Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ajit Pai calls California’s net neutrality rules “illegal”

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–74 of 74 posts

Re: Ajit Pai calls California’s net neutrality rules “illegal”

#71

Post by whamlastxmas »

FPGAhacker wrote: post #48
whamlastxmas wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think most conservatives who understand NN actually support it. It's just the entrenched political class who stands to benefit from it that support it.

I don’t know. I have mixed feelings on net neutrality. I’m sure I’m to the right of a lot of HN, based on comments, but I lean left on a few issues too. I’ve recently moved to the greater Seattle area and where I live my choices for internet are Comcast and centurylink. I was pretty disappointed as I had fios at my last house. In general principle I am pro letting Comcast throttle whatever. Mainly because of property…

Property rights are important, but there's also something to be said of an industry that's benefited from billions of taxpayer dollars, failed to fulfill their commitments from that money, and is skirting the edge of antitrust laws. Capitalism unchecked is not healthy for 99.99999% of the population, and there needs to be limits to rights of corporations because of this.

Re: Ajit Pai calls California’s net neutrality rules “illegal”

#73

Post by gremlinsinc »

emodendroket wrote: post #64
drfuchs wrote: post #35

Ah, the hypocrisy of the "States Rights" crowd: They're all for it, until they don't like what a state wants to do.

States' rights were first employed as an argument by New Englanders opposing the War of 1812. Their more famous Southern exponents were not troubled by the Fugitive Slave Law. I'd argue that there is nearly nobody who has a principled commitment to states' rights, rather than using it as an instrument to their true ends.

I'd like to go a step further and make each state fully autonomous, with a loosely coupled 'union' for a military force (albeit, MUCH smaller than it is currently) and intrastate issues like commerce/roads/etc. Each state would pay taxes to cover those things. State taxes would be > fed, and would cover Medicare, education, medicaid, and decide their own social programs, and legal laws.. This would give more freedom, if you can afford/want to live in a progressive place with universal healthcare move to a state with that, if not move to the deep south, where they no longer have separation of church and state, and everything else Republicans want.

Re: Ajit Pai calls California’s net neutrality rules “illegal”

#74

Post by emodendroket »

gremlinsinc wrote: post #73
emodendroket wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

States' rights were first employed as an argument by New Englanders opposing the War of 1812. Their more famous Southern exponents were not troubled by the Fugitive Slave Law. I'd argue that there is nearly nobody who has a principled commitment to states' rights, rather than using it as an instrument to their true ends.

I'd like to go a step further and make each state fully autonomous, with a loosely coupled 'union' for a military force (albeit, MUCH smaller than it is currently) and intrastate issues like commerce/roads/etc. Each state would pay taxes to cover those things. State taxes would be > fed, and would cover Medicare, education, medicaid, and decide their own social programs, and legal laws.. This would give more freedom,…

Yes, and then the states can be confederated by some series of articles. Wonder why nobody thought of this?
Post reply on HN