkey on government programs which could result in violence in society as people's lives and livelihood's are disrupted. Merely shifting the use of coercive force from government to individuals isn't a net gain. When it regards dismantling social programs I think it is up to libertarians to demonstrate that non-governmental charities and individuals are up to the task of that transition before we phase any of these programs out completely unless we are talking about merely shifting resources to demonstrably more effective programs.

What I do disagree with those that are critical of libertarianism is on the ideal of a libertarian society. Whether practically achievable or not to its fullest extent, to me the ideal of libertarianism is an inherently good value to strive for. And it is a given that this assumes a healthy society where charity and free will have picked up the slack in areas of social good. To me the libertarian ideal is simply like saying better parents don't beat their children, or we should treat others as we wish to be treated. The point is that you have some ideal to strive for and a system of government to perfect.

And conversely that having a society which is based on the growing use of coercive force against its own people to achieve very narrow partisan political gains is a very unhealthy path to be on.

Correlation is not causation. There are real numbers to look at here, but just saying that the minimum wage was increased and the economy is still growing in these states is a very coarse and misleading way of looking at it. The minimum wage hike affected very few people in most states, so I wouldn't expect it to impact the overall numbers... Raise it to $15 or $20 and then I think it would have more noticeable effects. Or find a number that 20% of the workforce is under and raise it to that wage then it would be a real experiment. Giving a few thousand people $20 or $40 or even $80 more per week might allow those people to afford more things, but it probably won't show up as even a blip in the aggregate economic numbers. I support a higher minimum wage, not because I think it will help very many people or address issues of inequity in society, but because it will help some people.

Capitalism is most efficient when capital is not concentrated into a just a few hands. The principle at the heart of the idea of capitalism being more efficient than other economic systems is the same as the principle of democracy, that decisions made by many people are usually better than decisions made by few people.

Both self described capitalists and those who oppose the concentration of wealth and ascribe the term capitalist to those who concentrate wealth often seem to lose sight of the fact that capitalism is and was supposed to be a form of economic liberalization which was about the equitable distribution of capital. The over concentration of wealth is a failure to maintain a capitalist system rather than the natural result of one. In its original form capitalism and the free market simply mean that people themselves instead of governments get to decide what is of value in the economy.

So for example, while kings and tyrants might not bother themselves with the adequacy of the toilet paper supply when they can employ any number of butt wipers, people willing to spend money on toilet paper and people willing to make toilet paper will usually figure out a way to make it happen. This is a real example from the days of the Soviet Union... ample trees to make paper products, just not enough toilet paper and it just was never a priority high enough for the limited attention of central planners.

And Democracy will always fail when people vote themselves largess from the Treasury. And Monarchies will always fail when the king inevitably decides to have sex with whomever he chooses or gets drunk and decides to invade France... blah blah blah. You can attack any ideals with extreme examples.

Liberty is a good ideal to strive for and that just means seeking a system of government which supports as much freedom as possible. But all sorts of practical things get in the way like taxes and wars and natural disasters and things where it may be easier and more practical to pay for with common taxation. Libertarianism just means that people recognize that it would be better if we could just have a more free and prosperous society which paid for things based on individual free will instead of forced taxation and dictatorship. There is nothing impractical about an ideal... Like basing society on mutual respect and treating others like you would like to be treated... it is an ideal which we are bound to fall short, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good which is worth trying to perfect to the extent that it is practical.

Lincoln also pushed for passage of the 13th amendment abolishing slavery in 1864 and 1865. Yes, it may have taken the pressure of the 1864 presidential campaign to make it a top priority, but regardless of how he got there in the end he really did push to end slavery.

They can apparently selectively throttle connections regardless of what you are paying for so why pay more for unreliable service?

Yes, damn Slashdot and no editing after posting.

Usually companies that don't provide the expected value to customers will eventually fail or lose market share which is not in the interest of shareholders. I think many of the issues in customer value and satisfaction are actually not because executives are trying to provide value to their shareholders, but because executives are trying to provide short term value to themselves.

If executives were rewarded above a ample yet modest salary in restricted stock that they couldn't just turn around and sell and had to hold on to for something like 10, 15 or even 20 years, then I think you would see companies behaving with a much longer view towards sustainable customer satisfaction.

Right now, speaking as a Verizon customer I am eager for Google Fiber or any other alternative that isn't Comcast to come in and displace Verizon and Comcast in my community. Eventually, probably in the ten to twenty year time frame, Verizon and Comcast will begin to fail as companies because of the ill will they are generating unless they turn things around soon.

The idiocy we are seeing now is the result of poor regulation by the FCC, the states, and localities. We have been predicting fragmentation of the Internet because of the failures of our government to properly regulate and now we are seeing it. We are already seeing some Internet content available to customers of one company but not another.

If you are paying for 75/25 or 50/25 and they are throttling it at the borders of their network, then you aren't getting the bandwidth you are paying for... downgrade your service. That $10, $20 or more per month they aren't getting from you because of their throttling practices should get their attention.

I think you are underplaying the role that local governments play in restricting competition and the role of existing regulations as a barrier to entry. It isn't really all that expensive for a community or non-profit to hire a line crew and string some fiber optic cable and buy some equipment. Compared to something like running pipes underground for water and sewer and running a little wire on telephone poles is trivial. Perhaps the solution is to have more state wide regulation of telephone rights of way instead of leaving it up to municipalities or county governments. The patchwork of regulations and local agreements seems very prone to corrupt practices which is restraining competition.

Prove it. At this point with stagnation or even reduction of service from the Internet providers it isn't at all clear that private companies are doing anything other than gauging customers with the exclusive franchises or licenses they are getting from communities in order to be the only one running wires.

All evidence is pointing to it being better for communities to treat wired communications along public ways as a public utility.

Much is made about the private capital that is used to invest in installing all these wires, but it is the capital of customers which is paying back those original investments. I would say the customers who are actually paying for this should be the ones that decide how they want their communications network managed.

And a government's responsibility is to take action against a company which is committing wholesale fraud against its customers by selling them Internet Service which promises bandwidth speeds which they are then purposefully not providing in order to shake down their customers and companies trying to provide services to those customers more money.

A government's responsibility is to ensure that companies that are given government licenses and franchise agreements which restrict competition in certain geographic areas are providing the service that the people of that area want and need at a fair price.

A government's responsibility is to ensure that companies which get too big, hold too much market share and are too horizontally or vertically integrated are broken up so that there can be real competition and a real free market.

Maybe so. I am not a great fan of Lincoln. In many ways he acted like a tyrant and violated the constitution often times flagrantly during the war when dealing with individuals and dissent. And I believe a truly great person and president would have found a way to prevent civil war and bloodshed in the first place, or maybe it was an impossible task.

But the difference is and was that in the end that Lincoln decided to fight for Liberty instead of against it. He decided to make the civil war about freeing the slaves instead of just suppressing dissent in the South (and the North). Sure, maybe this was window dressing on what had been a rudderless and ruthless presidency and maybe he was late to the game, but perhaps the lesson is that while you are still president it is not too late.

Just like it is not too late for Obama to be the president to be remembered for sticking up for the constitution instead of defending those government violations of all our civil rights.

Right now what will Obama be remembered for? Revelations of wholesale violations of civil rights that he defended instead of putting a stop to? It would be like Lincoln fighting the civil war with hundreds of thousands of dead and then appointing a commission to explore ending slavery instead of issuing the emancipation proclamation.

Obama has the power with one executive order to have the same lasting effect as Lincoln did with his emancipation proclamation or with his Gettysburg address. An America without Liberty is an America without purpose.