Straight to the point

[unixronin]

I don't believe I have yet seen a more succinct summary of the "Net Neutrality" issue than the one Illiad posted today.

Comments

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

That only applies if you reject the concept of a "common good". Some common goods are things that have negative market value, like parks in neighborhoods taking valuable property, (of course having a park can increase property value, which is why it is a good, not a bad.) A common good can also be something like access to markets. In pure capitalism, access to markets can be restricted by participants in the markets, leading to inefficient allocation of resources. That is a "bad". It is not socialism or fascism to ensure that monopolies do not distort markets simply by having a monopoly position. Capitalism does not admit that this is needed because it is only concerned with the accumulation of wealth, not playing fair.

[apotheon.livejournal.com]

Say what?

Regulation of monopolies is pretty much the very definition of fascism. Elimination of monopolies is a function of free markets governed by competitive economies. The term "common good" is a bit of heuristic voodoo that is used to justify whatever comes down the pike that fits someone's notion of how things should be this week — it can be used to justify "necessary monopolies", interdependent governmental monopoly regulation (fascism), monopoly elimination, and even a pure state monopoly (socialism).

Ultimately, it's not monopoly that's a problem in any case: it's anticompetitive practices. Take that and run with it.

Capitalism does not admit that this is needed because it is only concerned with the accumulation of wealth, not playing fair.

Are we anthropomorphizing economic systems now? That entire statement is nonsense. An economic system has no ability to act in and of itself, has no motivational characteristics, and does not in any way have a will of its own.