×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ron Paul's New Primary Goal Is "Internet Freedom"

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the open-the-tubes dept.

The Internet 948

Charliemopps writes "Ron and Rand Paul are shifting the central focus of their family's libertarian crusade to a new cause: Internet Freedom. From the article: 'Kentucky senator Rand and his father Ron Paul, who has not yet formally conceded the Republican presidential nomination, will throw their weight behind a new online manifesto set to be released today by the Paul-founded Campaign for Liberty. The new push, Paul aides say, will in some ways displace what has been their movement's long-running top priority, shutting down the Federal Reserve Bank. The move is an attempt to stake a libertarian claim to a central public issue of the next decade, and to move from the esoteric terrain of high finance to the everyday world of cable modems and Facebook.' This seems like welcome news to me. Let's see if they can get more traction here than they did with the Fed."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

948 comments

So what? (2, Insightful)

MrEricSir (398214) | about 2 years ago | (#40559483)

Seems like Ron Paul's congressional record is about the same as a paperweight. [theatlanticwire.com] The guy might have an interesting idea now and then (and a lot of nutjob ideas in between) but those ideas don't translate to anything real.

Given his failure as a representative, why should we pay attention to anything else he says?

Re:So what? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40559495)

(and a lot of nutjob ideas in between)

Citation needed

Re:So what? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40559541)

Actually, he's pretty good at getting pork earmarked for his district.

Re:So what? (5, Insightful)

MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) | about 2 years ago | (#40559551)

He was reelected 11 times, often by overwhelming margins. So it seems his constituents disagree with you.

Re:So what? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40559783)

Mostly because his district is full of KKK members, aka his "base".

Re:So what? (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 2 years ago | (#40559879)

He was reelected 11 times, often by overwhelming margins. So it seems his constituents disagree with you.

Unless you have some information about who was running against him, you don't know if his constituents were picking the lesser of two weevils or actually supporting his platforms. Even so, many people vote for the incumbent simply because they recognize his name, or they choose the devil they know instead of the devil they don't. Or, their votes were bought with fancy advertising and FUD campaigns. (Obama got a lot of votes because of the "Anyone But Bush" campaign tactics -- in an election where Bush wasn't even a candidate! FUD.)

Nobody knows for sure.

Re:So what? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40559553)

Barack Obama's executive record is about the same. Given his failure as a president, why should we pay attention to anything else he says?

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40559677)

This despite the fact that the President has never been unduly burdened by the need to keep his promises.

Re:So what? (2, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 2 years ago | (#40559933)

Obama's executive record features some of the most and largest legislation ever passed by any president. It includes preventing the economic collapse still grinding most other places in the world. It includes preserving America's industrial base in carmaking. It includes returning the stock market to its value before his predecessors wrecked the economy.

Whether you like what he did or not, that's not a "paperweight".

You Republicans will say anything about "the other team". Which is exactly what got us all into this mess.

Re:So what? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about 2 years ago | (#40559601)

So what?

Well... good-bye (campaign) donations for him from members of RIAA. Meaning, even lower chances his track of record will improve.

Re:So what? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40559635)

Except he's opposing Net Neutrality not SOPA. He can now get campaign contributions from Verizon and Comcast.

are you new here? (0, Flamebait)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 2 years ago | (#40559607)

Given his failure as a representative, why should we pay attention to anything else he says?

We pay attention to ron paul on slashdot because he is the source of >90% of the political groupthink here. If he said tomorrow afternoon that Coca-Cola should indenture their employees to invade Malaysia, slashdot would come out in roaring support of it because his is the majority opinion here, by a long shot. It would quickly be endorsed by slashdot as the greatest idea in the history of mankind - or at least, the greatest idea since ron paul's invention of the internet.

Anyone like me to dares to suggest that ron paul is not the second coming is generally moderated down quickly and severely.

Re:are you new here? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40559731)

We pay attention to ron paul on slashdot because he is the source of >90% of the political groupthink here.

You can't be serious. This place is a hotbed of anti-free market sentiment, especially when it comes to protectionism. It's also nigh on impossible to have any kind of meaningful discussion about something like science funding or healthcare without wading through a morass of snarky comments about the toxic fruit of capitalism. And besides that, the comment you're replying to, which is critical of Paul, is currently at +4. So, yeah.

Re:are you new here? (2)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 2 years ago | (#40559761)

the comment you're replying to, which is critical of Paul, is currently at +4. So, yeah.

You're wrong on several things:

  • The comment is at +3, not +4
  • My comment which you replied to was pushed down to -1 before you even replied
  • The parent comment was only questioning ron pauls effectiveness as a legislator - it said nothing about the validity of his ideas

Re:are you new here? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40559897)

Paultards are infamous for vote-rigging Digg/Reddit, flooding online polls, etc, anything to disguise the unpopularity of their movement. Give this story an hour & the pro-Paul modpoints will really be flooding in. See ya at -1.

Re:are you new here? (3, Insightful)

Mr. Firewall (578517) | about 2 years ago | (#40559739)

We pay attention to ron paul on slashdot because he is the source of >90% of the political groupthink here.

What? Are YOU new here?

Hint: The political groupthink here is WAAAAAAY to the left of Dr. Paul.

Re:are you new here? (4, Informative)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 2 years ago | (#40559949)

Just because people disagree with you (and with the other people who unthinkingly agree with you) doesn't make them "groupthink". Spouting nonsense like "to the left" is groupthink. Calling him "Dr. Paul" when he's "Representative Paul" outside his cult is groupthink.

Re:are you new here? (3, Interesting)

twistedcubic (577194) | about 2 years ago | (#40559829)

Anyone like me to dares to suggest that ron paul is not the second coming is generally moderated down quickly and severely.

This is not true. Moreover, everyone on Slashdot knows that if you begin your post with "I know I'll get modded down for saying this, but..." you will in fact get modded up.

Re:So what? (1)

maztuhblastah (745586) | about 2 years ago | (#40559609)

Given his failure as a representative, why should we pay attention to anything else he says?

Your assertion that he's failed as a representative assumes that the only goal of a representative is to pass as many new laws as possible.

Parts of the whole "checks and balances" thing is that some people need to act as the checks.

Re:So what? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40559653)

Not "as many as possible". Try "any". He's a total nutjob, and he and his douchebag son are a political afterbirth of a system that allows some level of inclusiveness.

Yeah, "checks". Like the dickwad republicans, whose whole idea of "checks" is, "anything Obama wants, we oppose, even if it was our idea first, even if it's good for the country. Do anything to deny him a second term, including destroy the economy."

He's a loser. Period. Too bad he didn't try to do anything realistic for his country. Asshole (both him and you).

Re:So what? (0, Troll)

Mr. Firewall (578517) | about 2 years ago | (#40559755)

"anything Obama wants, we oppose, even if it was our idea first, even if it's good for the country.

Name ONE thing Obama has wanted that is actually good for the country.

Go ahead, I'm holding my breath waiting for it. Oh, wait a minute...

Re:So what? (5, Funny)

msauve (701917) | about 2 years ago | (#40559835)

"Name ONE thing Obama has wanted that is actually good for the country."

Not having Palin as VP.

Re:So what? (1, Troll)

log0n (18224) | about 2 years ago | (#40559901)

Equal pay for women, enabling bio/stem-cell research, cash for clunkers and a lot of military reform (openly gay is a-ok, not to mention addressing the body armor neglect controversy, the walter reed controversy, and ending iraq).

Also there's the whole Somali pirates and Bin Laden thing..

Re:So what? (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 2 years ago | (#40559953)

Keeping the car manufacturing business.

You're not holding your breath, either. You child Republicans really don't have many tricks.

Re:So what? (5, Insightful)

steelfood (895457) | about 2 years ago | (#40559629)

Because in an era of unchecked, unlimited federal power, an equally extreme counterpoint is not only refreshing, but necessary. Sure, it's better to take the middle ground. You only end up at the middle when both sides are equidistant from it. If you start in the middle, you'll only end up skewed to one side, just less so than if everyone was at an extreme. Which is what we've been seeing these days.

There are, of course, many different axes, and just because one is at one extreme on one axis does not imply that person is the same degree of extreme on any of the others.

I'm not a libertarian, but I do recognize that they have a place in this government.

Re:So what? (4, Insightful)

msauve (701917) | about 2 years ago | (#40559643)

Sounds like a great record to me. The less Congress does, the better. Not every problem is something for government to try to solve.

Re:So what? (0)

MrEricSir (398214) | about 2 years ago | (#40559699)

But that was never his goal -- the guy has sponsored hundreds of pieces of legislation, all but a couple were never passed.

My point is that if you judge him by his own goals, he's a failure. We don't need to bring our own politics into the picture to see that.

Re:So what? (0)

msauve (701917) | about 2 years ago | (#40559757)

Please provide an analysis on his introduced legislation. My comment was a bit flippant. I suspect many of his bills were meant to remove laws which were on the books, which I can support.

Re:So what? (2, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 2 years ago | (#40559959)

You "suspect", so you're too lazy to look yourself, but you want them to provide the analysis, though you support Paul anyway?

Republican zombies are the lamest.

Re:So what? (1, Insightful)

Nursie (632944) | about 2 years ago | (#40559941)

Yup, both Pauls are crackpots with some downright evil ideas. Libertarian(ish) when it suits them, old fashioned religious nutjob at other times.

Not that libertarianism is a good idea anyway, but these guys aren't even that.

Friends (1)

Sigvatr (1207234) | about 2 years ago | (#40559497)

Ron Paul is now our friend... for now.

Re:Friends (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40559631)

Yeah, but he's kind of the loser who doesn't really have anyone else to try and befriend so he doesn't look even more alone at school assemblies.

Re:Friends (4, Insightful)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 2 years ago | (#40559725)

Ron Paul is now our friend... for now.

I'm not so sure. I would rather have net neutrality myself, and this is exactly the opposite of that (it even says that on the website). It's another of his "let the free market fix all the problems" approaches. Of course some paullowers - especially some of the ones here on slashdot - will insist that he is the lord, savior, and the only source of true knowledge.

First thing... (2, Interesting)

msauve (701917) | about 2 years ago | (#40559513)

they need to get a clue.

I made a contribution to one of Ron's 2008 "money bombs." From that simple action, I started getting spam from Ron, the Campaign for Liberty, the Rand Paul campaign, and state campaigns. All with "no one's listening" return addresses.

Somehow, this move reeks of opportunism - they have not shown any real understanding of Internet privacy, and certainly haven't "walked the walk."

Re:First thing... (4, Insightful)

Beeftopia (1846720) | about 2 years ago | (#40559555)

Somehow, this move reeks of opportunism - they have not shown any real understanding of Internet privacy, and certainly haven't "walked the walk."

The Internet allows the only real free flow of information nowadays. That's why keeping it open is so important. Without the Internet, the only information we'd get would come from CNN, Fox, BBC, ABC, CBS, etc.

The Internet is only free press. Hence the desire to keep it unfettered.

Re:First thing... (4, Informative)

msauve (701917) | about 2 years ago | (#40559587)

And yet, if you read the linked article, they wish "to stop attempts to impose 'Net Neutrality' rules on broadband providers [and] broaden private control of the wireless spectrum," neither of which act to "allow the free flow of information," nor are they supportive of "Internet freedom."

Re:First thing... (2)

Beeftopia (1846720) | about 2 years ago | (#40559667)

Good catch.

FTA:

'Net neutrality' means government acting as arbiter and enforcer of what it deems to be 'neutral'."

They apparently don't understand "Net Neutrality." They seem to think it's some political content issue rather than preventing throttling of packets based on their source or content.

Re:First thing... (5, Insightful)

Mr. Firewall (578517) | about 2 years ago | (#40559775)

Uh... dude, have you actually READ the proposed "net neutrality" rules?

Hint: They have nothing to do with what you and I mean by "net neutrality." They're just a Government power-grab, and nothing else. THAT is what Dr. Paul opposes.

Re:First thing... (1)

msauve (701917) | about 2 years ago | (#40559873)

Then, if they had a clue, they would reference specific bills/text, and not "net neutrality," for which anyone with a clue understands the meaning.

Re:First thing... (-1, Flamebait)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 2 years ago | (#40559965)

No, they prevent ISPs and their corporate sponsors (or foes) from limiting Internet traffic based on their corporate whims.

You're just lying again. Like any Republican - er, "Libertarian".

Re:First thing... (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | about 2 years ago | (#40559571)

Wait, you gave a whine-o, I mean, politician money and you're mad that they told all their friends to hit you up??? ,,,,,,...^*,,

You're Ideas are intriguing and I would like to subscribe to your tumblr.com

Your criticism: valid but not unique (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40559885)

This problem is endemic among charities. I maxed out to the Ron Paul campaign ($2500) and now get snail-mail stuff for Romney and even the W Bush library fund. Politics is slightly worse because disclosure requires too much information to be made public (IMO) with few-to-no limitations on sending garbage to my house via USPS (there are methods, but they are both annoying and ineffective possibly based on your local postmaster).

Politicians give themselves free postage and charities and non-profits get a special rate. I believe bulk deserves some discount, but not as much as they get (like paying $0.13 or so for something that might cost me a couple bucks to send).

Many a non-profit has lost my business because I'd rather not donate if they can't better control information and marketing.

Re:Your criticism: valid but not unique (1, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 2 years ago | (#40559981)

Bush and Romney's fundraising have your contact info because Ron Paul sold it to them for cash (and maybe some political favors).

What else would you expect? It's a free market, just like you demand.

BTW, Romney and Bush don't get free postage, because though they're obviously lifelong politicians, they're not actually part of the government.

what does anything mean any more???!!?!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40559529)

why is it every time a politician says anything with "freedom" I have to dive into documents/articles to learn what they really mean to say. the word freedom is unofficiallty dead and without meaning.. like "terrorism".. "independant".. "green".. "my experience".. and so on

Yeah (1, Insightful)

TClevenger (252206) | about 2 years ago | (#40559531)

But they still want to ban gay marriage and abortion, right? Just want to make sure we're talking about the same freedom-loving Libertarians, here.

Re:Yeah (5, Informative)

Confusedent (1913038) | about 2 years ago | (#40559595)

No, that's more BS media propaganda. Ron Paul voted against Don't Ask, Don't Tell and has said he's in favor of allowing gay marriage at a federal level. He's personally against it just like he's also personally against abortion, but he's consistent in sticking to his beliefs that people (and states) should have the right to decide for themselves. So don't listen to these people who go on about how he's some racist homophobe who wants to pass laws limiting civil liberties. That's a bunch of BS, the guy supports equal treatment for everyone, gay, straight, man, woman, pro-life, pro-choice, whatever. For future reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul [wikipedia.org]

Re:Yeah (5, Informative)

TClevenger (252206) | about 2 years ago | (#40559685)

Yes, from the VERY SAME ARTICLE on Wikipedia:

In the same interview, when asked whether he would vote for or against a state constitutional amendment like California's Proposition 8, he said, "Well, I believe marriage is between one man and one woman."

Paul has also said that at the federal level he opposes "efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman." He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states and local communities, and not subjected to "judicial activism."[143] He has said that for these reasons he would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, had he been in Congress in 1996

Paul has been a cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in each Congress since the bill's original introduction. It would bar federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.

The second quote is the best. Basically, "I don't think the federal government should preclude the states allowing gay marriage, so I support the federal law that bans gay marriage." WTF?

Re:Yeah (1, Insightful)

msauve (701917) | about 2 years ago | (#40559813)

One needs to separate "marriage" as a private/religious institution from government reward of the same. The only legitimate interest, IMO, for government giving special privileges to those who marry (tax benefits, primarily) are related to preventing offspring from becoming wards of the state, something which doesn't apply to homosexual couples.

Re:Yeah (2)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 2 years ago | (#40559925)

One needs to separate "marriage" as a private/religious institution from government reward of the same.

One should, but it never seems to happen. Those who want gay marriage don't seem to want to settle for a legal status that doesn't include the term "marriage". Civil unions aren't good enough. Fixing bad civil union laws isn't good enough, even though they're trying to fix what they consider to be bad marriage laws, so they're trying to get laws changed either way.

The only legitimate interest, IMO, for government giving special privileges to those who marry (tax benefits, primarily) are related to preventing offspring from becoming wards of the state, something which doesn't apply to homosexual couples.

Can you explain why the foibles and pitfalls that can happen to heterosexual marriages that would cause the children involved to become wards of the state are not applicable to homosexual marriage partners? Is there something that protects them from becoming homeless/unemployed and going on the dole, or divorce, or dual fatality car crashes that take out both parents?

Re:Yeah (2, Insightful)

MrEricSir (398214) | about 2 years ago | (#40559753)

Ah yes, the ol' "leave it to the states" argument.

Which, if you took and passed any American history class, should be raising some red flags. This is the same tactic that the pro-slavery people used, the anti-civil rights people, etc. etc.

"State's rights" in practice is almost always a way to hide one's immoral motives. Certainly it's the same when it come to gay rights; the definition of marriage comes into play in federal law, so it simply can't be a matter of leaving it to the states. To even suggest such a thing is disingenuous at best, a bold-faced lie at worst.

Re:Yeah (0)

msauve (701917) | about 2 years ago | (#40559887)

"'State's rights' in practice is almost always a way to hide one's immoral motives."

That claim is only a small step away from Godwin.

Re:Yeah (1)

meglon (1001833) | about 2 years ago | (#40559927)

....but he's consistent in sticking to his beliefs that people (and states) should have the right to decide for themselves.

Exactly. He wants to do away with the federal government interfering, and allow the states to oppress anyone they want to without that pesky Bill of Rights getting in the way.

Re:Yeah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40559605)

Actually if you watch his debates from earlier this year his response is it's none of the federal governments business, and that if states want to pass laws one way or the other that is up to them.

Full Disclosure: I'm an aussie who just watched a debate to see what the fuss was about and didn't see any crazy from RP at the time. Sample size was 2 debates, may have missed significant crazy.

Cheers - Kactus

Re:Yeah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40559613)

I've never heard of a true libertarian advocating banning anything... there are a lot of fake libertarians i.e. Glenn Beck and others who claim they are libertarian, then will spout the anti-gay, anti abortion clap trap, but... they are not really libertarians.

From the libertarian party platform
On Gay Rights:
"Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships."

I'd say this is decidedly pro gay marriage

On Abortion:

"Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."

I'd say this is decidedly pro-choice

I agree that right wingers are loony when it comes to those issues, but don't lump in libertarians without doing some research...

Whose Freedom To Do What? (5, Insightful)

Bob9113 (14996) | about 2 years ago | (#40559535)

Ron and Rand Paul are shifting the central focus of their family's libertarian crusade to a new cause: Internet Freedom.

Depends what you mean by freedom. According to this Ars Technica Article [arstechnica.com] , he means the freedom of corporations to decide who gets to speak and what they get to say on the Internet.

This seems like welcome news to me.

I'd say that depends pretty heavily on whether you want citizens to be free to speak, or network providers to be free to generate revenue by restricting speech.

Re:Whose Freedom To Do What? (-1, Troll)

J'raxis (248192) | about 2 years ago | (#40559585)

Your idea of "freedom" is expropriating others' private property for your own freedoms, just because those others are large business entities, right?

Re:Whose Freedom To Do What? (2)

Dyinobal (1427207) | about 2 years ago | (#40559589)

You have certain duties and get certain rights when you apply to get a 'common carrier' status, at any time if a company doesn't wish to be a common carrier they can do so. Until then they have certain duties.

Re:Whose Freedom To Do What? (5, Insightful)

Bob9113 (14996) | about 2 years ago | (#40559645)

Your idea of "freedom" is expropriating others' private property for your own freedoms, just because those others are large business entities, right?

Nope, I'm actually a pretty hard-core free market guy.

My idea of freedom for network providers is this:

1. You want immunity from liability for what you carry? Fine, you have to be agnostic to what you carry. If you want discretion, you are liable.

2. You want exclusive rights to spectrum and access to rights of way? Cool, but you have to act in the public interest -- which includes supporting the most important freedom we have; free speech.

You don't have to do those things, but you can't use our spectrum, our rights-of-way, and be granted immunity if you do not give some quid-pro-quo to society for the privilege. It's like the free market, you have to pay for what you get -- but since the goods and services you are getting are public resources and civil liability privileges, your payment is to society and the transaction is managed by our government.

Re:Whose Freedom To Do What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40559649)

If Wrong Paul and Randroid are out to free me, I want my slavery back.

Re:Whose Freedom To Do What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40559729)

I think it would be better to say: Beware of Libretarians offering freedom, because the freedom they offer is probably a freedom corporations and other monied interest will have over you.

ron paul was absent on SOPA vote (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40559547)

he was off "fund raising" instead of "voting for liberty", the guy is a hack.

Re:ron paul was absent on SOPA vote (1)

Confusedent (1913038) | about 2 years ago | (#40559623)

This is true. For one reason or another (and I'm not sure what it was), he was Not Present at the SOPA vote.

before everyone rushes to agree... (1)

retchdog (1319261) | about 2 years ago | (#40559561)

Private property rights on the Internet should exist in limited fashion or not at all, and what is considered to be in the public domain should be greatly expanded.

no, that's not what the Pauls want. it's an example of the ``insidious" agenda of collectivists (page 1).

libertarians really can't get a hold on anything unless there's private property, even if it's established by fiat in the first place! their very idea of online freedom will depend on strong copyright and patent laws. to quote again (page 4), internet regulation will be acceptable if it ``protect[s] property rights," presumably even if the government has to define what is private property in the first place. don't even try going federalist with this, as any state which defects from enforcement will gain a ridiculous advantage and could be federally regulated under reasonable application of commerce laws.

any libertarian opposition to strong copyright and patent will be on the fringe of the fringe, although to be fair the Pauls want the regulation to be ``clear and specific, with defined metrics and limitations."

my prediction would be that they will be for stronger patent and copyright enforcement, but hopefully with saner (shorter and more specific) terms.

Re:before everyone rushes to agree... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40559923)

any libertarian opposition to strong copyright and patent will be on the fringe of the fringe, although to be fair the Pauls want the regulation to be ``clear and specific, with defined metrics and limitations."

You're not following the movement. More and more libertarian types want individuals to be sovereign and capable of negotiating their own terms regarding IP. Just like dealing with another nation, terms would have to be reasonable. Implied benefits of the "peon" to support (as opposed to pirating) would be:

a) access to legit channels of the information (e.g., theaters playing MPAA movies)
b) better prices on purchased IP
c) protection by those in this IP group for your own works (or inventions if applicable)

A purely voluntaryist IP system could exist. In many cases - like BS software inventions - I doubt there would be motivation to create such a group. Others may form collaborative research institutions where several companies pool resources. Lower costs and first mover-advantages can still exist.

Re:before everyone rushes to agree... (1)

retchdog (1319261) | about 2 years ago | (#40559937)

yes, this is a nice fantasy.

i'm talking about how this property would really be defined, by people who think microsoft "led the PC revolution" and that apple invented a market "out of whole cloth," (both direct quotes, btw) convincing a technologically-illiterate congress about how to ratify it.

it's nice that there's a movement in opposition, but it's definitely not "the movement." proof: point me to the last libertarian party presidential candidate who didn't support copyright and patent in their current forms, or quantitatively stronger.

Internet Freedom or ISP Freedom? (1)

mister2au (1707664) | about 2 years ago | (#40559573)

It seems this relates to regulation of US based provision of services based on the internet and wider ranging issues of US government of monitoring or censoring access to US residents.

To me, a non-US based reader, the dude *seems* like a scaremongering wacko ...

Wonderful (2)

jimbrooking (1909170) | about 2 years ago | (#40559617)

Their rhetoric even sounds like Ayn Rand's tirades in Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead and elsewhere. This is logical since Ayn Rand is their idolized ideological forebear.

Let private industry do whatever they want to the Internet. Smart people and the corporations they heroically work for have made the Internet what it is today. So let the Verizons, the Comcasts, the Cox's, the Rogers' and the Telus' of the world give priority routing of their ad-laden drivel over what some of the customers of these paragons of individualist virtue would like to do, which is to communicate, to learn and and to chose their entertainment from wherever it suits them.

And if our corporate overlords who provide us with their extravagant priced "pipes" wish for us to have no access outside their hallowed walls, what then? What choices do 99% of us have? Zip. Someone said the Pauls are our friends? Not in this lifetime!

Freedom for capitalists (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40559619)

It's becoming a creepy world where everyone's movements and activities are tracked and photographed on a moment-by-moment, yard-by-yard, page visit-by-page visit, transaction-by-transaction basis and permanently archived and sliced and diced by hundreds of machine intelligence frameworks for commercial, social, scientific, and political/governmental advantage.

This will change the evolutionary course of the human race in favor of people who relish living in front of the cameras 24x7x365. Think of the Kardashians, Donald Trump, etc.

It makes a better recruiting tool that way (1, Insightful)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 2 years ago | (#40559651)

The Pauls want "internet freedom" - which includes the opposite of net neutrality - so that they can better deploy it as a way to bring in new recruits to their cult. By giving more power to corporations (as they propose) it is easier for them to ensure that their message is heard over the messages that counter their own. They'll be able to pay ISPs and search engines to ensure that traffic searching for counter ideas or even related ideas always end up directing to their website instead.

Just remember, the main difference between a religion and a cult is in the number of adherents. Right now Ron Paul has a cult. A few thousand more worshippers and he has a church (with tax exempt status, of course!).

Verizon, AT&T -- all backing Rand Paul (4, Insightful)

Knytefall (7348) | about 2 years ago | (#40559655)

"Internet Freedom" sounds like a phrase designed to make being anti-Net Neutrality sounds good.

And no wonder: Verizon and AT&T are heavy contributors to Rand Paul's campaign. [fastcompany.com]

Make no mistake: there's nothing "free" about the state-granted monopolies the wireless and cable industry have. Since they're monopolies, they ought to be regulated.

And if regulation is removed, you know that the telecom industry will be hitting up Google and Netflix for cash right away.

"Internet Freedom" means freedom for Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T to charge siteowners like Google and Amazon just because they feel like it.

"Internet Freedom" means every single thing you do on the Internet is going to cost more because Verizon and Comcast need to keep posting massive increases in profits.

"Internet Freedom" means freedom for the carriers to hold you hostage. ...and if you think that the 'free-market' will solve this, remember: bandwidth is scarce and already monopolized by the big carriers. You won't see landline competition either: the big carriers also have all the local governments locked up so there won't be any competition there. And you know that the Pauls won't be taking on the local governments so that there can be competition in the landline market.

Re:Verizon, AT&T -- all backing Rand Paul (4, Insightful)

maztuhblastah (745586) | about 2 years ago | (#40559733)

Rand Paul != Ron Paul.

More importantly, Rand Paul !== Ron Paul.

Re:Verizon, AT&T -- all backing Rand Paul (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 2 years ago | (#40559909)

Rand Paul != Ron Paul.

More importantly, Rand Paul !== Ron Paul.

Indeed. Rand is a douche, much more likely to go along with the bigot faction of the republican party. Ron not so much. [salon.com]

Re:Verizon, AT&T -- all backing Rand Paul (2)

brit74 (831798) | about 2 years ago | (#40559961)

Rand Paul != Ron Paul. More importantly, Rand Paul !== Ron Paul.

"Ron and Rand Paul are set today to shift the central focus of their family's long libertarian crusade to a new cause: Internet Freedom."

Re:Verizon, AT&T -- all backing Rand Paul (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 2 years ago | (#40559831)

Make no mistake: there's nothing "free" about the state-granted monopolies the wireless and cable industry have.

What state-granted monopolies the wireless and cable industry have?

There are currently more than one (four, five, ?) wireless providers in my area, and anyone who wants to enter a franchise agreement with the city is free to put up a new cable system. That's not a monopoly. That's "you want to hang your wires in our rights-of-way, you pay us".

Now, for cable, there is effectively a financial monopoly since it costs a lot of money to build a cable system and very little return for both companies if two try to wire the same area. That's not "state-granted", that's economics. Even if there were no franchise agreements or franchise fees, there would still be no economic incentive for a second cable provider to enter an already serviced market.

Re:Verizon, AT&T -- all backing Rand Paul (1)

Knytefall (7348) | about 2 years ago | (#40559939)

Wireless monopoly: the large operators in the wireless industry have exclusive, monopoly rights to broadcast on the frequencies they own. Wireless is not a 'free market' -- once the spectrum is purchased, there is no additional spectrum left to sell.

Cable: you live in an excellent area, and it sounds like your local government is well-functioning and actually does allow for multiple franchise agreements in both name and in practie. I'd be less concerned about net neutrality if everyone's local governments functioned this way.

Sadly, in the city I live in (San Francisco), and the last city I lived in (Pittsburgh), Comcast and AT&T have effective monopolies on the poles. Even though there is a theoretical opportunity for expansion in these cities, the cities refuse to grant additional franchise agreements.

I would get behind any 'Internet Freedom' movement/lobby effort that would remove or make equitable the crappy local zoning laws and franchise agreements that block additional landline competitors from going in.

In SF, AT&T has been trying to drop fiber for years, and they keep getting blocked by zoning laws. Two small ISPs (Sonic.net and MonkeyBrains) have been trying to build their own fiber networks, and are getting thwarted as well. None of these companies want anything special: no subsidies or handouts--they'd pay all expenses for installation. They just want to be able to lay the lines and have not been able to do so.

There are many other cities that have this same problem.

Sounds like Verizon et al promised some donations (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40559657)

Defending the Internet and the corporations that invest in it from government regulation

So basically let ISP's pretend their services aren't a utility, and allow them to shit all over (including but not limited to) multimedia streaming services that compete with their own via QOS throttling?

Internet freedom, for ISPs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40559671)

Ron Paul will represent a victory for freedom from government, for both consumers and ISPs.

Libertarian philosophy is deficient in that it assumes all transgressions are ultimately the fault of governments and governments alone. From there they can do some good but they will always stand in inaction in the face of powerful, non-state threats to freedom... mostly because they don't believe non-state actors can transgress on freedom - or, worse, consider such transgressions to be the freedoms of said non-state actors.

The fact that he can simultaneously be a doctor and claim to belong to a philosophy which says we should do away with the FDA and medical licensing laws should point to the kinds of cognitive dissonance (or outright lies) this man must deal with every day. Not to mention, he's an open homophobe, and supports prohibiting same-sex marriage, while also claiming to be a libertarian. His claim to dissuade such cognitive dissonance is that horrible, freedom-restricting regulations are OK on the state level... which means he's not even a libertarian, just a provincial nutjob.

In terms of actions, Ron Paul does fuck all, runs hopeless presidential campaigns every four years, and gets large amounts of contributions from gullible libertarians who like to see someone attempt to espouse their unworkable philosophy in office. He's switching narrative from the federal reserve to internet freedom because right now it looks like the federal government is the primary threat. Which means he can rake in more money while continuing to make stupid pointless no votes on things which don't pass his horribly warped view of constitutionality. It's a pretty good racket.

Tell me, when ISPs begin to intentionally cripple their own service in areas where there is no competition, what is the Ron Paul Plan for Network Neutrality? Please don't say that new start-up ISPs will appear, because you can't create start-up ISPs without enormous amounts of municipal support, and state governments are known to quash municipal network plans at the behest of ISP lobbying. (I don't care about extending libertarianism to the states - remember, Ron Paul doesn't want that because it means queerofags marrying at his door.)

Tell me, when entrenched media monopolies turn to copyright trolling to destroy technologies that would otherwise be useful, what is the Ron Paul Plan for Copyright Reform? Or, if technology companies turn to patent trolling to destroy competitors, what is the Ron Paul Plan for Patent Reform? I'm aware that even certain parts of libertarianism support explicit repeal of all copyright and patent laws, but then again keep in mind that Ron Paul is not a libertarian, and we are arguing his plans, not yours. He could easily cop out and agree with the Rand-style libertarians/objectivists who think that copyrights and patents are perfectly justified property in all cases.

This story should probably be tagged flamebait (0)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 2 years ago | (#40559689)

I suspect any comments in this discussion that don't support ron paul will likely be quickly and severely moderated into oblivion. Thankfully, I have karma to burn. Others might not be so lucky and might not want to pick a fight here with the leagues of slashdot paullowers.

unfortunately Paul's idea of freedom is slavery (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40559691)

Paul's new big push is *against* net neutrality. The freedom he's defending is your ISP's freedom to open your mail and forget to deliver it if it's from their competition.

Shut down the Fed? (1)

manu0601 (2221348) | about 2 years ago | (#40559695)

As a non american, I am vaguely aware of US presidential candidates proposals. I here discover the idea to close the Federal Reserve.

Does he propose to create an alternative body for creating dollars? Or does he considers that only private banks should be able to create money? In the later case, what is his plan to save the economy once they will have bursted the next bubble?

Re:Shut down the Fed? (1)

jimbrooking (1909170) | about 2 years ago | (#40559877)

Actually, I suppose if you adopted pure gold as the national currency, as Ayn Rand advocated, you really could shut down the Fed. So when you start running low on funds, you could mug someone with gold teeth instead of robbing convenience stores!

Re:Shut down the Fed? (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | about 2 years ago | (#40559935)

Actually, the Fed's legal status is a hybrid between public and private. I wonder if any other country's central bank operates like that.

Re:Shut down the Fed? (1)

msauve (701917) | about 2 years ago | (#40559967)

The Federal Reserve is effectively a private institution, given extraordinary power by the government. It is not subject to any significant public oversight. Eliminating the "Fed" would entail a return to the US government issuing currency and controlling monetary policy in a public manner. There's no need to "create an alternative body for creating dollars." It's currently the case "that only private banks [i.e. the Fed are...] able to create money." Ron Paul is also a proponent for a return to a gold backed currency.

Re:Shut down the Fed? (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 2 years ago | (#40559983)

Does he propose to create an alternative body for creating dollars? Or does he considers that only private banks should be able to create money?

US money is currently created by the Treasury, not the FED. Why would getting rid of the FED change that?

Internet Freedom? (4, Insightful)

ukemike (956477) | about 2 years ago | (#40559707)

Sounds like they want the same thing libertarians always want. Freedom for corporations to run roughshod over the rest of us without the burden of regulations designed to look after the interests of people.

"Internet collectivists are clever," the manifesto says, accusing their foes of series of Orwellian linguistic twists. "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 tobe 'neutral'."

The irony is that If he gets his way on this issue HE will be among the most likely to be stifled.

As Bugs Bunny used to say, "What a maroon!"

america needs jewish leadership (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40559709)

not jewish myself but these fucking w.a.s.p. freaks are trying to bring back feudalism. whether capitalist or communist jews always seem to care for social justice even for non-jews (except stop beating up on the palistinians already) while christians want nothing but strong authoritarian rule. jews have always championed civil rights, workers rights, culture and science...a jewish guy discovers mass-energy equivalence, a great contribution to science, and in a decade christians are using it to make weapons of mass destruction. i wish the conspiracy kooks were right and jews did control the government because everyone's standard of living would be a hell of a lot better!

Meanwhile, in Ron Paul's blimp... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40559737)

Obligatory: http://xkcd.com/495/

Welcome to GovCorp (4, Interesting)

Beeftopia (1846720) | about 2 years ago | (#40559745)

From reading the article, it sounds like the Pauls are more afraid of the government than corporations, which is a mistake IMHO. Eisenhower talked of the Military-Industrial complex. It's all slowly merging into one giant GovCorp, where the politicians and top corporate executives entrench themselves further and further, scratching each other's backs.

There's the concept of "Creative Destruction." The working classes are well acquainted with it. The problem is that where it's needed most, at the top of the political system and in financial sectors, it's almost completely prevented from occurring.

The Economist had an interesting article entitled "The question of extractive elites." [economist.com]

From that article: "In an extractive economy, such as the Belgian Congo and its successor state, Zaire, a narrow elite seizes power and uses its control of resources to prevent social change... Much of current economic policy seems to be driven by the need to prop up banks, whether it is record-low interest rates across the developed world or the recent provision of virtually unlimited liquidity by the once-staid European Central Bank. The long-term effects of these policies, which may be hard to reverse, are difficult to assess."

who's internet freedom? (4, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 2 years ago | (#40559793)

the individual's?

or freedom like this?:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/07/04/1538201/verizon-claims-net-neutrality-violates-their-free-speech-rights [slashdot.org]

the problem the pauls and libertarian fundamentalists like them have is they are incredibly naive about what small government really means: a power vacuum that is filled by corporations. at least with our deeply flawed government, there is actually a pretense that it is supposed to stand for our individual freedoms, and some means of recourse

weaken our government, and you are left with monopolies and oligarchies who are happy to trample on our freedoms in the name of their "freedom", and no recourse whatsoever

oh yeah, you can take your business to a competitor, because without regulation the three dominant players aren't colluding and squashing all real competition

oh yeah, you can sue them in court. like you have 6 months and $100,000 and you lose anyway because they can just wear you down with their legion of lawyer goons

give it up, randroids

Re:who's internet freedom? (0)

sockman (133264) | about 2 years ago | (#40559863)

You're wrong here, actually. Weaken the government and it's ability to wrongly regulate a service (which causes it to become shit) and consumers will win.

Weaken the governments ability to regulate anything and the private sector will actually listen to the consumers. When a city makes money off of a franchise fee, the consumer certainly is not going to win.

Re:who's internet freedom? (4, Informative)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 2 years ago | (#40559975)

rainbows!

unicorns!

for a market to be truly free, as in just, a market must be highly regulated so large and small players operate on the same level ground

without such government intervention in the market, the largest players collude and squash the little ones, and there is no real market at all, just a few large rent seeking parasites and no consumer choice whatsoever

but don't listen to me, i only have the entirety of economic history to back me up

by all means, don't let reality interfere with what are basically religious myths you depend upon to think the way you do

Fuck yea, Comcast can rape me more! (2)

sockman (133264) | about 2 years ago | (#40559825)

Internet freedom by letting Comcast coagulate with the scum of the earth MPAA/media producers.

That means my internet will suck more, because I refuse to buy a fucking subscription to their shit ass channels. Fuck you Comcast, I just want my goddamn internet and I'm not a fucking pirate.

Ron Paul != libertarian (2)

Nimey (114278) | about 2 years ago | (#40559907)

He's a states-rightser who's masquerading as a libertarian, and he gets away with it because the things he says are anti-federal government.

Ron Paul is not a freedom fighter (3, Insightful)

davmoo (63521) | about 2 years ago | (#40559963)

Its obvious from reading the comments on this story that a lot of you all think this means Ron Paul is in favor of a free and open internet, and has come out in favor of net neutrality. You all obviously don't know Ron Paul. For him, and his son, "internet freedom" means businesses on the internet are free to do as they please, capitalism rules, and net neutrality will die a quick death.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...