If the EU position were a principled one, they would not be sending the same drugs to Iran. In fact, the policy remains popular among citizens in Europe.
Moreover, the smoke screen about 'low income program' and 'opt-in' is irrelevant. The mother was obviously able to send the kid in with a decent lunch ( better than I usually took to school ), and at no time was she asked to 'opt-in' on this program, the school had to. The mother repeatedly asked the school not to intervene. Why was it necessary to overrule her?
It's a DAY CARE program. All of the rest is state meddling. Sure it's subsidized, the mom would be paying for it with her tax dollars even if her kids wasn't enrolled. She was lucky enough to get access to cheap day care, that doesn't mean she should expect the government to rummage through the lunch and materials prepared. Hell, if the school said they were looking for drugs
The fundamental line from the Carolina Journal story: "There are no clear restrictions about what additional items - like potato chips - can be included in preschoolers' lunch boxes." Where the hell does the government come off 'prohibiting' what a parent sends in. If Mom thinks a 'coke and a twinkie' is okay, that's her damned business. I would disagree, but it's supposed to be a free country not a nanny state.
Any time you don't want AT&T or Comcast involved in your life, drop them. You don't have that choice at all when it comes to federal regulation.
A free market allows private entities enter into any consensual agreement between parties to accomplish their goals. If they need to run cable across someone's property, they arrange, or lease, access. If they don't have the infrastructure, they lease resources from another party. ( See 'roaming cell service' )
What prevents a free market for broadband in the fullest sense is government regulation preventing carriers from running cable the last mile or under the sidewalk, etc. If a carrier can lease access from the city to put cables under the sidewalk, that's still the free market at work.
I've never known anyone who lived within ten miles of a POP unable to choose their internet provider. Since most of the country lives in cities or their suburbs rather than out in the country, I doubt your situation is common. My mom lives in a very rural area of Oregon, she has at least three choices for broadband.
Once the government can tell service providers how to operate their private property, the pipes, and how to manage traffic flows in order to protect consumers, we will have accepted the premise that allows the government to restrict or block traffic to destinations that the government considers 'dangerous' to consumers.
Imagine a federal black list of websites and domains. Imagine the No Labels crowd have the power to block web traffic to MSNBC and FNC. Imagine the government requiring all service providers to block traffic to known wikileaks sites. The government doesn't need to regulate the content anymore if it can block the destination. It won't happen today, but invariably regulation grows increasingly restrictive once in place.
The FCC has just arrogated itself the authority to create a Great Firewall of America, and THAT is what concerns net neutrality opponents.
I have only one cable provider in my area, and Verizon gave up expanding FIOS in my state, but I have two sat companies who are aggressively asking for my business, both partnering with the telco.
It's not that competition has gone away, it just doesn't look like it did fifteen years ago. That's normal.
I'm surprised that people trust the government "a series of tubes" to regulate something as complicated as the internet after they make obvious, repeatedly, they don't know what they're doing. The latest example? The FCC said they would have imposed stricter regulations, but they recognized Android was 'open'...
A modem is a baudy house.