You have basically said, that you believe your experts over other experts, based upon the fact that, well, you like your experts.
And what has been going on?
Changeable weather. Perhaps you should read more. There has been inexplicable weather since the dawn of mankind.
Experts once believed in racial theories, the benign nature of x-ray exposure, cranial measurements as proof of criminal tendencies.
If an expert can be wrong, then the problem comes down to discernment. If experts disagree, how do you choose which expert to follow?
If experts choose a course of action that is destructive to you, are you obligated to follow it? Are others obligated to impose it upon you? Are you obligated to impose it on others?
Does the fact that you renounce your freedom mean that I should also be enslaved?
The fact is that cable companies enjoy monopoly privileges in any municipality they are located in.
That is stringent.
I am saying that any one should be allowed to run a line, dig under the ground -- with property owner's consent (not the city, since oddly enough, if you need to replace your sidewalk, it is the homeowners affair. Hence, he owns the walk.) Then anyone should have the privilege of doing so.
Since almost everyone would gain -- indeed, the digger could pay a fee to each homeowner for the right and the inconvenience, fostering competition, but also allowing the owner to capture some profits.
The fact is regulation -- whether net neutrality or cable regulation generally is constructed to favor those in power.
It is, after all, why you wish governments to mandate open source. You stand to profit, as an open source strategy consultant.
You should be allowed your self interest, but the moment you wish the government to mandate toward your advantage, then the spirit of democracy and equality before the law is completely usurped.
Regulations are never constructed to aid the powerless -- since those governing have nothing to gain and little to fear from the powerless.
It is all about self-interest. If you are not an atheistic mendicant, then you merely prove my point.
No sorry, it is fascism. It is the usurpation of private property rights by the government without edict. Happened in Germany, Italy, Spain and France.
What you are saying is I, the private individual have a right to speak, but if the Arbiter (the government) decides what I say is "Unfair" then I (the individual) must give over my property or its use to a third party (or the government itself) to correct an imbalance.
Speech isn't governance.
The purpose of speech is to hold in check governance. If the government can claim that any independent operator must provide a government favorable viewpoint, then you have destroyed free speech. It now becomes government talk.
It is very interesting to hear people who suppose they have a radical viewpoint, staunchly support what can only be termed Fascist economics and a sort of 1984 doublespeak. Although, fascism is a very radical ideology. So I guess no conflict there.
And you are quite right, allowing individuals their freedoms is not a good way to govern. It is merely a preferable way -- for those who are governed -- to live.
I find it hard so see how railing against stringently regulated industries, such as broadcast TV (either Cable or Network) proves that lassez-faire capitalism is not the answer.
Please tell me one, just one, media empire that does not benefit from government legislation and government regulation.
Or you can tell me how you wish the government would regulate in your favor and for your benefit.
Either way, it is the same answer. Pigs at the trough. You are just looking over the railing at the other pigs, and thinking how disgusting they are. Or perhaps, someone snuck in a mirror and you just haven't figured it out yet.
Don't worry, the Invisible Hand(TM) will reach down from Heaven and drop off a brand new ISP that doesn't interfere with your connection. Any minute now.
Government spends because you demand the services they provide. If you are unhappy with those services please list those services that you personally will be happy to do without. And while you are contemplating which government agencies you can live without please consider the downside to life without said agency. For example, no FDA and drug companies can do whatever they want with the drugs your aging parents take. Consider the company behind the Extenze ads. Now think of them as the industry model.
Because I demand it. Wow. Do you think in the absence of an FDA that people would start taking drugs that would kill them. (I don't know Jebediah, mah' ma keeled near completely over when she downed that bottle of AZT the chiropracter prescribed for her corns.). or that there wouldn't be private agencies that would step up and do drug analysis, and since they had an economic incentive to maximize the cost/benefit of drugs, that this would not be done better, and in a much more cost effective way.
Let's do a little mind experiment. Perhaps we can have a government agency that approves code -- after all, bad code can endanger lives, and almost any line of code anywhere can be a source of danger -- and we can all submit our code to the government before it is production ready.
Do you think such a system would improve the quality of code?
One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis