Rand and Ron Paul denounce net neutrality and the public domain

Did anyone read the actual manifesto? [0] The wording sounds a bit confused, because I can't often tell if they're using precise technical definitions for terms or not, but I'm not seeing what this article's author claims to be seeing. The manifesto appears to denounce government-enforced IP law [1], and the only mention of "public domain" seems to be referring not to creative works without any license or copyright, but rather to the idea that websites run on privately-owned hardware should be considered "public" in some way (and therefore the government's business) [2].<p>From what I can tell, the main point of this manifesto is that governments are trying to establish control over privately-owned Internet resources, that the language they use is intentionally deceptive, and that governments enjoy a double standard whereby data collection is prohibited for private endeavors but allowed and even encouraged by governments [3].<p>Perhaps the boingboing author would also consider my views about the Internet and legislation radical and "pretty terrible," but while I consider this manifesto confusing and poorly written, I'm not seeing any evidence of many of his points, and I can't help but agree with many of the manifesto's points. One particular line from this article says "They also ... argue that government monopolies over knowledge should be extended, and that tax-dollars should be used to enforce them." Where is that in the manifesto? Is the author missing something, or am I missing something?<p>[0] <a href="http://www.campaignforliberty.org/profile/14524/blog/2012/07/05/c4l-introduces-technology-revolution" rel="nofollow">http://www.campaignforliberty.org/profile/14524/blog/2012/07...</a><p>[1] "Among the most insidious are government attempts to control and regulate competition, infrastructure, privacy, and intellectual property."<p>[2] "According to them [the Internet collectivists]: ... 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."<p>[3] "Internet collectivists are clever. They are masters at hijacking the language of freedom and liberty to disingenuously push for more centralized control. 'Openness' means government control of privately owned infrastructure. 'Net neutrality' means government acting as arbiter and enforcer of what it deems to be 'neutral.' 'Internet freedom' means the destruction of property rights. 'Competition' means managed competition, with the government acting as judge and jury on what constitutes competition and what does not. Our 'right to privacy' only applies to the data collection activities of the private sector, rarely to government.

&#62; Considering the Pauls were both instrumental in the fight against SOPA and PIPA, you would think that the two of them understood how copyright law is massively abused and how beneficial the public domain is.<p>Not many people seem to understand their libertarian views on things. Their philosophy is neither <i>for free Internet</i> or <i>against free Internet</i>. Their philosophy is about <i>less government intervention</i>. SOPA and PIPA are both bills that impose new government control over certain things (controlling/limiting the rights and freedoms of individuals and ISPs). Net neutrality is also an idea that imposes new government control over certain things (controlling the rights of ISPs). To libertarians, almost all government control is considered bad, be it control over corporations or control over individuals. Thus they are against all of these things simultaneously.<p>I'm not saying I agree with their exact philosophy. But it's simple, very consistent, and they never seem to stray far from it.

That first paragraph is choked with hyperbolic language. I think I'd rather read a different source on the matter if one exists.

This makes no sense, Ron usually takes the freedom / libertarian angle on things. I'm sure there's some nefarious reason for their stand (campaign dollars?). <i>sigh</i> wish there was a way to 'hack' politics...

Oh that internet, created by the wonders of the free market. We'll just forget about that whole DARPA thing.

On net neutrality, this isn't surprising and is in my view quite respectable. In Washington DC, where the legislators Paul operate, calls for 'net neutrality' typically mean putting some federal agency (like the FCC) in charge of what's truly 'neutral' and allowed.<p>The FCC manages licenses for the exercise of free speech over broadcast media. It fines disapproved speech. It dictates that telecom equipment be wiretap-friendly. It's a board of 5 political appointees not apportioned by vote or region, but split between the two national political parties. The FCC could never be a friend of true 'neutrality', but rather what the national political establishment finds helpful.<p>Even if initially adopted in the spirit of the 'nondiscriminatory transit' principle, after a few years you should expect 'network neutrality' to mean 'safe for children', 'copyright-protecting', 'wiretap-friendly', 'with set-asides for underrepresented viewpoints', and 'in compliance with campaign finance laws'. After all, it's not a 'neutral' net if it's filled with piracy, pornography, untappable criminal chat, ethnic/gender-insensitivity, and unregistered political activity. That's downright hostile to law-abiding Americans and their bipartisan protectors at the FCC!<p>There's one small, vague and convoluted mention in the Paul statement about the 'public domain'. It reads roughly:<p><i>According to them [government attempts to control and regulate competition, infrastructure, privacy and intellectual property]... 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.</i><p>That mention isn't even necessarily referring to the rigorous intellectual property notion of 'public domain' (meaning non-copyrighted). It seems more the colloquial notion of 'public domain' as 'that which the government manages, like parks and roads and government buildings'. In order to ridicule this, Doctorow has to spin Masnick, who is himself heavily spinning the Pauls. So that one vague mention becomes instead...<p>• for Masnick, "The Public Domain [is really an] Evil Collectivist Plot"<p>• for Doctorow, "Rand and Ron Paul denounce... the public domain"<p>This is a signature move of politics and click-grabbing headline-escalation. Create the an unfair, unfavorable, heavily-spun summarization of someone's views. Credit that summarization to the original source as if they'd said exactly that. Publicize to get a reaction. Collect the traffic-boosting glory!

&#62;&#62; evil "collectivists" ... are saying that "what is considered to be in the public domain should be greatly expanded."<p>It is "collectivist" to release software (etc.) in public domain???<p>Something done only by collectivists? So that if I contribute to FOSS I must be labeled a collectivist?<p>Maybe the Paul's better offer further explanations.<p>[edited for clarity]