Net neutrality--social media's latest great debate. Let's be honest...how many of us really knew all that much about net neutrality? It became a hashtag and a meme and a battle-cry, but most of us were/are pretty uneducated about it. My initial response, blindly following the outcries on the Internet, was that net neutrality was a good idea and should be upheld. That was before I took the time to understand the issue. Upon further review I have decided, still tentatively, that this recent abolition is a good thing. The issue is complex, valid arguments existing on both sides, but here are three reasons why I'm glad they abolished net neutrality:
1) Less regulation is almost always a good idea. Some regulations are necessary. Murder, theft, etc. are all bad things and they should be illegal. With regulations, however, less is often more. Just adding laws to the books does nothing to guarantee that people will stop being jerks. If you weigh down a society with too many laws, especially economic ones, the effects are often counterproductive. Over-regulate guns? Law-abiding citizens are left without the means for self-defense. Over-regulate wages? A ton of people are going to be paid less than they're worth because their employers have to pay a bunch of other people more than they're worth. Over-regulate the Internet? Well, chances are it won't be good idea long-term.
2) Less regulation almost always saves the consumer money. It's a basic tenet of economics that regulations cost companies money. Those companies never actually absorb that cost, naturally, so the consumer always pays the cost. Regulations also hamper innovation, which is the key to reducing costs. At one point an FM radio, power windows, and seat belts were impressive features in a car. Now they're standard. The free market (the real free market, not the lobbyist-driven market) knows how to bring prices down for goods and services all by itself. As technology advances and competition stiffens, companies will have to earn your business, which means they'll have to provide you more for less. If we keep everything just the way it is, you'll continue to pay more for about the same.
3) Regulations usually do the opposite of what they claim. Affordable Healthcare Act. That is all. Seriously though, when was the last time a government policy actually saved us money or preserved our liberty? LBJ's War on Poverty? Yeah, I'm pretty sure poverty still exists. Obamacare has dramatically raised the costs of healthcare. The War on Drugs hasn't gotten drugs off the streets. The War on Terror has only served to kick the beehive and destabilize the Middle East. Truth is, the government is either a) lying to us about what they're tying to do or b) so incompetent and inefficient that they mess everything up, so, despite their good intentions (which is definitely being more generous than I should be), I'd rather the politicians kept their sticky fingers out of the pot.
People say that abolishing net neutrality will cost us more and open us up to the corruption of Wall Street. C'mon, folks! When does more government ever produce less corruption? When does more government ever save money? As I said, the issue is complex and I'm no expert, but it seems to me that keeping the government out of this is probably a good idea.
1) Less regulation is almost always a good idea. Some regulations are necessary. Murder, theft, etc. are all bad things and they should be illegal. With regulations, however, less is often more. Just adding laws to the books does nothing to guarantee that people will stop being jerks. If you weigh down a society with too many laws, especially economic ones, the effects are often counterproductive. Over-regulate guns? Law-abiding citizens are left without the means for self-defense. Over-regulate wages? A ton of people are going to be paid less than they're worth because their employers have to pay a bunch of other people more than they're worth. Over-regulate the Internet? Well, chances are it won't be good idea long-term.
2) Less regulation almost always saves the consumer money. It's a basic tenet of economics that regulations cost companies money. Those companies never actually absorb that cost, naturally, so the consumer always pays the cost. Regulations also hamper innovation, which is the key to reducing costs. At one point an FM radio, power windows, and seat belts were impressive features in a car. Now they're standard. The free market (the real free market, not the lobbyist-driven market) knows how to bring prices down for goods and services all by itself. As technology advances and competition stiffens, companies will have to earn your business, which means they'll have to provide you more for less. If we keep everything just the way it is, you'll continue to pay more for about the same.
3) Regulations usually do the opposite of what they claim. Affordable Healthcare Act. That is all. Seriously though, when was the last time a government policy actually saved us money or preserved our liberty? LBJ's War on Poverty? Yeah, I'm pretty sure poverty still exists. Obamacare has dramatically raised the costs of healthcare. The War on Drugs hasn't gotten drugs off the streets. The War on Terror has only served to kick the beehive and destabilize the Middle East. Truth is, the government is either a) lying to us about what they're tying to do or b) so incompetent and inefficient that they mess everything up, so, despite their good intentions (which is definitely being more generous than I should be), I'd rather the politicians kept their sticky fingers out of the pot.
People say that abolishing net neutrality will cost us more and open us up to the corruption of Wall Street. C'mon, folks! When does more government ever produce less corruption? When does more government ever save money? As I said, the issue is complex and I'm no expert, but it seems to me that keeping the government out of this is probably a good idea.
Comments
Post a Comment