Presidential Waivers and other Royal decrees

Something I don't see being taken much notice of, regarding the Obama Administration's granting of waivers to 200... 700 businesses, and now 4 states... is the blatant wielding of unrestrained power which it represents.

"The Obama administration said Wednesday that it had granted broad waivers to four states allowing health insurance companies to continue offering less generous benefits than they would otherwise be required to provide this year under the new federal health care law."

I'm sorry to tell my conservative friends that granting these waivers is not a sign of weakness on the part of the administration, far from it. I'm also sorry to tell my leftie friends that It is not a sign of benevolence on the part of the administration, who is after all, 'just trying to look out for their health'. This is a demonstration that those who the Obama administration favors will be given extra-legal preferences, and that those who it doesn't favor - will have to deal with 'the law' as it's written. More than anything else, this is a 'step into my parlor, said the spider to the fly' moment for those who may have half heartedly supported the administration, and even more so to those who have been granted the waivers.

"...Mr. Larsen, who is director of the federal Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight(http://www.hhs.gov/cciio/). It was to protect such coverage that the administration granted the waivers, he said.

To qualify for a waiver, a state, an employer or an insurer must show that compliance with the federal requirement would cause “a significant increase in premiums or a decrease in access to benefits.”

The issue which these folks who are benefiting from Obama's waivers should be most focused upon, and if they aren't yet I'm sure the administration will soon be raising their consciousnesses to it, is that now that they are under the administrations protection, if they don't toe the line, they can lose it.

This is a textbook example (well... it would be if textbooks were actually concerned with accuracy and truth) of a nation whose laws are based upon the whims of powerful men, and an absolute repudiation of "A nation of laws" which motivated the founding of our Republic. What John Adams wrote in his "Thoughts on Government" about how Americans felt when talking to Englishmen way back then, applies to how most of us feel when talking with leftists here today,

"A man must be indifferent to the sneers of modern Englishmen, to mention in their company the names of Sidney, Harrington, Locke, Milton, Nedham, Neville, Burnet, and Hoadly. No small fortitude is necessary to confess that one has read them. The wretched condition of this country, however, for ten or fifteen years past, has frequently reminded me of their principles and reasonings. They will convince any candid mind, that there is no good government but what is republican. That the only valuable part of the British constitution is so; because the very definition of a republic is “an empire of laws, and not of men.” That, as a republic is the best of governments, so that particular arrangement of the powers of society, or, in other words, that form of government which is best contrived to secure an impartial and exact execution of the laws, is the best of republics."

This situation is not isolated to 'trying to make health care work', it is the basic motivating policy of regulatory law (BTW, if you haven't read any of those names he mentioned, you might want to, your nation was founded, in part, upon their ideas). Play ball, get favored status, continue playing ball to keep your favored status. Don't play ball, and you will be crushed. The EPA, an old hand at this sort of thing, is well on into the practice with it's greenhouse regulations.

As National Review points out, back in 2009, Obama awarded GE $24.9 million in stimulus funds, and “roughly $20 billion more slated for health care record modernization of the kind that GE specializes in — ‘with a direct request to do so from GE’s CEO Jeffrey Immelt.’” Then last month, the President appointed Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of General Electric, to his Head Council of Competitiveness and Jobs.
This all holds incredibly consistent with Immelt’s notion that for businesses to be successful it must work “in concert” with the government. However, it’s also known as “rent seeking” and is a glaring example of Big Government interfering with Big Business. Which is a problem.

These aren't 'failings' or 'slip-ups', these are examples of the entire purpose and point of regulatory law.

Get used to it. Practice bowing and grovelling.

Or work to repeal, reduce and restore the Constitution and the Rule of Law.
(Cross posted at 24th State)

Net Neutrality - Patriotic Anti-Americanism

Unbalancing Act

Lunar eclipse over the Washington Monument

For the last one hundred years, at bare minimum, we have been getting more and more comfortable with giving the state the power to make our lives cozy - giving it the power and responsibility (here, you take it) to make our world a very protected, safe place. We've been intent on giving those who are confident that they know better, the power to determine, define, and oh so gently pre-approve all of our decisions, filtering them down to only those that have been investigated and declared to be 'safe enough' for us... in regards to just about everything,

'Safe enough' for us to eat...
'Safe enough' for us to bank...
'Safe enough' for us to vote for...
'Safe enough' for us to drink...
'Safe enough' for us to do business with...
'Safe enough' for us to breathe...
'Safe enough' for us to watch, listen, read...

So much so, that we are almost to the point now where we consider anything that has not been investigated, and thoroughly regulated, to be 'uncertain', unsafe and quite possibly dangerous and un-American to leave it so - even to the point of seeking to make the Internet 'safe' with Net Neutrality's attempting to make the Internet equally accessible, fast and fair to all.

Really?

Of course it won't do anything of the sort, it will in fact slow it down, bar access to many, and result in rising rates and restricted use - not to mention severly jeopardizing what Rights we've left. This isn't simple speculation, there's a very visible track record of past governmental efforts to accomplish similar ends (see Parts1,2,3) - but that is the way it's being sold, because the salesmen of statism know their customers, they know what sells, and being the government, they don't have to worry about deceptive advertising laws, they can just claim: "Govt will make life easier for you!", and have no fear of consequences (other than the occasional November...)

But the fact that Net Neutrality won't work, is the least important fact of all, and more than just a little beside the point. The actual point is that your Rights are being sold out from under you for the price (never to be paid) of less expensive movies on NetFlix. On this, the darkest day of the year, it seems most appropriate to ask, would you sell your soul for thirty pieces of silver? Well you are being asked to sell what is the very soul of being an American, your Individual Right to make your own choices, for the pittance of lower internet fees.

The lunar eclipse last night was nothing in comparison to the eclipse of the American Soul preparing to be enacted in Washington D.C. today. For those who complain

"We're not talking about destroying 'rights' we're just talking about preventing fat cats from forcing us to pay more than we want to!"

I'll answer, no, you're talking about the government, that body charged with upholding the Rights of all Americans before impartial, blindfolded, Justice, singling out an easily vilified group 'fat cats' and telling them that they do not have the Right to make their own choices, they do not have the right to choose what price to set for their services, they do not have the right to say what they choose to say. That is what you are urging, not even congress, but an agency, to put into practice over, and in place of, your Rights.

There is no such thing as Rights which apply to some people and not to all people, and those who wish to sweep them out of their way know this very well. If you can do away with protecting the rights of some people which most people don't like, then you have already done away with the idea of all people being born with equal rights, you've converted Rights, into favors, to be bestowed as seems most politically useful to do - aka: Political Correctness.

Can I Just Say It?
I could dance around it, but I'd rather not,

Anti-Free Market + Anti-Constitution + Anti-Property Rights + Anti-Free Speech = Anti-American

There is no Liberty in this, only residual comforts and fleeting pleasures purchased at the price of our actual individual rights and ability to pursue happiness. The effort to make gov't determine what you will be allowed to make choices about, well... fewer things could be more anti-American than that; yet they are done with all the patriotic pomp and circumstance of 'helping the little guy!' and 'promoting democracy!' that the proregressives can muster and bluster.

I'm not questioning their patriotism, only the nature of the ideas their patriotism is given to - and in clear, level headed terms, those ideas are Anti-American. Govt having power and responsibility to pre-approve your choices is a central point in the assault upon the Constitution, one which all regulatory law entails. It relies upon a very particular view of Rights, which, if "American" in any sense means freedom and liberty, then it is Anti-American.

I'm not questioning whether or not these are good and well intentioned people - I take it to be a given that they are! I'm questioning whether or not they are aware of the danger to freedom, liberty and the rule of law, that is created when the desire to do good is given the unrestrained power to take one select people's view of what would be the good choices to make, and imposes them upon everyone else.

The proregressive left (and right) takes it as an article of faith that it's good to safeguard the public against any and all risks, and obviously for govt to make life easy and secure for you, it must make choices for you - choosing not only what you will be allowed to do, but also choosing, for you, what you must do, what you will not be allowed not to do, and choosing for you what you will never have a choice in choosing at all!

Regulatory law is the means of controlling the choices of the populous, and those of the left who understand their positions beyond that of its ideological assertions, are deeply aware of it. I'm reading Cass Sunstein's "The second bill of rights", and I'll give him credit, he's one of the very few leftists who can trace the history of his ideas back before the 20th century, and he understands the limited proregress to be made at this point in history by simply asserting their claims - that jig is up, with each "Speak truth to power!" episode, leftists instantly look like caricatures of old hippies; too easily laughed at and dismissed.

Sunstein, on the other hand, grasps not only how important it is to sound calm & reasonable, but of how important it is to undermine the original concept of Natural Rights, rather than to attack them outright; his strategy is to subtly redefine them at their core so as to make it seem that by increasing government power, somehow your Rights will be strengthened, rather than being weakened and dissolved, as they are.

Sunstein, like an exercise in rhetorical gene splicing, artfully inserts his assertions into a discussion of the principles of our fundamental rights, while seeming to agree, he subverts and eliminates their threat to his regulatory ideals, leaving the Founders concept of Rights not just behind, but seemingly in tow.
To give you a glimpse of his technique, take a look at this from Chp. 2 of his book, and see if you can spot the danger:

"In a nutshell, the New Deal helped vindicate a simple idea: No one really opposes government intervention. Even the people who most loudly denounce government interference depend on it every day. Their own rights do not come from minimizing government but are a product of government. The simplest problem with laissez-faire is not that it is unjust or harmful to poor people, but that it is a hopelessly inadequate description of any system of liberty, including free markets. Markets and wealth depend on government."

I've got to say, in the way that a cop might be impressed at how skillfully a master criminal pulls off a heist, I'm impressed with the economy of how skillfully he corrupts principle and meaning and removes clarity from the scene, leaving the appearance of a meaningful statement behind - emptied of meaning, contentless - robbed.

Magicians and thieves don't pick your pocket with the hand you're watching
In that short paragraph Sunstein dispenses with the idea of our Individual Rights coming from our nature as human beings and the importance that they not be infringed upon, and transforms 'Individual Rights' into a particular set of positive rights to be bestowed upon us by legislators, with nary a mention of the conflict between the two approaches. Pay particular attention to these two passages:

"Even the people who most loudly denounce government interference depend on it every day. Their own rights do not come from minimizing government but are a product of government. "
and
"Markets and wealth depend on government."

The half truth shuffle here is deft, and if unawares, you might enter into that paragraph secure in your beliefs, yet come out of it on the other side shaking your head and looking around for signs of their escape.

The technique he uses is common, and simple. Equivocate and Particularize, or IOW, 'divert the meaning of a term into something else, and trade away ideas for material substitutes'. Before looking at Sunstein's quotation, lets have a look at some other common examples, with an towards keeping your eye on the two maneuvers the magicians hand is making in order to stay hidden :

1. Equivocate on a key word being used so that the common meaning is replaced by a different sense of the word, such as a Right being something you may not be prevented from exercising, with a 'right' as being something you commonly expect, desire and maybe even deserve to receive -
   
   

   the general Principle that your Freedom of Speech must not be prevented, with the position that leftist's views are unfairly restricted if they aren't displayed for free on conservative sites

2. Dispense with Principles in general, by reducing them to those particulars often associated with them -
   
   

   Replace the Right to your property, with the notion that you have a 'right' to get what you want at a price that you, and a lot of other people, decide is a 'fair' price

Keep an eye out and you'll see that happening in every proregressive leftist missive that's righteously thrust in your face.

Sunstein key equivocations taking place in 's paragraph, are

• "minimizing government" - this counts on leading you to equate Rights enforcement as being equivelant to the source of Rights - which they most certainly are not.
• "are a product" - seeks to further confuse 'Laws' with 'Rights'. Laws certainly are a product, and one of the most central purposes of government, but Rights are not a product of Laws or of government, not in the American sense, Rights are derived from our nature as human beings, and it is their defence which is the central purpose of government, and which Laws and government actions are to uphold and defend - not goodies to be distributed.
• 'Interference' - confusing the proper actions of govt taken in the defense of rights - which can and must intrude into individuals lives (police, trials, laws, etc) - , with the very different actions of government usurping your rights in order to enforce it's own assumed powers over you and your choices.

All of which is using spin to declare a cop and a mugger to be equivalent because they both use guns in their line of work.

Keep your eye on the other hand, your Rights are being magically taken from you right before your eyes, while you ooh and ahh over the promise of lower prices.

Make no mistake, your Freedom and Liberty DO depend upon Government, but only on a Government of a very particular kind, one which upholds and defends your Right to exercise your Rights to pursue the form of happiness you choose, a Government 'of Laws and not men'; but your freedom and liberties are taken away by a government that can tell you what particular things you will be given a right to, and how much of those it will decide you should be 'happy' with.
(Cross posted at 24th State.)

Net Neutrality and our Economies Surprising Growth Industry - the Regulatory State of Mind Part III

Net Neutrality - Our Economies Surprising Growth Industry - the Regulatory Mind Part III
We started off looking at Net Neutrality and how it, and all regulations fail to accomplish what they claim to want to accomplish, so the question we left off with was what it is which we should suppose that Regulators are actually after? What is it that they are in the business of - Justice? And I answered:

Nooo... no, no...no, that's got to be ruled out right off the bat, because you simply can't claim to be upholding & enforcing Justice... without an actual crime having been committed in the first place. I asked whether or not you'd call it justice, if the police came to your door tomorrow and said "We've had reports that you purchased ammunition yesterday, and seeing as studies prove that most firearms incidents involve ammunition and pose a grave risk to public safety, we're going to need you to go ahead and wear this monitor at all times and make regular reports to our dept...", would you call that justice?

Well of course I'd hoped that your answer to that would be a big fat 'no!' and maybe you'd snicker at my example, I was just trying to come up with something outrageous... then I saw this,

"Environmental activists are pressing the Obama administration to ban the manufacture, processing and distribution lead shot, bullets, and fishing sinkers under the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976..."

Sigh. I sure wish my example was only amusing. But then that is exactly what the 'principle' behind regulatory law is, and it has very little to do with traditional American ideas of Justice. Regulations are not imposed to uphold Justice, but to use power to predetermine your available actions in any possible situation, in order to keep you as safe as they think you ought to be, they mean to do their idea of good, to you, for your own good. And if you follow the implications to their logical ends, that means that your freedom, your potential choice of 'No', is a threat to the good that they would do to you.

I'll admit, that terrifies me. After all I've already said and linked to so far, do you think I'm exaggerating? How exaggerated does it sound when you hear Michelle Obama is talking about the government monitoring your BMI?

""...we are taking an unprecedented step towards implementing a provision that requires all new private health insurance to cover all recommended preventative services, like mammograms, colonoscopies, cervical screenings treatment for high blood pressure, childhood immunizations and measuring BMI's, Body Mass Indexes... we are trying to encourage pediatricians and doctors not just to measure BMI, but to help actually step in and write prescriptions

How does government go about 'encouraging' physicians to step in and write prescriptions? By enacting regulations which are either forbidding, penalizing or adding so much red tape to the 'wrong' choices, so as to 'encourage' them to 'choose' the 'right' actions in order to avoid jail, penalties or busy work so voluminous as to make ordinary business untenable.

Regulators of course see nothing wrong with this in principle, they like to claim that they are in the business of preventing crime - or bad things - which means that they require power over you and your choices, power over what is the very essence of justice and morality - but without choice, there is no and can be no issues of justice or morality involved. There is simply a presumption made that you would be guilty if given the opportunity to choose, and so you must be denied even the possibility of making the correct choice - you are presumed guilty and have no chance of proving your innocence.

This legalizes the pure, unrestrained exercise of power by those who have it, to mandate that your life is to be lived as they see fit. How far off from the essence of slavery do you suppose that to be? Are you comfortable with that distance?

You may have noticed that I've been saying 'you' are being told to, or not do, this and that, or that these things are being done to 'you'... have you been temptd to reply 'Heh, not my problem! I'm no capitalist fat cat!', Oh... sorry, nice try, but unless you are trying to establish Two America's, I'm afraid that neither Rights, nor the Laws which should uphold them, work that way. You must not mistake regulatory law as something which applies to only 'big business' or 'big corporations' - any plausible argument that can be made to weaken their rights, applies to your rights as well. Just ask Susette Kelo about her property in New London and how she feels now about laws that were first authorized to 'reign in robber barrons' and to look out for the 'little guy'.

For all the proregressives deprecation of principles, they are absolutely adamant in asserting that the breach of principle in one case, is grounds for making their breach applicable in all cases, as needed (recall Elena Kagan arguing for 'redistribution of speech opportunities'). Those rights which are diminished for one non-criminal citizen 'to serve the greater good', automatically diminishes the rights of all individuals in that society.

When regulatory agencies, on the basis of presumed would-be guilt, either prevent the actions, or abridge the right of property for one person or group of people, that in principle applies to YOUR rights as well as everyone elses.

Thinking of laws as just applying to some vague 'they' and not you... is a very dangerous mindset to put yourself in (First they came for the... yesss... you can fill in the blank, can't you?), you should be able to reasonably and fairly put yourself into any and every law and regulation that is passed in your name... you know... that of We The People.

For instance, no one should have a problem with a principle of good law, such as,

• 'If I stole something, I should be arrested'

... but how about

• 'If I own a business govt should assume I'd risk poisoning my customers to make an extra buck'

... sure, I suppose you might like to see it applied to that guy across town... but how would it sit with you if it were being applied to you? In a society based upon the rule of law, where the law applies equally to all of the people, that is inescapable.

Of course if you aren't living in a society based upon the rule of law... well... then that's gonna be the least of your worries... but do you not see that very scenario fast approaching us?

Perhaps you think that some regulations should be passed, like the Americans with disabilities Act, (popular with Republicans and Democrats, btw)... have you ever wondered why these monstrosities take up hundreds, even thousands of pages? They aren't concerned with stating a simple principle, like "people with handicaps shouldn't be discriminated against in the workplace", that is only the 'fair minded' selling point used to get support & pass the law. What they soon end up mandating are idiocies such as John Stossel routinely notes,

"And be careful. If you fail to let a customer bring a large snake, which he calls his "service animal," into your restaurant, you could be in trouble."

How regulatory law grows from simple 'common sense' selling points, to idiocies, is through the mandating of every little detail of running your business, and even the construction of your business,

"The bathroom sinks must be a specified height. So must the doorknobs and mirrors. You must have rails. And if these things aren't right—say, if your mirror is just one inch too high—you could be sued for thousands of dollars."

, and in those details, and the attempt to exempt some details, for some, and then others, the rest of the thousands of pages of regulations sprout and grow and grow (choices mandated before the actual context of reality they will apply to - a.k.a. 'Stupidity'), bearing such fruit as new commissions, sub commissions, and an army of new regulators to oversee them.

In just the same way, when some bonehead like Sen. Al Franken trumpets Net Neutrality with the crisis line of,

"If the Internet is under the control of corporate elites," he said, "democracy as we know it can't exist."

and would mandate 'equal access to all'... that initiates counter measures such as this from AT&T,

"Wireless networks simply cannot provide the same amount of capacity as wireline networks. Fibre is to a wireline network what spectrum is to a wireless network. As a transmission medium, the two simply do not compare,"

, and the inevitable sawing of the see-saw,

"Policymakers can help by reallocating more spectrum for commercial radio service use and, even more importantly, by protecting wireless broadband networks from onerous new net neutrality regulations."

, and so it goes, the allegedly noble purpose of mandated 'fairness', causes unforeseen consequences and obvious instances of unfairness, which require exemptions, counter exemptions, and inevitably favors sought, favors repaid, and so the thousands of pages bloom... along with inordinate costs, and reduced services, delays and inefficiencies which are all passed on to you and me, and not the least of which is the governments expanded ability to mandate what you and I no longer have a right to do.

Another excellent examination of the side effects of such well intentioned laws and regulations, is "The Death of Common Sense".

But coming back to the original question, the real common sense thing we should all do, is ask ourselves why such a system is created in the first place?

It isn't to ensure justice and good behavior. A system of rules which are knowingly impossible to comply with - and no one familiar with even one section of the I.R.S. Tax Codes will contend otherwise - are not created to ensure justice and good behavior, they will in fact ensure violations which will be seized upon as needed, by those in power who are conveniently able to make use of them, for their purposes - whatever they may be.

Conspiracy Theorists Need Not Apply
But this also doesn't mean that there are vast right or left wing conspiracies’ underway. There need be no nefarious or coordinated schemes involved, the philosophy that has been taught us over the last century and a half has made such a clunky thing as secret societies and convoluted conspiracies unnecessary. These messes are the unavoidable result of smart people who think they can foresee, and fix, every possible problem which might occur. The ancient Greeks might have called it hubris, and Oedipus Rex could to tell us a thing or two about putting such truly blind trust in our 'intelligence' and common sense solutions.

What we see around us are simply the results of those who have been taught that man doesn't really have Free Will and is at the mercy of his environment (read Rousseau & Hobbes), rather than the traditional Western view that an individual is responsible for himself and must master his environment. People who have been taught that truth and virtue are silly (Read Hume, it's not long, see if you see what I see), people can only be 'happy' if they conform to the needs of the greater good (read Kant, Hegel, Bentham, Mill - do I have them wrong?), that rights are imposed from without in order to benefit the greater good, rather than derived from your nature as human beings, or as Jefferson put it

"endowed by our creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

It's hard for most people to understand how opposed to this the proregressives are, read them. See. They are not intent on letting you be free, no - you don't know enough to know what is important and so you must be... 'encouraged' to do what they know is for the greater good, as their founder Rousseau said,

"This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free"

What they are about is creeping ever closer to the proregressives being able to determine what you should do, and what you can't do, so that you can measure up to what they think you should be.

However crazy you might think of that as being, they don't, not because they mean you harm, quite the opposite - and more chillingly - but because they mean to do you good (as they see it). They believe that they do what they do, in your best interests - and because you cannot be trusted, or expected, to choose 'properly', you must be 'nudged' or if necessary shoved - into the right outcome. That 'knowledge' they claim to have, that they do all that they do for your benefit, frees them in their own minds, to do anything 'necessary', to anyone as needed, for the greater good - and your desire to do as you see fit, in their eyes, becomes a threat to that greater good.

That is Political Correctness in a nutshell, and Regulatory Law is it's supreme tool and nutcracker; the power to seek after ends which justify their means. Whether this is applied to measuring your BMI & regulating your daily food intake, or as Pol Pot applied it in slaughtering all the middle class parents so as to free their children to become ideal citizens... the principle itself is one and the same, and in the absence of a written constitution constraining political power and itself constrained by the rights of it's citizens, then the only thing which can be counted on to regulate the means which their ends are applied to - to your diet or to your dying - are the whims and goals of those in power.

That is not progress, that is regress. As the last President to truly understand this, Calvin Coolidge, said,

"About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers."

Any movement towards government ordering our lives, taking on parental concern for us, it's charges, is a step backwards towards political darkness.

Open Ended Power
We commonly hear that 'Businessmen and corporations are only after money, we can't trust them with power! They must be regulated!', it's hard to go a day without hearing that from the MSM... or even an hour on MSNBC, but less often heard - I'm tempted to say Never heard, is the corollary which that presumes. Think about it, doesn't that mean that we should trust those people who are directly seeking actual political power, people who are seeking the power to control others, we are to trust them with the power to use the power they seek?

Can you tell me why people who strive for positions of power in government (left, right or center) should be considered trustworthy to use their power over the wealthy and 'powerful' corporations, without being tempted into corruption themselves? Why are people who seek power, more trustworthy than people who seek only profits? The profit seeker, unless in clever collusion with those having real political power, at least has to first produce something which people will freely choose to purchase... in a free market at least, that's the only way for them to get their profits in the first place.

And there we come to the difference between Economic Power, and Political Power, and it is one of the terms which proregressives will always equivocate on, attempt to blur and confuse the issues with, using just the term 'power' in one sense first, and then in another context as if it were still the same meaning.

Better for us to ask what real power - power being the ability to force you or me to do, or not do, something against our will - does a businessmen or corporation have? Unaided, they have only economic power, 'power' that is reliant upon price, agreements and contracts, all of which require your consent and your approval before it can be used to do anything at all.

Economic Power requires your assent... or it is powerless.

How powerful and threatening would you call a mugger that had to ask your permission to rob you, and if you didn't give it, had to leave you alone? Not very, right? What power do you have over your neighbor? You can talk to, and persuade them, but you can't force them to comply with your wishes. That is the same power a business has, they can tell us we should purchase from them, they can try to persuade us to, they can offer inducements through lower prices or increased services, but they cannot force us to purchase from them.

A businesses power, economic power, does not carry with it the ability to force you or me to do something we'd rather not do - like, say, having to purchase HD TV’s you’d rather not bother with, or force us to install idiotic 'green' light bulbs that are ridiculously expensive, don't give off enough light and require an EPA HazMat cleanup effort should you break one - a business, armed only with economic power, cannot force those choices upon us, except, through the aid of politicians willing, and able, to borrow, rent or sell them their political powers of laws and regulations. Only political power can be used to 'encourage' and force you to act and choose against your will, and without that... such businesses would go out of business.

As they should.

Michelle Obama would like to have our BMI tracked, and 'encourage' our doctors to 'do something' about it. The FDA would like to 'encourage' and be supportive of industry voluntary efforts to limit their marketing to kids and this will see whether more is needed..

Can you or I be so encouraging in getting what we want? Outside of a protection racket, what would you call such tactics if a business attempted to 'encourage' you to purchase their product or service?

That is the contrast we're looking for in the nature of power, the power to step in and alter your life, monitor and mandate even your choices of foods to eat, and how much of them, with the power which you have – individually or in business - have over the choices of your neighbor & vice versa. Businesses and the wealthy may be able to get favors from govt , but they still need those favors - that means they don't have real power themselves, only something to appease the politically powerful with. And those corporations, knowing that their success and profits can be severely affected by these power seekers, is it really surprising that they will use every avenue open to them to flatter, sway, influence or outright bribe those with power over them?

Sounds like a severely dysfunctional relationship enabling scenario in the making to me, how about you? While it may make great Reality T.V.... it's not a program I want to be involved in.

No matter how big, if a business in a free market had nothing to offer to 'make' you buy their product but threats, they'd go out of business. Too big to fail only means that they have enough political influence to force you to save them from failing, and businesses can only get that power through the regulations, regulators and politicians, who have been given that power over them - and lest you are feeling all innocent victim like, sorry, but We The People gave that power to them.

And no matter the status of the true believers in regulations, how can anyone be so naïve as to believe that those who seek political power, when put into a position of being able to have influence over the success and wealth of major corporations, should be trusted to not use the power they sought to have?

One thing at least that there can be no doubt of, is that the regulatory business is a growth industry (and nearly the only one hiring today), tending and expanding it as they are. Except in a very few historical examples, those in power are doing what they think is the right thing to do, the beauty of our constitutional representative government (at least up until about a century ago), was that those ambitions on the part of one branch of government to do good, were counter balanced with the ambitions of the other branches who would not only have conflicting interests and visions, but would be more likely than they themselves, to see the downsides and risks which such 'good ideas' might entail,

How that balancing act should work, and how much of it is governments responsibility, and how much of it is that of We The People's responsibility, we'll look at in the next part, looking at the stupidity of giving smart people unchecked political power.

(Cross posted at 24th State

The Regulatory State of Mind & the Choices it Chooses - Casting a wide regulatory net to neuter us all Part II

Hold on tight. To your Rights... and not your parrrty! (Cross posted at 24th State)
In digging into this sort of thing, regulations, where they come from and why, it's tempting to go off into which big businesses contributed most to which political party, the left or the right. But despite appearances, this really isn't a Left/Right issue. Sure the left is typically more enthusiastic for more and new regulations and controls, but there have been so many little 'r' republicans from Teddy Roosevelt to Richard Nixon to John McCain, and most points in between, as to make the 'Party' question irrelevant. It's not a political party issue, it's a philosophical issue, constitutionally limited government, or proregressivism, and the later choice is made in both parties.

More practically speaking, it's a 'have power & seeking influence' vs 'have wealth & seeking advantage' issue, ,. combined with an easy familiarity with political expediency over constitutional principles, and sad to say it abounds on all sides of the aisle, they unite collegially under the amorphous umbrella of 'Doing Good!', especially among those who see no problem with government mingling with business. What they both demonstrate above all, is an utter absence of understanding of what this nation desperately depends upon -and which is no longer taught - the importance of property rights.

Intentionally or not, what these do gooder's are doing, is voluntarily creating what amounts to a series of nice comfy house slave positions for themselves and not a few lesser slots in the kitchen for the rest of us, wherein they promise that none of us will need to worry or strive in any way in order to meet our 'needs' again, our wise regulatory masters will do it all for us. Rather than a simple old plantation owner, our masters today are to be a set of regulations, administered by regulators and represented by elected officials who are influenced by those who can afford them or help them to look good (and if you think I'm exaggerating, hold that thought for a bit).

And, of course, we don't have to worry about any slave driver's... no, today that function is to be taken over by friendly folks like the I.R.S.

Isn't that a relief?

What should be shocking, is that anyone sees the process of regulating industry as anything other than bargaining for power and control between those who have and are able to affect, influence or sell power, and those who are interested in gaining control of it. What claim to 'transparency' can possibly be made, which can't even see through that?!

Who'll regulate the regulators? Doh... the regulators of course!
This is a question well worth looking into, especially as regulatory control has lately bid to control the majority of the entire United States economy. Regulations have always been touted as 'looking out for the little guy', but in practice they have always been a means to enabling the government to come to the aid of less ethical, more politically connected, big businesses, and that has been the case from the very beginning. A good example can be found in the formation of the Interstate Commerce Commission, which was sold as a way to control the Railroads and prevent them from gouging the public with high prices and the threat of diminished services - but what it actually did was heavily favor the politically powerful major railroads, at the expense of the more competitive market oriented railroads which were nearly the publics only source of lower prices and better services,:

"...The public eventually began complaining of the monopoly pricing and corruption that were inherent features of the government-created and -subsidized railroads.

The federal government responded to the complaints with the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, which was supposed to ban rail rate discrimination, and later with the Hepburn Act of 1906 which made it illegal to charge different rates to different customers. What these two federal laws did was to outlaw Hill's price cutting by forcing railroads to charge everyone the same high rates.[21] This was all done in the name of consumer protection, giving it an Orwellian aura.

This new round of government regulation benefited the government-subsidized railroads at Hill's expense, for he was the most vigorous price cutter.
..."

That has a familiar ring to it... doesn't it? That there should be one rate for all? That it should be illegal to charge different rates to different customers? Whether we're talking about Railroad Neutrality, or Net Neutrality, large, established companies don't like having to manage and track and charge different rates for different customers based upon their demands upon the system, cutting away all excessive costs and waste in order to reduce charges to the least possible amount that will still allow a profit. No matter that the competition to refine those processes and considerations have traditionally translated into the lowest prices for the most customers; what it meant to them was more effort, heavier competition to the point at which only the best mgmt & personel can survive - and big businesses, particularly those who thrive on political trade, rarely welcome any of that - such an environment makes it almost impossible to engage in favoritism and other self important indulgences.

But wait a minute, you say, isn't the free market based on competition?

What Proregressives Could Learn At Hogwarts
Yes, competition is a big part of the free market - but so is something else - virtue (when you finish chuckling... ask yourself why). The ugly truth is that more often than not, those who become successful in the free market, too frequently become it's greatest enemies, and they find many willing accomplices in government regulations and regulators. There's a line from one of the Harry Potter books, where Prof. Dumbledore tells Harry,

"The time is coming where we will all have to choose between what is right and what is easy"

That is a timeless truth, and unfortunately at this point in time, Harry Potter is just about the only place in our popular culture where you might have a chance of learning it. Once upon a time, it was a well known lesson, during the Founder's era it was a very popular and powerful one, the subject of famous paintings, and ancient tales intrinsic to Western Civilization (which pretty much explains why they are not part of Arne Duncan's 'educational reforms' today - that fundamental transformation having been nearly accomplished already),

"The moral allegory of Hercules’ Choice provides a straight thought-line from Renaissance humanism to the creation of the United States and its political symbols. Among classicists, it was one of the most beloved and inspiring tales of the eighteenth century. John Adams sought to make Hercules' Choice the national emblem in 1776:

• I proposed the Choice of Hercules, as engraved by Gribeline [above] in some Editions of Lord Shaftsbury’s Works. The Hero resting on his Clubb. Virtue pointing to her rugged Mountain, on one Hand, and perswading him to ascend. Sloth, glancing at her flowery Paths of Pleasure, wantonly reclining on the Ground, displaying the Charms both of her Eloquence and Person, to seduce him into Vice.

-John Adams invokes Hercules as a model for his own self-development. The note may be found in a diary entry, Jan. 1759, in L. H. Butterfield, ed., Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, vol. 1: Diaries 1755-1770, Belknap, 1962, 72."

One of the reasons we need to be so on guard against big government and big business 'negotiating' for the 'greater good', is that one of the first things many business people turn upon once they become successful, is the Free Market! Competition is difficult, it's tiresome, and it is sooo much easier to control your market through the influence of your political connections in the government, who will 'stand up for the people!' and implementing policies and regulations which have the handy side effect of imposing barriers and burdens on your market, making it much more difficult for smaller competitors to hold on to their share, or for any new competitors to even enter it.

Sure there are costs involved for the bigger businesses to meet those requirements, but it's a bargain when you stop to consider what it relieves them from having to do instead - namely compete. Those are the choices we have allowed our government to be making for us, and they have put us on the easy, downward path of good intentions, and you know which road they pave.

Whether it's Net Neutrality, or a 'Free Press' subsidized by the government, Healthcontrol, Green initiatives, handicap policies, public minded initiatives, and nearly every other variety of market regulations, they all serve the uncompetitively minded. Sure they impose costs on big businesses too, but they can afford them - whereas a new startup, or a competitor whose only advantage in the market is their ability to offer lower prices to you - they cannot afford them - and that means that you soon lose the possible savings which they may have been able to produce for you and me.

For every James J. Hill building his Northern Railway himself, there are twenty Vanderbuilt's who will welcome and seek the embrace of government assistance and collusion. And changing the names to Google or Verizon doesn't change a thing. Or General Motors.

To the politically connected, but fat & lazy, whether they ply their trade on old iron railroads or the new information super highway, the easy solution remains the same: Create a new set of regulations that raises all rates and lowers the amount of service which most customers across the entire market will come to expect. Another useful side effect is that fat & happy political businessess are able to avoid any number of unforeseen consequences through competitive innovations, because regulations demand more and more instances of mandated conformity, more and more obstacles to entering the market for new comers. Competition is decreased, the need for competent skilled personnel is reduced and the 'value' of politically connected personnel increases.

Here's an example from the beginning of the regulatory era,

"...The Interstate Commerce Commission soon created a bureaucratic monstrosity that attempted to micromanage all aspects of the railroad business, hampering its efficiency even further. This was a classic example of economist Ludwig von Mises's theory of government interventionism: one intervention (such as subsidies for railroads) leads to market distortions which create problems for which the public "demands" solutions. Government responds with even more interventions, usually in the form of more regulation of business activities, which cause even more problems, which lead to more intervention, and on and on. The end result is that free-market capitalism is more and more heavily stifled by regulation."

Unforeseen consequences tend to crop up more and more, such as with these instances (H/T Reboot Congress) in the form of unlooked for shortages in the supply of Helium,

"But helium is also a non-renewable resource and the world's reserves of the precious gas are about to run out, a shortage that is likely to have far-reaching repercussions.

Scientists have warned that the world's most commonly used inert gas is being depleted at an astonishing rate because of a law passed in the United States in 1996 which has effectively made helium too cheap to recycle."

, and in and the ability to reap profits which aren't really dependent upon what you produce, "Flash Crashes" in the Stock Market,

"The mayhem had been primarily caused by an "overreliance on computer systems and some types of high frequency trading" strategies that roam the market en masse, looking to pick off pennies of profit....

Behind these changes, beginning in 1975, was a zeal to liberate the individual investor from the clutches of the archaic market makers who made a good living taking "eighths"�12.5 cents�for every share bought and sold.

The government later found Nasdaq dealers were even more gluttonous than first imagined. And by the time the last big market reforms were issued in 2005, the intent was to "give investors, particularly retail investors, greater confidence that they will be treated fairly," the SEC said at the time.

As spreads squeezed from eighths to pennies, a new batch of electronic-trading networks blinked into action. Volume trading was the only way to make money."

What has followed from regulatory policies and actions beginning way back then, as it still does now, is chaos. They have never accomplished what they were intended to accomplish, have never 'reigned in' who they were billed as targeting, they have never protected 'the little guy' and they have always, always, caused worse conditions than they ever sought to alleviate.

This is the pattern of results which regulatory agencies have produced since they began, and is what will continue to be produced today and through all our tomorrows - if we don't end them: smaller businesses and customers will pay higher prices for ever diminishing services - it's what happened with the railroads, and is what happened with the 'Public' Utilities, the Airline industry, the Banking industry and our current health care insurance industry... and it can no longer be thought of as a new or unexpected phenomena! There are a hundred years worth of easily discoverable history associated with this process - why don't we hear about this in school? Or in the media?

How about from 'consumer advocates'? You'd sure think you would, since the consumer has been the one that's born the brunt of all the regulatory good done unto them, and it has been known by them as far back as one of the first of the breed, Upton Sinclair, the muckraker who's book "The Jungle" provided the impetus for Teddy Roosevelt to create the forerunner of the FDA, the granddaddy of all regulatory agencies, said

"The Federal inspection of meat was, historically, established at the packers' request. It is maintained and paid for by the people of the United States for the benefit of the packers."


Gabriel Kolko, historian of the era, concurs. "The reality of the matter, of course, is that the big packers were warm friends of regulation, especially when it primarily affected their innumerable small competitors." Sure enough, Thomas E. Wilson, speaking for the same big packers Sinclair had targeted, testified to a congressional committee that summer, "We are now and have always been in favor of the extension of the inspection, also of the adoption of the sanitary regulations that will insure the very best possible conditions." Small packers, it turned out, would feel the regulatory burden more than large packers would.
"

And so it's been demonstrated to play out again and again, from the establishment of the ICC and the FDA, and on through the intervening century's worth of alphabet agencies on down to today's latest offerings of 'helping the little guy' with ObamaoCare - time and again, the worst of big businesses profit at the expense of smaller competitors, and especially at the expense of We The People.

This isn't a condemnation of 'Big Business', if a business can get big, titanic even, through providing it's customers with a product and service they want to purchase, and stay there by remaining competitive with their abilities & services, even to the point of being so efficient as to be the only company serving that need (and no, that is NOT a monopoly), I say fantastic and bully for them. But those that want to indulge in a 'third way' of partnering with government to maintain their positions... those should be roundly condemned and despised. We should especially note that these politically successful businesses manage to create their partnerships with government, in large part thanks to those well intentioned do-gooders like our PC tech writer in Part I, those who work so hard and with such little thought and forethought, so as to sway public opinion into not seeing what is right up and in their very faces.

Surprise.
Is that really surprising? Maybe we can make all this transparency a little clearer if we try looking at it from another angle, What is it, do you suppose, that Regulators are actually after? In light of what we just reviewed, it can't be any of their stated goals, not if there is even a hint of competence that is to be assumed to exist in either their agencies, or the legislators who 'oversee them', or the 'consumer advocates' who advocate for them,

So what is it that they are in the business of - Justice?

Nooo... no, no...no, that's got to be ruled out right off the bat.

Why? Well, can you really claim to be upholding & enforcing Justice... without there being an actual crime having been committed in the first place? Think about it, if the police came to your door tomorrow and said

"We've had reports that you purchased ammunition yesterday, and seeing as studies proven that most firearms incidents involve ammunition and pose a grave risk to public safety, we're going to need you to go ahead and wear this monitor at all times and make regular reports to our dept, we're going to need to see regular reports of gun cleaning, and of course verify that you're using approved oils & clothes, and proof they've been disposed of properly..."

, would you be willing to call that 'justice', or even justifiable?

I really hope not. We'll have a look at what they are after, and what best to call it, in the next post.

Net Neutrality - Casting A Wide Regulatory Net To Neuter Us All - Part I

Looking beneath the transparency (Cross posted at 24th State)

Well... good news ladies and gents out there in the free and open skies of internet land, public spirited folks from the IT world, are looking out for bad deed doers and speaking up for your interests. There are such keen eyes as these from a vigilant tech writer for PC Magazine (never realized how well named it was before) who has expressed his dismay at the regulatory process... not over the interference of government into the free flow of information across the internet... no, no... no. He has seen reports of something 'fishy' in the land of regulatory purity, and is shocked at what he's found.

Here, have a look:

"The end of the FCC negotiations is actually good news. What the FCC should do is execute its duties to oversee the industry without apologizing or asking permission. The FCC negotiations sought to compromise with the industry--the very nature of which implies that the agency would be making consessions in order to appease companies like Verizon and Comcast.

Negotiation and compromise are cornerstones of the political process, but they should be conducted openly and involve all parties. The problem with the FCC efforts was that the closed-door meetings excluded most of the affected parties from the process."

To useful ... uhm... pundits... like our PC tech writer here, they feel that government regulation of industry is a good thing, that 'Net Neutrality' will be a benefit to all Americans, and they are only upset that the process hasn't had more transparency involved in it. I'd like to look at that here, and go a bit beyond that 'transparency' to get a wider perspective than their little government issue world viewer window might otherwise afford us. But first, let's try looking through only that itty bitty viewer they use, and see what we can see.

I know I see one thing here that I particularly enjoy, and that's the line "should be conducted openly and involve all parties."... do you suppose that this tech writer for PC Magazine has ever ventured out and onto the internet? I don't know how many providers there are out there, my quick Googling popped up around a hundred or so big and small, providers, still, I do believe it might be just a few more than can conveniently cozy up around a conference table and hash out some regulations that will be 'fair' to all parties. And while he's not alone in his concern for all us little people... what of the millions of users who will be affected and deprived of their ability to pay more, or less, to receive the service they most value? Should the choices of such little people stand in the way of the 'greater good' that can be served by giants like Google & Verizon who are, after all, just intent on 'doing good' unto us?

Google & Verizon are both quick to respond with something having the gist of 'We aren't going around Net Neutrality, we're for it! We're for fair and even distribution of bandwidth... enforced by the power of government regulations, as opposed to having to deal with other ISP's who won't let us do what we want, because they care about serving their differing and annoying customers choices & preference...', well... they leave that last part off of course, but even so, with all that fairness on their minds, what is it that you suppose they are so carefully negotiating about?

After all, according to Google spokesmen there's nothing to be concerned about

""Google has been the leading corporate voice on the issue of network neutrality over the past five years. No other company is working as tirelessly for an open Internet," counsel Richard Whitt argued in a fact sheet on the issue. "We're not saying this solution is perfect, but we believe that [this] proposal ... is preferable to no protection at all."

Whitt pointed out that there is currently no method for the federal government to enforce equal access principles. His assertion does have basis in the facts: following the Comcast decision, it is now case law that the FCC does not have regulatory authority over broadband access under current rules.

Google and Verizon's proposal would for the first time give the FCC a legal basis to ensure net neutrality principles, and Whitt noted that Verizon had voluntarily already agreed to abide by the requirements set forth even without legislative action that would make it mandatory.

Now that is something which is really deserving of some of your own mental bandwidth, "...for the first time give the FCC a legal basis to ensure net neutrality principles...". Just bookmark that in your mind, and we'll return to it in a bit.

Mr. Googleman continues:

A good portion of the criticism has come on the issue of wireless traffic, and Whitt admitted that in order to advance the deal, it agreed to not ask for net neutrality principles on that traffic. He argued that due to bandwidth constraints, it is more necessary to manage traffic actively on wireless connections.

"This is a policy proposal -- not a business deal," he wrote. "Of course, Google has a close business relationship with Verizon, but ultimately this proposal has nothing to do with Android."

Regardless of what happens with net neutrality, in the end it will come down to action in Washington. Whitt said that it will ultimately be in the hands of legislators and regulators to do what they need to do in the space to ensure an open Internet.

"We're not so presumptuous to think that any two businesses could -- or should -- decide the future of this issue," he concluded. "We're simply trying to offer a proposal to help resolve a debate which has largely stagnated after five years."
"

Hmmm... that "...will ultimately be in the hands of legislators and regulators to do what they need to do..." Knowing a little bit about the tech world, that doesn't seem like such a good idea to me, just on a basis of functionality, not to mention showing a wee bit less concern for 'fairness' than seems the case of our public minded PC tech writer, who no doubt is only concerned about the plight of the little guy, and surely many people are concerned that all peoples should get their fair share of internet fairness... surely no one wants’ any iOliver Twist's coming round with their blackberries & begging "Please, sir, I want some more?"

But without questioning the goodness of our PC writers PC priorities, ask yourself something... when was the last time that you or your buddies were sitting around having an animated discussion slash argument about... properly allotting bandwidth between various ISP providers so that you could get your fair share of bandwidth?

Has that been a big flash-point in your home or favorite gathering spot recently? Are you or your friends deeply concerned about how bandwidth is allotted?

Is anyone you know confused about whether or not you can pay for greater crazy fast download speed if you want it... or not?

I'm betting the answer is mostly a big NO.

Do you think that the Federal Government has purposely taken the time out of the many issues facing them and demanding their attention, in order to arbitrate the fairness of how companies should negotiate their deals with each other? Do you think they are really deeply concerned about your ease of downloading iTunes?

Hopefully that's a no as well.

So what do you suppose might be going on here?

Hmm?

A Solution in search of a problem
If all you want to say is that 'everyone gets the same bandwidth ...' what's to quibble about in secret negotiations, let alone cause the secret negotiations to break down?

You needn't take that as an accusation of nefarious deeds being done, but hopefully it does make you at least a bit curious about what they are trying to do, which is, in typical proregressivist fashion, to plan out, from the top down, the 'perfect solution' (at least it's not a 'final solution'...) to plan out ahead of time (maybe even in 5-yr increments) how they can meet the 'fair needs' (as determined by them, not you) of what users (you) may require... without having to deal with any pesky issues - such as any of those users own preferences, wish's, judgments and choices... all those sorts of things the neanderthalic 'free market' considers so valuable.

So why is this such an issue? When you're looking for a little perspective on the days events, sometimes it helps to look back to the ODWG's (old dead white guys), and when you're looking for some perspective and insight on how people behave, respond and react in terms of pressure, politics and turmoil, one of the oldest of them, Thucydides is hard to beat, here's one almost selected at random, from the Melian dialog, where the Athenians who once prided themselves on being an exceptionally Just and successful society, the school of their world, now found themselves more concerned with using power to get what they wanted (ok, almost selected at random),:

• "holding in view the real sentiments of us both; since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."

Just let that idea settle into your noggin... then maybe mix it in with Mr. Googleman's "...for the first time give the FCC a legal basis to ensure net neutrality principles..." and "...will ultimately be in the hands of legislators and regulators to do what they need to do...", let it stew a bit, see if you begin to get a handle on where your interests and preferences fit into that picture and we'll come back to it shortly. In the meantime, here's two more clues that don't seem to go together all that well, one from last month, about our ever thoughtful government seeking to expand broadband service to the wilds of Missouri, with our own Sen. Claire McCaskill, looking out for her peep's:

"At the meeting McCaskill, D-Mo., espoused the need for high speed broadband to rural America as an economic necessity. “Without fast speeds to the Internet, our commerce, our job creation in this country is going to continue to fall behind,” said McCaskill.

Chairman Genachowski spoke of the virtues of his Third Way proposal and how it would support rural broadband efforts.
"

Huh. Well that sounds all admirable and swell. But then there's this, from about four years ago:
Internet Neutrality: A Solution in Search of a Problem

"As the Senate holds hearings on net neutrality, it is important to avoid calls for new regulations or mandates that would impede broadband deployment in the United States. Net neutrality is a vaguely defined term that generally refers to access to the Internet, and the need to keep access open to all consumers. While this is an important question for consumers, new mandates on Internet access could reduce incentives to build new high-speed broadband networks or invest capital in innovative new technologies...

Dr. Wayne Brough, Chief Economist at FreedomWorks commented that, "Currently, the United States ranks 16th in the world when it comes to broadband deployment. Introducing new mandates or regulations on networks will only hamper deployment of new networks. We need to look to the future and unleash the innovation and technologies of the next century. To bring these technologies to consumers, we need to avoid unnecessary new mandates."

So while Claire's trying to be ever so helpful to Missourians, promoting the kindly and virtuous Genachowski's Third Way proposal (what does that mean, 'third way'? That's a really good question - you really should answer it, careful though, might prompt a few more questions), there are others who seem to be having the oh so startling thought that new Regulations, 'guidelines' and government interference might actually add costs and slow & even reduce the spread of broadband service throughout the wilds of Missouri, and elsewhere as well.

Here's something that's a little closer to the matter from the American Spectator, which might help shed a little more light and connect a few dots for us:

"In a statement, Free Press said: "We welcome the FCC's decision to end its backroom meetings. Phones have been ringing off the hook and e-mail inboxes overflowing at the FCC, as an outraged public learned about the closed-door deal-making and saw the biggest players trying to carve up the Internet for themselves. We're relieved to see that the FCC now apparently finds dangerous side deals from companies like Verizon and Google to be distasteful and unproductive."

"Verizon and Google to be distasteful and unproductive", yeah, now that sounds just like our friendly PC Tech Writer... very unpleased with backroom deal making and concerned with our fair servicing... but wait, there's more,

The only problem with that statement, it turns out, is that Free Press was part of those "backroom meetings" and at the time the FCC negotiations were canceled, Free Press officials were actually holding a private meeting with FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski in his office.

Free Press, which was founded by Marxist Robert McChesney, and is run by well-known political activist Josh Silver, is a founding member of the Open Internet Coalition. The OIC's executive director, Markham Erickson, had a seat at the table during every negotiating session held by the FCC. "

Ah. Sorta sounds like what's being said for the public consumption of the peep's, and for the useful idiots... er... pundits... like our buddie the PC Tech Writer, just might be a bit different than what's actually taking place behind closed doors, doesn't it? Seems like we're getting a bit more to the heart of the matter, or at least closer to the closed door of the back room where the deals are being made, and if history is any indicator of what's being cooked up (and it is), then you can bet your bottom dollar (while you still have one) that what it doesn't involve, is your well being or best interests.

Ladies and gents, the allotment of bandwidth, and determining whether Verizon or Comcast get's to handle more video across their lines, cable, wired or wireless, at their discretion and price points, is so far besides the point as to be left pointing right back at yourself.

The issue here is Power. And one of the most consequential uses of power in recent history.

Seriously
This isn't a new issue. It's not a new idea. It didn't arise with Verizon & Comcast. It didn't even arise with the Obamao administration.

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air noted:

"Genachowski needed an agreement that involved the private sector in order to give him and Congress political cover for a net-neutrality arrangement that leaves the FCC in charge of the Internet — and perhaps even content, or at least access to it. Without an industry consensus, Congress isn’t about to impose yet another big regulatory burden in a season where voters are already angry about government overreach. Genachowski will have to either wait for the lame-duck session or once again abuse the rule-making process, which the courts have already blocked once and Congress has demanded he stop doing."

What amounts of power and control do you think might accrue to government in general, to their agency in particular, and specifically to Mr. Genachowski and his 'Third Way' ideals, should they succeed in gaining control over the backbone of the internet? What other related efforts might such a thing lend a helping hand to in the future?

Politico notes:

"The Federal Communications Commission Thursday suspended its weeks-long series of talks with Internet providers on Net neutrality, dealing a blow to efforts to produce a deal that the agency could take to Congress.

The decision to cut off negotiations marks a major political setback for Chairman Julius Genachowski, whose office reached out to stakeholders six weeks ago to strike an agreement and avoid a public battle over rules that would treat all users’ Web traffic equally.

But the end to industry discussions — which a source close to the FCC talks blamed entirely on news that Google and Verizon separately sought some form of net neutrality agreement — could now force the FCC to take a more aggressive approach to solidifying its broadband authority.

FCC chief of staff Edward Lazarus stressed in a briefly worded statement that the agency has no plans to back down on Net neutrality, months after a federal court in a case involving Comcast essentially nullified much of the agency’s broadband authority.

Lazarus said the agency’s round of stakeholder meetings had not “generated a robust framework to preserve the openness and freedom of the Internet.” But he added that “all options remain on the table.”
"

Now would be a good time for you to get some perspective - go ahead and glance back up at ol' Thucydides' observation about those with power telling those without it what they're gonna do and like it, and see how well you think it jibes with "...the agency has no plans to back down on Net neutrality..."... are you beginning to get a better grasp of the larger picture? They are intent on passing this with or without law, with or without constitutionality, whether or not it expands or contracts broadband distribution, and whether it increases your service and satisfaction - or not. Feeling all nice and liberty-full now? Sounds more that just a little bit like Nancy Pelosi on health care:

“We’ll go through the gate. If the gate’s closed, we’ll go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in but we're going to get health care reform passed for the America people."

... and no doubt we'll just need to experience it as well, before we find out what's in it. Another thing to keep in mind here, especially in regards to our upcoming elections in November: Do you remember when we got Scott Brown elected and 'killed' OamaoCare?

Remember how well that worked? Yeah. Keep that in mind. Because two years ago I was thankful that that incarnation was 'defeated', I was commenting on a speech (here on YouTube, here in text) which Bill Moyers gave about how the government should take over... er... 'support' a 'free press' and impose Rep. Markey's earlier iteration of Net Neutrality, and make no mistake, the two very definitely go together, they are both rooted in the notion that you and I are incapable of making intelligent choices, that we are mindless slaves to slick marketing and unfair (meaning low) pricing. Moyers rails in the video at 6:10 into it,

" ...organizations whose reward comes not from helping fulfill the social compact embodied in the notion of “We, the people,” but from the manufacturing of news and information as profitable consumer commodities, rather than the means to empower morally responsible citizens."

And more so at 14:59 goes on about how private advertisers having the ability to sponsor points of view which they support, and making those available for people to listen to (or not) on something like YouTube,

... "Advertisers have already aggressively seized the new online world to go back into the programming business themselves, creating what’s called branded content. Imagine the Camel News Caravan revived, but this time online as a sponsored YouTube channel!"

What you should imagine instead, are people like Moyers denying them the ability to support and promote the ideas they believe in. He asks in a contemptuous manner,

"Already, newspapers and magazines, and soon television, are encouraged to sell keywords to advertisers in the online versions of stories. Can you imagine advertisers going for stories with keywords such as “healthcare reform,” “environmental degradation,” “Iraqi casualties,” “contracting fraud” or “K Street lobbyists”? I don’t think so."

He assumes not only that I, or others, wouldn't patronize such sites, but that I shouldn't be allowed to patronize such sites or others more in line with my interests, and that he, or other chosen ones, should have the power to limit and force me to view only what he sees as worthy keywords."

Moyers and his comrades who promote 'Net Neutrality' and 'FreePress', like to denigrate anything that is a commodity - ignoring the fact that a commodity is a product which people will pay their hard earned time and money for, and use - but they've got no compunctions against forcing those same people to pay, against their will, for another commodity, theirs, which those who are forced to watch it might feel to fall somewhere between uninteresting pap, and biased propaganda - as his show was - something which in fact people weren't willing to pay for, even when it was free.

What Moyer's wanted then, and those of like mind still want today, is the ability to remove the inconvenient truth of individual's own right to choose to not be bothered with watching the shows Moyer's demands that they watch. To do so, he wants to enlist the government to skew (at best) or outright control the market, in order to make the public 'morally responsible' in his opinion, and in that of those he chooses to approve of, who he refers to as "professional journalists trained at prestigious universities ". Moyers would like to advance the principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.. by forcing people to watch what he knows is best for them, and as an ardent supporter of 'Net Neutrality', he was very enthusiastic about how it could be used to aid in 'subsidizing' a 'free press'... at the price of a free press.

At about 6:45 in to the speech he notes a story he might also have remembered from his talks with Joseph Campbell,

"... Why a media anyway? I’m going to let an old Cherokee chief answer that. I heard this story a long time ago, growing up in Choctaw County in Oklahoma before we moved to Texas, of the tribal elder who was telling his grandson about the battle the old man was waging within himself. He said, "It is between two wolves, my son. One is an evil wolf: anger, envy, sorrow, greed, self-pity, guilt, resentment, lies, false pride, superiority and ego. The other is the good wolf: joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith.” The boy took this in for a few minutes and then said to his father—to his grandfather, “Which wolf won?” The old Cherokee replied simply, “The one I feed.” Democracy is that way. The wolf that wins is the one we feed. And media provides the fodder. .."

Yes, they one you feed. Pity he didn't pay more attention to how Campbell told those tales, because their points often have Rod Serling-like twists, where the person seeking to do good, is shocked to find that he has been promoting evil instead. What a shocker, eh? In truth, the wolf Moyers and his fellows are seeking to feed, is the state, strengthening its power to control what will, and will not be, heard, in the naive notion that you can 'solve' and 'fix' other (lesser) people to believe as 'those who know better and who aren't biased' do. What Moyer's and the proregressives in general just don't grasp, is that those who claim to know what others should do, are the most fearsome tyrants of all, knowing little about their fellows and even less about themselves.

At 11:52 he laments that the Bush administration (no this isn't Obamao or Robert Gibbs speaking, remember, this is from a few years ago) is giving the 'public airwaves' to nasty, greedy, miscommunicating telecom's,

"Even as we meet, the administration is pressing to give the conglomerates more control .... to awarding some of the most valuable remaining swaths of public airwaves to two of the largest telecommunications companies..."

Now, think about it, does anyone see that happening today? Is the Obamao administration divvying up public airwaves to the big bad telecoms? No? So then... why are they still pushing for the Net Neutrality act today, if the problem it was supposedly a solution for, is not a problem today? Looks like it is still just a solution in search of a problem.

At 12:20, Moyer's goes on with connecting his utopian dreams of a government controlled free press, with a government controlled free internet,

"‘Congressmen Ed Markey has introduced a bill to advance network neutrality' Moyers is fond of invoking the specter of Orwell’s 1984 and double-speak. Please, somebody, tell me what it is that cloaks itself under the name of 'network neutrality' in order to force private companies, telecoms, etc, to provide free access to their services, and force cable companies to provide programs which the Gov’t approves of and deems necessary? Thank God it was defeated yesterday.

Here's a bit of folk wisdom that I'd be ever so grateful for Moyers and all other do gooder's to take to heart, a quote usually attributed to George Washington, which if he didn't say it, he should have,

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”

A fearful master indeed... and a devilishly difficult one to keep down. I was thankful when 'Net Neutrality' was defeated several years ago. But it's back. 'Defeated' to leftists is not the transparent term it might be to the rest of us, it doesn't mean defeat to leftists, it means time to rejigger the wording, and then try to sneak it, or cram it, through yet again. They very much have contempt for their opponents - you and me - and they intend to take every opportunity they have to 'do good' unto us no matter what we might say in response.

This is plainly not about crafting a policy to solve a problem, this is not about making a more 'level playing field' for businesses to compete in. This is not about bringing broadband to rural Missouri or to any other wilderness. This is about gaining power over what you will be able to see and hear, and where and when you can see and hear it, if at all. It is about control of the voices in this nation who oppose what those in power are doing.

I was thrilled when it was defeated back then, and that it was defeated yet again. And yet again, we must defeat it again, and again, and again.

A lame duck congress is coming up... and those who favor neutering the 'net are prepped and ready to be filled with resentment and looking for payback. This November 2nd it is important that you get out and vote for those who will show some respect for your rights.

But while this election is exceedingly important, it is only a start, and if we want to actually 'fix' government, it's going to be a long term project. Talk to your friends, meet your neighbors, get the word out - and make a habit of it.

If we want to avoid being neutered and escape the net that's been cast over us, we've got a lot of unweaving to do.

What you need to keep in mind, is that Net Neutrality, and every other regulatory plan, is going to be aggressively sold to you as benefiting 'the greater good', that we shouldn't allow one business or another to 'overcharge' (absent will be any mention of those who would be charged less, but that is also neither here nor there) a helpless public.

But if you can manage to wipe all that opaque transparency out of your way, the true core of the issue is that if rights, your rights, are tentative things which must yield to whatever the latest hot-button issue that a slick politician succeeds in labeling as the new 'greater good', then you really have no Property Rights, and if that is the case, then you really cannot be said to have any Rights, whatsoever.

You might say that's a wild overstatement, but those who founded this nation would have disagreed with you, and I'll make the case for it in my next post, but in the meantime let me leave it on a brief mention of two important Supreme Court decisions.

The first, "Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge Company" was argued as a case which highlighted the importance of Property Rights by the great lawyer Daniel Webster - which he lost. After the decision against his case, he and other prominent lawyers were heard to say that 'That's the death of property rights', or as Chancellor Kent said in The New York Review, that

"A gathering gloom is cast over the future. We seem to have sunk suddenly below the horizon, to have lost the light of the sun."

I'll give you a hint - they were not concerned about their wallets. These were men who believed that property rights formed the very foundation of a republican government and in the view of Natural Law, were the political anchors of all of our individual rights.

If you disagree with that, then you likely agree with the view that our rights have an evolving nature, and as the needs of men change over time, so then we must adjust what are seen as rights, so that 'The Law' can uphold the needs of the 'greater good'. Such was the meaning of the decision against Webster's case, as delivered by Justice Taney when he said,

"While the rights of private property are sacredly guarded, we must not forget that the community also have rights, and that the happiness and wellbeing of every citizen depends on their faithful preservation."

, upholding the defense of the 'greater good' over the mere rights of individuals.

The other case I'd direct your attention to, was one that was decided some years later when that same Justice, Roger B. Taney, had become the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and that is the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford, where he made the argument, which men like Webster & Kent knew must come, that individual rights, all individual rights, must be secondary to the interests of the community and that of the state and the greater good - and that in such a view, slavery should be seen as a 'constitutional right' - the 'evolving nature of rights' had evolved to the point of justifying one man owning another.

If you oppose property rights, then you oppose the principle of all individual rights - Daniel Webster knew it, and so did Roger B. Taney.

Do you?

If you really want to change things, read the Constitution and discuss what it means with others, learn what our Founder's knew to be the vital nature and source of our rights, and why they must be defended in the details of property and contract. An excellent place to start is at The Founders Constitution, from the University of Chicago Press and the Liberty Fund. It goes through the Constitution, clause by clause with a collection of hyperlinks to the relevant material which the Founders had in mind during the constitutional debates on that clause, such as the Preamble. If you want to be able to meet the argument that 'Well, the 'general welfare clause' enables the government do whatever it wants to do' - that's the link to go to for your ammunition!

If this was only about 'Net Neutrality', I'd end this post here. But it's not, it is about extending the net over all that we know and knew... and it task's me... sorry, but the html has only begun to flow... Part II coming up soon.

Repeal. Reduce. Restore.

NOTE: A good post and set of resource links for learning about and battling Net Neutrality: The Right Needs to Wake up to Net Neutrality, on Gateway Pundit, by Warner Todd Huston.