Quote:
But, ironically, just as decentralization has unleashed the potential for free markets andindividual freedom on a global scale, collectivist special interests and governmentsworldwide are now tirelessly pushing for
more
centralized control of the Internet andtechnology.Here at home they are aided and abetted both by an Administration that wholeheartedlybelieves in the wisdom of government to manage markets and some in the technologyindustry that cynically use the cudgel of government control and regulation to hamstringcompetitors
–
the Apple’s and Microsoft’s of tomorrow.
Internet collectivism takes many forms, all of them pernicious.Among the most insidious are government attempts to control and regulate competition,infrastructure, privacy and intellectual property. According to them;
Successful companies in brand new frontier industries that didn’t even exist as recently
as five years ago should be penalized and intimidated with antitrust actions in the name
of “fairness” and “competition.”
Privately owned broadband high-speed infrastructure must be subject to collective rule
via public ownership and government regulations that require “sharing” with other
competitors.
Internet infrastructure must be treated as a commons subject to centralized
government control through a variety of foolish “public interest” and “fairness”
regulations.
Wireless, the lifeblood of the mobile Internet revolution, must be micromanaged as agovernment-controlled commons, with limited exclusive property rights.
Private property rights on the Internet should exist in limited fashion or not at all, andwhat is considered to be in the public domain should be greatly expanded.
Private sector data collection practices must be scrutinized and tightly regulated in the
name of “protecting consumers”
, at the same time as
government’s warr
antlesssurveillance and collection of
private
citizens’ Internet data has dramatically increased.
Internet collectivists are clever.They are masters at hijacking the language of freedom and liberty to disingenuously pushfor more centralized control.
“Openness” means government control of privately owned infrastructure.
“Net neutrality” means government acting as
arbiter and enforcer of what it deems to be"neutral".
“Internet freedom” means the destruction of property rights.
“Competition” means
managed
competition, with the government acting as judge and juryon what constitutes competition and what does not.Our
“right to privacy” only applies
to the data collection activities of the private sector,rarely to government.The eminent economist Ludwig von Mises wrote that when government seeks to solve oneproblem, it creates two more.Nowhere is this more evident than in the realm of Internet collectivists and the centralizedcontrol of the Internet they seek.The body of incremental communications law and regulation that has emerged since thedays of Alexander Graham Bell are entirely unsuited to the dynamic and ever-changingInternet for one simple reason:
Technology is evolving faster than government’s ability to
regulate it.Ronald Reagan once said, "Freedom is never more than one generation away fromextinction." But in the Internet era, true Internet freedom can be lost in far less than onegeneration.Around the world, the real threat to Internet freedom comes not from bad people orinefficient markets -- we can and will always route around them -- but fromgovernments'
foolish attempts to manage and control innovation.And it is not just the tyrannies we must fear. The road
away
from freedom is paved withgood intentions.Today, the road to tyranny is being paved by a collectivist-Industrial complex -- a dangerousbrew of wealthy, international NGO's, progressive do-gooders, corporate cronies andsympathetic political elites.Their goals are clear: The collectivist-industrial complex seeks to undermine free marketsand property rights, replacing them with "benevolent" government control and a vision of "free" that quickly evolves from "free speech" to "free stuff."We know where this path leads. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The natural progress of things isfor liberty to yield and government to gain ground."A benevolent monopoly for "the public interest" is nothing more than a means for the oldguard to reassert their power. The role of the government on the Internet is to protect usfrom force and fraud, not to decide our interests.But while the Internet has produced a revolution, it has not, in fact, "changed everything".
We do not need to reinvent our principles for the web; we only need apply our coreprinciples to it. When faced with Internet regulation, we should ask these key questions:1.
Is this a core function of the federal government?2.
Does it execute Constitutionally defined duties?3.
Does it protect Constitutionally defined rights?4.
Does it protect property rights?5.
Does it protect individual rights?6.
If the federal government does not do this, will others?7.
Will this policy or regulation allow the market to decide outcomes or will it distort themarket for political ends?8.
Is this policy or regulation clear and specific, with defined metrics and limitations?Yes, there will always be problems and challenges that exist in the online universe. Thesechallenges are sometimes significant and important and other times not. Government,however, will never solve them. Markets will.As a matter of principle, we oppose any attempt by Government to tax, regulate, monitor orcontrol the Internet, and we oppose the Internet collectivists who collaborate with thegovernment against Internet freedom.
This is our revolution…. Government
needs to get out of the way