Obama Presidency Discussion Thread

[Omnis]

Quite right, there is a time and place for some level of oversight or protection, and this is it. When TimeWarner is already tinkering with controlled internet plans and Comcast is already throttling their services (not like they ever deliver the proper speed anyway...), that's when something has to be done.

Like it or not, within their respective areas, they already have a monopoly on phone, cable and internet services. That is not a free market.

So if we're at point B and want to get back to point A, why support something that takes us closer to point C?

 

[YSSMAN]

For someone who at least appears to be a fairly strong Libertarian, I'm surprised that you would leave the decision to what content you can and cannot receive in your home to a faceless corporation. That, if anything, is a direct violation of your freedoms that you and I hold so dear. When the law has been net neutrality for so long, why let the major corporations come in and change it now? Oh, right, because they have the money and control the market, average Americans be damned.

Thank God most of Congress is beginning to support Net Neutrality with a growing sense of bi-partisanship.

 

[Sage]

For someone who at least appears to be a fairly strong Libertarian, I'm surprised that you would leave the decision to what content you can and cannot receive in your home to a faceless corporation.

Huh? Brad, not to be overly rude, but do you realize that this sentence shows you don’t know what Libertarianism is at all? Quite possibly the most basic tenant of Libertarianism is governmental negative liberty. I mean, what you just wrote would be the equivalent of me saying “For someone who at least appears to be a Green Party member, I’m surprised that you support environmentalism.”

 

[FoolKiller]

Like it or not, within their respective areas, they already have a monopoly on phone, cable and internet services. That is not a free market.

Want to take a guess at who decides to allow that monopoly? It wasn't the corporations. In fact, it is also the same people that have to approve all rate increases by those monopolies.

Hint: It begins with Govern.

When the law has been net neutrality for so long,

That hasn't been the law, if it were they wouldn't be writing a law. It has just worked that way by the corporations themselves.



Can someone explain to me how the US government is supposed to govern an international network?

And if a content provider says that they do not want you to use their services to download, say, pornography what is wrong with that? It is their service that you choose to lease access to.

Now, anyone who honestly believes that corporations will make your online life hell has no understanding of the current telecom market. You now have multiple opportunities to achieve net access. Your phone company, your cable company, and in a growing number of cities, other cable/phone companies. Even satellite companies (although their service is lacking from my experience). The government approved monopolies have been rolled back. I can now choose multiple broadband ISPs.

So, we now have competition in the market and you think your current ISP will be dumb enough to make your online experience undesirable? If Net Neutrality passes it won't be helping you, it will just give the government more power (gee, wonder why politicians like it) create more government spending that is more wasteful than anything, and create whole new departments in the government for politicians to appoint their friend's to.

You know, I find it funny that currently if the government gets a warrant to get someone's online activity for a criminal case everyone gets all up in arms and angry at the ISP, but lay out a plan that will give the government the ability to just look whenever and those same people jump on board like they just introduced perpetual energy.

Do you really think government control over the Internet will be a good thing?

 

[Tornado]

When the law has been net neutrality for so long, why let the major corporations come in and change it now?.

Actually, there hasn't been any law surrounding coporate or government control of the internet. Ever. That is why these privacy cases involving Google and such are such a big deal. There are no real laws governing the Internet, so people don't really know what is legal and what isn't.

 

[YSSMAN]

Huh? Brad, not to be overly rude, but do you realize that this sentence shows you don’t know what Libertarianism is at all? Quite possibly the most basic tenant of Libertarianism is governmental negative liberty. I mean, what you just wrote would be the equivalent of me saying “For someone who at least appears to be a Green Party member, I’m surprised that you support environmentalism.”

Despite the fact that Libertarians prefer to have a lack of anything close to government oversight, I believe it to be logical for them to be upset when issues such as this begin to infringe on personal rights. Perhaps my understanding is a bit skewed, I will not deny that. Upon further reading, it seems clear that many of us Political Science types have an extremely narrow view of Libertarianism in general.

====

RE: Fool Killer

The simple problem is that in most markets (not all, but most non-urban), you do not have a choice whatsoever when it comes to cable, phone or internet services. Sure, Comcast is offering things these days against AT&T, but in most markets across the country, you're left to two different choices. When AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner and Verizon (the major internet, cable and telephone providers) are all gunning to only give "preferred" internet status' to those who can afford it, where is the benefit for not just the consumer, but for business as well?

What we are fighting to protect in the neutral way in which we can access whatever we like, whenever we like. What is suggested by these corporations specifically eliminates the possibility of competition by taxing them for higher "guaranteed" speeds at higher prices, seemingly locking up the market to these few telecom companies. Not to mention the idea that to a great extent, if these companies get their way, their own (non-governmental) regulation of the internet will kick in. Do you trust any of those companies any more than our government? I know I don't...

What it comes down to (at least for me) is this; I feel like my rights are going to be infringed upon if Net Neutrality is not maintained. I do not want corporations deciding who gets "speedy" access and who does not, or for that matter, who gets access at all. It goes against my rights as an American, my right to free speech, to do what I please in my home as long as I do not violate laws... I won't have it.

No, extra government regulation by the FCC upon telecom companies isn't always the right or best answer, but in this instance, it is the best answer we have, and I thank my lucky stars that Obama is already behind it.

======

Actually, there hasn't been any law surrounding coporate or government control of the internet. Ever. That is why these privacy cases involving Google and such are such a big deal. There are no real laws governing the Internet, so people don't really know what is legal and what isn't.

Quite right. Post-2005, the FCC has played a much larger role in the governing of the internet, and consequently the major telecom companies are lobbying their way into making legislation to drastically change the way information is shared. When it has been the accepted norm to keep telephone and internet services neutral for so long, and when so many millions of Americans depend on it to be so, that's when I become increasingly frustrated.

It is the neutrality of the internet that has allowed it to grow, prosper, and be one of the most "free" places anywhere in the world. To see that end would be a very sad day in the United States indeed.

====

What is also interesting is who is fighting (corporate wise) on the issue:

Anti-Neutrality:
AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, TimeWarner

Pro-Neutrality:
Amazon, EBay, Google, Microsoft, Intel, Skype, Yahoo (odd, they provide AT&T's internet services...)

 

[Tornado]

It is the neutrality of the internet that has allowed it to grow, prosper, and be one of the most "free" places anywhere in the world. To see that end would be a very sad day in the United States indeed.

The problem is that neither option is the same as what we had (which was no regulation from either corporations or government), so it will end to a certain extent regardless.

 

[YSSMAN]

The proposal for government involvement is only to prevent telecoms from placing their own limits of usage upon the internet, not to control anything else. Certainly the government has already had its hand in the internet "pot" particularly with some of the newer legal issues that have been raised as of late, but this is more or less the government stepping in to protect the "freedom" of the internet.

 

[FoolKiller]

RE: Fool Killer

The simple problem is that in most markets (not all, but most non-urban), you do not have a choice whatsoever when it comes to cable, phone or internet services. Sure, Comcast is offering things these days against AT&T, but in most markets across the country, you're left to two different choices. When AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner and Verizon (the major internet, cable and telephone providers) are all gunning to only give "preferred" internet status' to those who can afford it, where is the benefit for not just the consumer, but for business as well?

You are correct, rural areas are behind on the choices, because they deregulated the approved monopolies only a few years back. You are discussing a problem created by the government, not the companies.

It is getting better and will over time. The rural town I grew up in, Spencer County, KY, has just had AT&T move in providing a new alternative to the very limited cable and phone systems we had before. ION many areas of Kentucky Windstream is making a move. It will of course take time, but it is happening, finally.

What we are fighting to protect in the neutral way in which we can access whatever we like, whenever we like. What is suggested by these corporations specifically eliminates the possibility of competition by taxing them for higher "guaranteed" speeds at higher prices, seemingly locking up the market to these few telecom companies. Not to mention the idea that to a great extent, if these companies get their way, their own (non-governmental) regulation of the internet will kick in. Do you trust any of those companies any more than our government? I know I don't...

Guaranteed speeds at higher prices....you mean, a tiered system? You are already doing that. You get higher speeds if you pay higher prices. Anytime the government steps in you get the same service no matter what. You had better hope that the government doesn't decide that 1mbs is what we all need.

As for trusting governments or companies? The best interest for a company has to be my best interest, because running off customers is bad for companies. Companies understand that I can switch companies with a phone call. The government understands that I can't switch governments as easily. Sure, we can vote new government officials in, but how often do new ones affect real change?

No, extra government regulation by the FCC upon telecom companies isn't always the right or best answer, but in this instance, it is the best answer we have, and I thank my lucky stars that Obama is already behind it.

That is funny considering it was FCC deregulation that has led to the breakdown of the monopolies and the radio and television industry to flourish (not always in the best way, but it has grown). But now you want them to regulate again?

Quite right. Post-2005, the FCC has played a much larger role in the governing of the internet, and consequently the major telecom companies are lobbying their way into making legislation to drastically change the way information is shared. When it has been the accepted norm to keep telephone and internet services neutral for so long, and when so many millions of Americans depend on it to be so, that's when I become increasingly frustrated.

I have to ask, just what do you expect these companies to do to you in such a bad way that you want to hand it over to an entity that has proven, without fail, that they are inept and wasteful?

It is the neutrality of the internet that has allowed it to grow, prosper, and be one of the most "free" places anywhere in the world. To see that end would be a very sad day in the United States indeed.

So, you want the government to take control instead? Because usually growth and prospering is counter to what happens when government gets its hands on things.

 

[Danoff]

On net neutrality:

http://www.cato.org/dailypodcast/podcast-archive.php?podcast_id=213

I tend to agree with his position, except that I think in that absence of strong justification, the government should not be involved. So unless it's absolutely clear that we need government regulation here (which it is not), the government needs to steer clear. The start of government regulation in this area is a slippery slope I don't want to get onto if I don't have to.

 

[Omnis]

Also, I will add that internet access is not a right. Companies choosing to charge certain rates for certain services is not infringing on your rights. If you are unhappy with a service or price, you switch providers or abstain from paying for it. I mean come on, Brad, you should know how markets work. I mean no offense, but what's with this huge swing of your politics? Is it because of your political science class? Maybe some "political science types" have a narrow view of libertarianism because they focus on politics and government and how they can best interfere with everything. Kidding, but, FK went over everything I would've said, so let's hear what you have to say.

 

[Solid Fro]

Question: At what point does a baby get Human rights?

Obama:



Uh, uh, uh, uh, um, um, um, but, but, um... ... ... ... I don't get paid enough to think that hard.

McCain:



At least McCain gave an answer.

 

[Danoff]

At least McCain gave an answer.

Yea, one that ignores the entire discussion. For example, in that video McCain just laid out a position that puts adult woman and fetus's rights in conflict. Does he address that? No.

Sorry, no, he doesn't get any credit for pandering.

BTW - I don't even like the question. It should be "do fetuses have rights, and if so what are they?", not "at what point does a baby have human rights?". The term "baby" assumes the answer.

 

[Solid Fro]

He doesn't address it because it wasn't the question.

 

[Danoff]

He doesn't address it because it wasn't the question.

He doesn't address it because it doesn't make for a good sound bite. "I think someone should have rights" sounds a lot better than "I think someone's rights should be trampled".

 

[Solid Fro]

Is that why Obama didn't answer the question?

I agree with McCain's answer of protecting unborn Humans (and I would add while protecting the woman's health and safety) more than Obama's non-answer of uh, uh, uh.

 

[Omnis]

Actually, the question really boils down to where personhood begins. There is no doubt that new life begins at conception, but the question is when does that life come under the rule of law. McCain was so afraid of the Christian right that he didn't even show up to the Values Voters debate.

 

[Danoff]

protecting unborn Humans (and I would add while protecting the woman's health and safety)

...and rights. What you advocate is not possible. Someone's safety/rights are going to be trampled. The only question is whether it's the mother's or the fetus/embryo's. That is the fundamental problem about this debate that you and McCain are ignoring. And don't talk to me about Obama's answer - I'm not going to defend him in the slightest.

 

[YSSMAN]

Kidding, but, FK went over everything I would've said, so let's hear what you have to say.

Don't worry about it, its all part of the fun. Yes, I have noticed a change in my political swing, but I assume part of it is getting older and increasingly upset with what I view to be illogical politics. I've predicted a swing to the center for a while, but my increasingly left leanings on some things, I assume, is based more on personal circumstances than anything.

To answer FK (and you)...

You are discussing a problem created by the government, not the companies.

Very true! That should not signify that I am content with the issue at all, and I do wish that the Goverment would again address the issue of monopolies in the telecom industry. AT&T isn't quite as large as it used to be, but I'll be damned if it doesn't control most of the phones here in Michigan. The good news is that those pesky cell phone companies are rubbing them the wrong way (Sprint's WiMax system comes to mind), but it still hasn't changed their direction on the issue.

Guaranteed speeds at higher prices....you mean, a tiered system? You are already doing that. You get higher speeds if you pay higher prices.

This isn't for users specifically, this is a suggested charge to (for example) Amazon.com to ensure a speedy service to customers who wish to access their website via Comcast, et all. Or, for that matter, the ability to nearly choke-off 'X' Website for not buying in at all. That is where the fear of limiting upstarts and e-commerce becomes an issue.

As for trusting governments or companies? The best interest for a company has to be my best interest, because running off customers is bad for companies. Companies understand that I can switch companies with a phone call.

Logically in the free market there will always be some kind of upstart that would attempt to play by a different game, that's where these new cell phone operated systems come in, but for people tethered to a land line or cable, they're being royally screwed. As in many areas where there are only two options (here in Grand Rapids, its AT&T or Comcast), you just end up getting the short stick either way.

BTW: Have you tried switching off AT&T? (lol)

I understand the paradox with both the telecoms and government, which is all part of the fun.

I have to ask, just what do you expect these companies to do to you in such a bad way that you want to hand it over to an entity that has proven, without fail, that they are inept and wasteful?

What it comes down to is similar to the hypothetical issue I posted earlier. When content I want to access is purposely slowed or eliminated because they do not wish to pay the extra fees charged by the various ISPs, it infringes on what I'm doing in my free time... For that matter, it also infringes on the economic rights of small, internet-based companies who could be pushed out altogether by the charges.

It is in fact hypothetical to some extent, but when their rhetoric suggests it, that's when I want the government to protect my rights as an internet user.

I have to ask, just what do you expect these companies to do to you in such a bad way that you want to hand it over to an entity that has proven, without fail, that they are inept and wasteful?

I think the word "regulate" leads down a different path than what has been suggested by the legislation. You can read one of the pieces of legislation (HR5353) here.

The main deal:

`It is the policy of the United States--

`(1) to maintain the freedom to use for lawful purposes broadband telecommunications networks, including the Internet, without unreasonable interference from or discrimination by network operators, as has been the policy and history of the Internet and the basis of user expectations since its inception;

`(2) to ensure that the Internet remains a vital force in the United States economy, thereby enabling the Nation to preserve its global leadership in online commerce and technological innovation;

`(3) to preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of broadband networks that enable consumers to reach, and service providers to offer, lawful content, applications, and services of their choosing, using their selection of devices, as long as such devices do not harm the network; and

`(4) to safeguard the open marketplace of ideas on the Internet by adopting and enforcing baseline protections to guard against unreasonable discriminatory favoritism for, or degradation of, content by network operators based upon its source, ownership, or destination on the Internet.'.

In my opinion it is section four that is the key here.

BTW: This is a good (and important debate), I enjoy discussing it with all of you.

=====

RE: Obama and the Abortion Question...

It didn't shock me or disappoint me. If I was in a crowd of thousands of pro-life folks and had to answer like that, I'd likely do the same thing.

-----

More from the faith forum...



1) $5 Million is "rich," eh? Joking or not, um, its odd...

2) "Spending is out of control," need I remind you Senator that it was your party that did that for the past eight years?

3) "Tax cuts for the middle-class." Right. If by "middle-class" you mean $250K+ (har har)

====



I'd say Obama's response is a bit more "realistic" in nature, but hes definitely batting a different ball game than McCain on this issue.

 

[Danoff]

it infringes on what I'm doing in my free time... For that matter, it also infringes on the economic rights of small, internet-based companies who could be pushed out altogether by the charges.

It is in fact hypothetical to some extent, but when their rhetoric suggests it, that's when I want the government to protect my rights as an internet user.

 

[YSSMAN]

We could discuss the differences between a "right" and a "privilege" at length, but when we guarantee certain freedoms to the people and to business (or at least rhetorically support it), should we not back them up? Perhaps I just think myself and other Americans are entitled to more rights than we deserve...

 

[Solid Fro]

...and rights. What you advocate is not possible. Someone's safety/rights are going to be trampled. The only question is whether it's the mother's or the fetus/embryo's. That is the fundamental problem about this debate that you and McCain are ignoring. And don't talk to me about Obama's answer - I'm not going to defend him in the slightest.

I don't think a woman has the right to kill her own baby. A woman needs to make better decisions before she spreads her legs. If giving birth is going to kill the mother, of course have the abortion. Other than that, I don't see a reason for aborting the child.

I'll say it again... at least McCain had an answer, believed in something.

 

[Omnis]

We could discuss the differences between a "right" and a "privilege" at length, but when we guarantee certain freedoms to the people and to business (or at least rhetorically support it), should we not back them up? Perhaps I just think myself and other Americans are entitled to more rights than we deserve...

 

[Danoff]

We could discuss the differences between a "right" and a "privilege" at length, but when we guarantee certain freedoms to the people and to business (or at least rhetorically support it), should we not back them up? Perhaps I just think myself and other Americans are entitled to more rights than we deserve...

Fundamentally, you cannot have a right to have something provided to you and still live in a free society. In America, you should get access to other people's labor by voluntary methods - not via coercion. That means you absolutely cannot have a right to any sort of internet access or web content. Because if you do, that content has to be provided to you by someone.

You do not have a right to force an ISP to provide you with any kind of service whatsoever. They own their business, can offer whatever packages they choose, and can make deals/contracts with whomever they choose. For you to take the position that you can usurp their freedom because you want access to youtube is beyond arrogant and selfish - it's immoral.

I see no reason that an ISP's freedom of contract should be usurped. I see no reason that an ISP's freedom to offer whatever services they choose should be usurped. And I see a free market ready to carry your desires in internet content directly to the people who would provide it to you.

At home right now I have no less than 7 options when it comes to internet services.

1) None
2) Dialup
3) Cable Modem
4) DSL
5) Another DSL Company
6) Another DSL Company
7) Satellite
8) Probably ISDN

I have 6 options when it comes to television

1) None
2) Over-the-air
3) Cable
4) Another Cable company
5) Satellite
6) Internet

These options are in spite of a government-enforced monopoly on phone carriers (and probably cable carriers). Wherever the free market is present, you have options. And one thing that people do not do well is give up services they currently have.

I don't think a woman has the right to kill her own baby.

Me neither. But we're not talking about babies here, we're talking about fetuses and embryos. I think a woman inalienable has rights over her body.

A woman needs to make better decisions before she spreads her legs.

Why? That's what abortion is for. (Hint: You cannot use the conclusion from your argument to support it)

I'll say it again... at least McCain had an answer, believed in something.

I'd rather he said "I don't know" than what he did say.

 

[Duke]

For someone who at least appears to be a fairly strong Libertarian, I'm surprised that you would leave the decision to what content you can and cannot receive in your home to a faceless corporation.

How are we doing that at all? Follow me here:

1) My ISP decides to filter my Google results, block competitors' sites, etc.

2) I terminate their services and get a new ISP.

I've got at least three high-speed options, and at least one of them is going to be smart enough to take everybody else's customers by providing unfiltered net access.

 

[Joey D]

About the non-answer, all politicians do it. They don't want to say anything that will be used against them later, if you accuse Obama of it then you have to accuse everyone else of doing the same thing.

About abortion, I don't believe the government should tell women what they can do. If the women morally objects to it then so be it. Most women I've talked to that have been in that situation really have no other choice in the matter. It was either bring up the child in a home with no money to buy things it needs or have an abortion, either way would have put the mother into severe depression.

 

[Danoff]

About abortion, I don't believe the government should tell women what they can do.

The government can and should tell women to observe the rights of others. The question is not whether they can be "told what to do", the question is whether the fetus has rights.

Most women I've talked to that have been in that situation really have no other choice in the matter.

Their options and what they think of them are really not at issue here. I don't care what sort of financial situation the woman is in. I don't care what level of education she has, whether her husband will leave her, or if her parents will disapprove - none of that impacts whether or not the fetus has rights, so none of it is useful in this discussion.

It was either bring up the child in a home with no money to buy things it needs or have an abortion

...or give it up for adoption, or provide for it, or think ahead before getting pregnant...

either way would have put the mother into severe depression.

She does not have a right to not be depressed, and that non-existent right to not be depressed certainly does not trump anyone else's right to life. The only question here is whether she has a right to her body and/or the fetus's rights trump her rights to her body.


Edit: I hate to lay into you over this because we agree on the outcome. But I feel that these arguments are only going to confuse the discussion and give others the false impression of a defensible position. I think that, especially when discussing abortion, the issues need to be crystal clear.

 

[Joey D]

I'm not a women nor have I ever been in the situation so I don't really know, I'm going on what I've been told by those who have been in that situation.

I still firmly believe abortion is totally up to the women, if they feel like they can deal with the affects then it's their decision. As far as fetus having rights, I don't know, I would say that should be left up to the individual as well since everyone has a different view on when life begins.

 

[Danoff]

if they feel like they can deal with the affects then it's their decision.

Not if the fetus has rights it isn't.

As far as fetus having rights, I don't know, I would say that should be left up to the individual as well since everyone has a different view on when life begins.

It's not really something that can be left up to the individual, because the purpose of rights is to enable state protection. If they have rights, the state must intervene, if not, the state should not intervene. The concept of allowing the set of rights to be subjective defeats the entire purpose of rights to begin with.

 

[Omnis]

This nice little discussion we're having here is certainly a good example of why abortion issues should be decided as locally as possible.

But, on the other hand, the question of where personhood begins would have to be universal.