4 ms·

This is very interesting news, but I am scared that there will be a bit of a backlash against this post because of its political nature, on HN specifically. Ho

This is very interesting news, but I am scared that there will be a bit of a backlash against this post because of its political nature, on HN specifically. How do people feel about Ron Paul's standpoint on Net Neutrality?

JeremyBanks 15y ago
Discussion of specific points of Ron Paul's beliefs has always seemed a little pointless to me. If you understand the basic things he cares about, you can accurately guess what his opinion and explanation on almost everything will be. So any discussion of a specific topic is either shallow or derailed into a much broader political discussion. It doesn't feel productive.
- spenrose 15y ago
  WRT this topic, I tend to agree with you. But Ron Paul is not some Valley Libertarian. Did you know that Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution?: http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/08/29/307010/the-continuing-adventures-of-ron-paul-cultural-conservative/ http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/08/29/307010/the-cont... More broadly: http://www.tnr.com/article/94477/ron-paul-distorted-libertarian-ideology?page=0,0 http://www.tnr.com/article/94477/ron-paul-distorted-libertar...
  - xorglorb 15y ago
    Okay. I'm stopping this here. We do not need HN to turn into /r/politics.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
  - cpeterso 15y ago
    What is libertarian position on evolution?
    - maqr 15y ago
      That it's a matter of science and not government.
    - nickik 15y ago
      The pure position is not to have a position. Schools would be privat so if they want to teach evolution or something else is up to them.
  - ataggart 15y ago
    Please redact your comments before others feel compelled to respond.
  - danssig 15y ago
    Who cares? Nearly all US politicians are complete idiots (often insane people). What matters is where a given politician stands on issues I care about. What are you afraid he's going to do, outlaw evolution?
  - mindcrime 15y ago
    Who cares what Ron Paul thinks about evolution? He doesn't believe it's the government's job to cram creationism down kids throats, so what he personally believes is fairly irrelevant. And anybody who knows anything about Ron Paul knows that he isn't some ignorant, fundamentalist bible-thumping hick like Mike Huckabee... Ron is a freaking medical doctor who got his degree from Duke. He's clearly an intelligent man, who just happens to have this one quirky religious thing going on. And lots of very intelligent people are conflicted over the whole evolution / creationism thing, because of their religious beliefs. Not a big deal, IMO.
plainOldText 15y ago
His standpoint is consistent with other libertarian views he has. No regulation. The Internet has worked fine without regulation for so many years. And if your carrier/isp is throttling your connection, switch to a different one.If many people switch then they'll stop throttling. Simple as that.
- chrischen 15y ago
  Only problem is many people, like me, cannot actually switch. Comcast is the only provider in my apartment. No DSL company would hook me up and no other cable company has wires in here.
  - ja30278 15y ago
    Consider the situation in which most subscribers of Comcast in your area wanted to switch..if there are enough of them to build a business, that strong 'latent' demand is a market waiting to happen.
    - rayiner 15y ago
      It doesn't work like that, not even in theory. Communications infrastructure is a market that inevitably involves natural monopolies: first because of the cost structure of the industry (marginal cost curve always decreasing) and second because of network effects.
- sp332 15y ago
  The Internet has worked fine without regulation for so many years. Ummmm, no. Markets are segregated and each municipality grants a franchise to a specific company. Most markets in the USA have one cable company, one phone company, plus maybe some wireless and satellite coverage. ISPs have been given billions of dollars in federal subsidies. Also, there are strings attached to every one of those dollars. The FCC and FTC have pretty restrictive regulations regarding spectrum usage, how much power you can push over phone lines, etc. There is a lot of regulation on the internet in the USA, which is why we can't let the market settle the Net Neutrality issue.
nickik 15y ago
I think his view is consistent but I disagree. The principal for me is a ISP can not treat diffrent packages diffrent if the pay the same. The should be allowed to offer high speed low latency connection if the wish to. From a libaralist perspectiv I would argue it like this. The packages you send on the net are your property, the ISP is not allowed to look into it just like I don't want my letters to be opend and treated diffrently if somebody thinks what I wrote is not to importend. The ISP is only allowed to look at the header. This is a good model for everybody. ISP can offer for example a flatrate that is not to fast and offer some high speed threwput witch you could use for VoIP.
Gormo 15y ago
> How do people feel about Ron Paul's standpoint on Net Neutrality? I think he has a fairly pro-Net-Neutrality standpoint, which is to say that he opposes legislation that nominally intends to preserve net neutrality while, in practical terms, actually would create a significant threat to the same.

JeremyBanks 15y ago

Discussion of specific points of Ron Paul's beliefs has always seemed a little pointless to me. If you understand the basic things he cares about, you can accurately guess what his opinion and explanation on almost everything will be. So any discussion of a specific topic is either shallow or derailed into a much broader political discussion. It doesn't feel productive.

spenrose 15y ago
WRT this topic, I tend to agree with you. But Ron Paul is not some Valley Libertarian. Did you know that Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution?: http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/08/29/307010/the-continuing-adventures-of-ron-paul-cultural-conservative/ http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/08/29/307010/the-cont... More broadly: http://www.tnr.com/article/94477/ron-paul-distorted-libertarian-ideology?page=0,0 http://www.tnr.com/article/94477/ron-paul-distorted-libertar...
- xorglorb 15y ago
  Okay. I'm stopping this here. We do not need HN to turn into /r/politics.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
- cpeterso 15y ago
  What is libertarian position on evolution?
  - maqr 15y ago
    That it's a matter of science and not government.
  - nickik 15y ago
    The pure position is not to have a position. Schools would be privat so if they want to teach evolution or something else is up to them.
- ataggart 15y ago
  Please redact your comments before others feel compelled to respond.
- danssig 15y ago
  Who cares? Nearly all US politicians are complete idiots (often insane people). What matters is where a given politician stands on issues I care about. What are you afraid he's going to do, outlaw evolution?
- mindcrime 15y ago
  Who cares what Ron Paul thinks about evolution? He doesn't believe it's the government's job to cram creationism down kids throats, so what he personally believes is fairly irrelevant. And anybody who knows anything about Ron Paul knows that he isn't some ignorant, fundamentalist bible-thumping hick like Mike Huckabee... Ron is a freaking medical doctor who got his degree from Duke. He's clearly an intelligent man, who just happens to have this one quirky religious thing going on. And lots of very intelligent people are conflicted over the whole evolution / creationism thing, because of their religious beliefs. Not a big deal, IMO.

plainOldText 15y ago

His standpoint is consistent with other libertarian views he has. No regulation. The Internet has worked fine without regulation for so many years. And if your carrier/isp is throttling your connection, switch to a different one.If many people switch then they'll stop throttling. Simple as that.

chrischen 15y ago
Only problem is many people, like me, cannot actually switch. Comcast is the only provider in my apartment. No DSL company would hook me up and no other cable company has wires in here.
- ja30278 15y ago
  Consider the situation in which most subscribers of Comcast in your area wanted to switch..if there are enough of them to build a business, that strong 'latent' demand is a market waiting to happen.
  - rayiner 15y ago
    It doesn't work like that, not even in theory. Communications infrastructure is a market that inevitably involves natural monopolies: first because of the cost structure of the industry (marginal cost curve always decreasing) and second because of network effects.
sp332 15y ago
The Internet has worked fine without regulation for so many years. Ummmm, no. Markets are segregated and each municipality grants a franchise to a specific company. Most markets in the USA have one cable company, one phone company, plus maybe some wireless and satellite coverage. ISPs have been given billions of dollars in federal subsidies. Also, there are strings attached to every one of those dollars. The FCC and FTC have pretty restrictive regulations regarding spectrum usage, how much power you can push over phone lines, etc. There is a lot of regulation on the internet in the USA, which is why we can't let the market settle the Net Neutrality issue.

nickik 15y ago

I think his view is consistent but I disagree. The principal for me is a ISP can not treat diffrent packages diffrent if the pay the same. The should be allowed to offer high speed low latency connection if the wish to. From a libaralist perspectiv I would argue it like this. The packages you send on the net are your property, the ISP is not allowed to look into it just like I don't want my letters to be opend and treated diffrently if somebody thinks what I wrote is not to importend. The ISP is only allowed to look at the header. This is a good model for everybody. ISP can offer for example a flatrate that is not to fast and offer some high speed threwput witch you could use for VoIP.

Gormo 15y ago

> How do people feel about Ron Paul's standpoint on Net Neutrality? I think he has a fairly pro-Net-Neutrality standpoint, which is to say that he opposes legislation that nominally intends to preserve net neutrality while, in practical terms, actually would create a significant threat to the same.