The US House of Representatives definitively rejected the concept of Net neutrality on Thursday, dealing a bitter blow to Internet companies like Amazon.com, eBay and Google that had engaged in a last-minute lobbying campaign to support it. By a 269-152 vote that fell largely along party lines, the House Republican leadership mustered enough votes to reject a Democrat-backed amendment that would have enshrined stiff Net neutrality regulations into federal law and prevented broadband providers from treating some Internet sites differently from others.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-02-15
With law shall land be built, but if everybody would be satisfied with what belongs to him, and let other persons enjoy the same right, then there would be no need for a law.
That's all it boils down to.
In other words, it boils down to "if humans weren't human they wouldn't need human institutions."
But even that view is overly simplistic, since, again, you've missed the issue of rights in conflict. The classic example here is your right to make noise versus my right to live in quiet.
Member since:2005-10-02
Member since:2006-02-15
You only have the right to live in quiet within your domain. And you're - in this situation - not located within your own domain.
This sentence makes no sense in light of the comment it is in response to: But even that view is overly simplistic, since, again, you've missed the issue of rights in conflict. The classic example here is your right to make noise versus my right to live in quiet.
The problem is that you're avoiding the obvious: noise does not respect your idea of "domain", and travels from one domain to the other.
Member since:
2005-10-02
Anarchy is freedom. Actually it is complete personal freedom. The fewer laws, the more personal freedom. No laws is complete freedom, and with complete freedom comes complete responsibility. Unfortunately mankind appears incapable of handling such responsibility.
Totalitarianism is an ideology.
So is liberalism. So is anarchism. I didn't bring up the "if people were ideologically... blahblahblah". I merely responded.
You mean "if everyone shared dylansmrjones' ideology, laws would cease to exist." Of course, the only way you could get everyone to subscribe to your ideology would be to force them to. So much for freedom.
I'm not going to force anyone to subscribe to my ideology. As long as you don't interfere with me in _my_ domain, I won't interfere with you in _your_ domain.
I wonder if there is an english translation to "Jyske Lov" (Jutlandic Law) from 1241. It has a very interesting foreword.
"Med lov skal land bygges, men ville enhver nøjes med sit eget og lade andre nyde samme ret, da behøvede man ikke nogen lov."
With law shall land be built, but if everybody would be satisfied with what belongs to him, and let other persons enjoy the same right, then there would be no need for a law.
That's all it boils down to.