Thursday, November 17, 2011

A Very Damn Good Question from Judge Napolitano

He tweets:

Why are liberals who want the government to regulate their health care upset that the government wants to regulate their internet?


  1. The only problem with exposing this inconsistency in left-ist logic is that they might actually come to the conclusion that elitists should in fact regulate the internet...

  2. The answer is simple. It's about money. In the case of health care, they, or those they care about are given something for free. With web censorship they don't get anything.

  3. Obamacare will not 'regulate' anybody's health care. Obamacare would just pay for it -- as Medicare and private health plans do now.

    'Regulating' the internet (as Judge Napolitano describes it) means keeping your internet provider from limiting the content you can access.

    There is a world of difference.

  4. What is he referring to? Liberals are generally for "net-neutrality" which IS government regulation of the internet.

  5. Hey Anon.@ 3:24 PM, try getting a clue before posting your ignorant drivel on this website. Obamacare most certainly is a blanket national regulatory scheme for health insurance.

    It establishes a system of regional government regulated health insurance "exchanges" where only government regulated insurance products can be sold and only a prices regulated by government. It also requires the forced participation of everyone. If you don't realize that the aforementioned scheme is regulatory in nature then your just brain dead.

  6. Can't compare apples and oranges, as Cain would put it.

  7. I'll answer this: because they have absolutely no set of principles of which to draw from. Don't get me wrong, Republicans are just as bad as Democrats when it comes to being inconsistent. Once again, this comes down to the lack of principles.

    That is one of the things that attracted me to libertarianism-- the principles are logically consistent-- when it comes to economic or political matters there is no ambiguity as to where we stand on. Sure, there may be some disagreement on the specifics, but typically there is an agreement on the general issue when the principles of non-aggression and private property are applied correctly.

    It's funny, some guys at my work have come to calling me "Mr. Spock" or "Joe Facts". I am certainly not super-intelligent and I absolutely don't know every fact, I just apply libertarian principles to discussions regarding political economy. There is no telling how many people I have converted to a libertarian way of thinking without their knowledge.

  8. One thing that I think others need to pay attention to when it comes to Net Neutrality, is that the large behemoth ISPs that control access to content as well as pipes only exist due to .gov intervention and granting of monopoly rights of access in the first place. Its easy for Comcast to claim "no regulation" "free market" now that massive regulation and lack of a free market has allowed them access into everyone's home, and kept the competition out. I am of the opinion that if you do not want net neutrality legislation, then you should simultaneously force the forfeit and sale of all infrastructure that was paid for and/or granted by government fiat to phone and cable companies. Then we will have an even playing field to start from and companies can control access to content as they desire.

  9. Anon 3:24,

    You have the issue entirely confused and departed from its reality. Any time a central power center such as government applies statutes that interfere, intercede or intervene in market exchanges or market processes, that statute is regulatory in nature.

    The fact that these market products (internet and health care) differ with regard to their goods quality and other subjective aspects is entirely irrelevant. Both are services provided by the market, are they not?

  10. The internet is basically a mass of data streams. The information streaming is a private exchange between source and receiver.

    ISP's should not be able to legally know what content is being transmitted in any private exchange. The ISP would have to decode the messages which is basically spying.

    All the ISP needs to be concerned with for the service of providing internet bandwidth is the amount of data transmitted. For the ISP to decode the content being transmitted is a violation of the 4th amendment even though they own the facilities,

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..."

    Data streams are an 'effect' and internet users have a rightful expectation that their digital exchanges are kept private. And that "... no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause." Therefore no data can be legally intercepted without a warrant based on probable cause.

    Just because the data can be deciphered by a third party doesn't mean that either the ISP or gov't are either legally or morally right in doing so.

  11. Liberals don't think that deeply..which is why they are Liberals.

    A Liberal is a bratty little parasite that thinks of government as their kinder and gentler mommy-n-daddy...Their biological parents were strict saying things like earn your own money and clean your room. These little brats go off on mommy-n-daddy government only when they want something from them in return.

  12. @Anon 6:41

    Despite your effect to sound brilliant, you're very wrong. I'll save a lengthy critique of your inane comments by reminding you, and everyone else reading this, that the Constitution you are citing only applies to the Government. The Constitution does not apply to the people (or corporations for that matter).

    So all your blather about the 4th amendment is irrelevant. If you want to come in my house and I make it a condition of entry to search your stuff, I can do that and there's not a thing you can do about it if you want to come inside.

    Regarding the article, the Judge makes a good point as usual.

  13. As long as we are all free to install our own ISP's and telephone lines, including digging up the roads, and to organise our own currency to pay for things (potatoes, Euros, Liras etc or a local currency we decide and print, then I am all for freedom of the internet.

    Same with medicine. The regulation is restrictive. Patent laws and restrictions on who can produce and distribute government controlle drugs and equipment must be trashed.

    But the government can't just stay out of part of it.