Net Neutrality to Protect the Commons

Americans for Tax Reform has taken the ISP side of this issue in the name of less government regulation. This issue has nothing to do with tax reform and if handled properly has no regulatory burden any more than we have to regulate who gets to use America's roads.

The Internet is a commons and it's the government's proper role to make sure that it remains available for the benefit of everyone.  I, for one, subscribe to Internet service at home and via my phone so that my ISP will deliver the world to me - and I'm already paying for the access so I reject any idea where the ISP will further restrict what I can access by charging the other side for it as well.  This is highway robbery - everyone has already paid for their access and now the man in the middle wants a bigger cut.  

The Internet has grown because the free market works but ALSO because all sites are on an equal playing field:  business owners control how well their site is accessible by investing in better servers and more bandwidth, and customers control how well they access the internet by choosing their devices and bandwidth. Now some ISP's see a new profit venue by charging businesses more money to ensure their data flows well to customers accessing it through that ISP - even though both businesses and customers have already paid for their bandwidth separately. This is going to lead to the OPPOSITE of a free market because as ISP's consolidate, more and more customers are forced to access the internet through less and less ISP's. So this means that just A FEW entities will have a large amount of control over what people see by simply adjusting how much it costs.  Only large well-funded businesses will be able to afford having great performance and customers will gravitate towards those sites, some which will inevitably become mere portals like AOL.  Because this model will work well for ISP's, they'll exploit it as much as possible, which means for smaller businesses, the barrier of entry into the internet marketplace will be raised again and again until eventually starting an online business will become very prohibitive.  It turns the Internet from a free market to a very controlled market - but controlled by a few really large monopolies.

Sprint, Verizon, and the like didn't invent the Internet and the prospect that they will reduce their individual investments in their  network infrastructure doesn't scare me at all. They'll cut jobs? Fine, you can't terrorize me.  If they don't think it's profitable they can quit the business and someone else will happily take over their customers.  It was tax money that led to the creation and many subsequent innovations of the internet, and the livelihoods of a lot more people can suffer as a result of letting ISP's dictate what we see online.

Election Rules

Running for public office costs money. The more important the office, the more is spent on the campaign.

Should there be a limit on how long the "campaign season" is? No. A person who is running for office is using reputation built over his or her entire lifetime, and the right to free speech prevents the government from restricting precisely this kind of (usually positive) political speech. Putting an arbitrary limit on the "campaign season" won't do much to curb the spending, it will just concentrate most of it during that period when all the advertising and traveling is done.

Should private funding of campaigns be prohibited? No. Having the government pay for campaigns is a terrible idea. First, there would have to be a system to determine who is eligible to receive money. Since we have two long-standing major parties, any public funding system would probably end up being very biased towards those two parties the way that the rest of the election system is biased towards them now. Second, there would have to be a limit on how much money is spent on each candidate or in total over all the candidates, and each year lawmakers will waste time debating about raising the limit. Third, I reject the idea of using my tax money to pay for the opposition's advertising.

Should there be a limit to private donations? No. It would be very hard to enforce, anyway, because a person with a lot of money to donate can get around any arbitrary limit by distributing the donation among a large number of supportive people.

Should disclosure of donations be mandatory? Yes. People have a right to know who are major donors of campaigns (for any definition of major) because it may affect what the candidate will do once in office (sadly) and also casts light on some of the candidate's statements. Right now there is a law that campaigns must disclose the names of all persons who donate over $250, but they get around it with "bundlers" who collect thousands of dollars from people and then don't have to disclose where they got it. I don't know how the justice department allows that to go on when it's a clear violation of the spirit of the $250 law.  I think $250 is a fine arbitrary maximum anonymous donation.

Is there any adjustment we can make to get better accountability over the election funding process? Yes. Even though the money should not come from the government and we shouldn't limit the period of time that candidates are allowed to make statements, if we want to be certain that we know who is contributing to a campaign we need to make the accounting transparent. The way to accomplish that is to require candidates to use an independent accountancy firm that has a license from the government to manage campaign funds. Anyone should be able to get a license to do that job by reading a book with all the campaign finance laws and signing an agreement to report faithfully what is going on with the campaigns it manages.  Every candidate would hire their own "treasury firm" to manage income and expenses for the campaign - actually the licensed accountancies should be allowed to manage the finances of only one candidate running for any one office. So for example the same firm could manage the campaign of a person running for mayor and another running for congress but not the campaign of a third person who is running for the same mayoral or congressional office. The firm would accept all donations and issue checks and debit cards for all expenses. It would publish (publicly) a list of all people and corporations who donated more than $250 to the campaign (or whatever the maximum anonymous donation is) and the government would access the same published data that everyone else can access. People would still be able to get together, form an organization, and donate through that organization to the campaign - but that would still allow investigators to find out the identities of the people behind that facade.

Also, campaign income and expenses would have to be defined as being specifically about the candidate. That is separate from income and expenses of the candidate's party to promote its platform without naming a specific person who is running for office.  Any trip that the candidate makes in which the candidate performs even one speech about election is considered a campaign expense. If it's paid for by some other person instead of coming out of the campaign fund, then the accountancy firm must simply list something like "trip to (wherever) and meals paid for by (who) estimated at $xxx" so the public knows about the donation. This allows people to contribute equipment, food, parties, or whatever with assets they have instead of having to convert that to a monetary donation while still being accountable to the public for their support.

Is it proper to make a candidate's election finances public? I think so. Candidates who are elected for public office will be managing public funds and there is no privacy there - so why should there be privacy for people who want to attain such positions? The people have a right to know who they are voting for, and a person's finances have a lot to tell.

What else can we do? If we're concerned about minority party access to the public during a campaign there should be non-profit associations who set up debates and donate radio, television, or newspaper ads to campaigns by minority parties (anyone not a Democrat or a Republican).

I also think that how political parties choose their candidates is not government business. All sorts of "primaries" and other nonsense should not be funded by nor regulated by the government.

Illegal to Film Police?

I read that several states now have outlawed filming police.

The law doesn't seem to make a distinction between interfering with police duties and not interfering.

There have been many cases of citizens filing false claims against the police for brutality, merely as a way to divert attention from the citizens' wrongdoing. As a result, police departments in many areas have instituted a policy of always filming their activities in order to disprove false allegations of brutality.

However, sometimes the allegations are true. And wouldn't the same police officers who act dishonorably also be the ones to have malfunctions with the cameras? For these few cases (overall, but in the areas where they happen they are concentrated) it is necessary for citizens to be able to film the encounter.

Any interference with police duties is understandably illegal, but filming from far away should be allowed. If filming police is illegal in any way and someone captures brutality on film, that person would be afraid to provide the evidence simply because it was a crime to obtain it.

The principle that people are innocent until proven guilty is intended to protect citizens from a dishonest police force. Being allowed to film police has the same purpose.

I absolutely do not condone people who intentionally interfere with legitimate police duties while claiming their right to anything - free speech, right to assemble, or whatever. In those cases, the rights are simply an excuse to do something awful.  Be mindful that it's not the same at all as the reverse - police interfering with people's legitimate right to free speech or right to assemble or whatever.

Value-based politics

Here are some of my political positions and the values they are based on.

Selfless service is a military and government value but I don't think it can be an individual intrinsic value.  It's really a combination of integrity, loyalty, duty, and courage. I mean it's a value that is necessary for the accomplishment of a military mission or for ethical public service by a politician but its not an end in itself. I think that a government official needs to put the country and its people above his or her own needs, but I also think that this is part of the job description of being a government official - therefore it's part of the duties of an official to willingly forego personal gain at the expense of others through the use of the public office. It's not an inversion of values. Even though it might seem that selfless service places duty above life or property, it does not, because the oath of office explicitly declares a willingness to assume the duties of the office and therefore a personal choice to forego personal gain when it conflicts with the duties of the office.

Openness (as in transparent government). I value openness because it's a means to ensuring that the government functions with honesty, integrity, loyalty, responsibility, and respect, which are concepts I value. 

Worker protection. I value worker protection as it relates to preserving life, liberty, justice, right to property, opportunity, and treating people with respect. That means I advocate for practicing safety controls in work environments, prevention of sexual harassment, and a minimum wage. But I do not value government laws related to unions that force employers to negotiate with unions or force employers to keep unprofitable businesses open just so they can employ union workers, because to me these are huge violations of an employer's liberty and right to property. Also, I think that in some situations a minimum wage does not apply, such as when a person volunteers to do work for free or in exchange for something other than money (such as experience, like student internships), or when the work is done as a punishment (prisoners should not receive payment because their work is paying a debt to society). 

Consumer protection. I value consumer protection as it relates to preserving life. That means I advocate for laws requiring manufacturers or merchants to disclose harmful effects of their products, especially related to health or risk of injury or damages. I also advocate laws that require truthfulness in advertising, including identification of unfounded claims.

Insurance. I value insurance because it's a good way for a community of people to organize and help each other in times of need.

Universal healthcare. I advocate universal healthcare that is provided through charity, volunteerism, or non-profit organization. I reject universal healthcare if everyone is forced to pay for it while the people involved in providing it make profits, because that is essentially forcing everyone to buy something they may not need and is a form of enslaving everyone (even if it's for a limited annual amount) for the benefit of the relatively few in the healthcare field. I think that non-charity healthcare should be community-based (insurance) and not slavery-based. 

Retirement guarantee. I reject the "Social Security" system because it's a form of slavery. Everyone who works has to pay for the retirement benefits of the previous generation, benefits promised to them by people who don't have the right to make that promise, and also subject to change at the whim of any generation of lawmakers. 

My Values

I was thinking a lot today about why I draw different lines in the sand than some other people I know. These are the values, in order, that guide my decisions:

Life.  I think mercy is included in this.

Liberty.

Justice. By this I also mean equality of people under the law.

Right to property. By this I mean that people should have a right to keep and use things on their terms as long as they don't hurt anyone else and as long as they obtained their property in some legitimate way. There are rules about how to obtain property legitimately (like no stealing) and also rules about what can be property (like not people). 

Opportunity. By this I also mean equal opportunity in situations where it applies, which is also sometimes called fairness.

The constitution lists the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the three primary values of the American people. I believe that the right to pursue happiness is comprised of justice, right to property, and opportunity. I list them separately because I value them in that order.

I value the right to property more than opportunity because, stated simply, opportunity represents sharing and I believe that in most cases (the exceptions being cases where the crux is justice, liberty, or right to life) I should be able to choose when I share - and choosing to share implies that the right to property is more important than opportunity. That doesn't mean that I don't value sharing - but when I share I want it to be on my terms and that means I value the right to property over opportunity.

Taken together, my top five values amount to a single value which is the spirit of the Constitution of the United States of America. For this reason I have taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all its enemies.

I value these things too:

Respect. By this I mean acting with respect or demonstrating respect - in one direction only. The other direction (receiving respect) follows naturally from this. Respect also includes courtesy. I think respect also includes the concept of obedience, because I don't value obedience separately from respect.

Integrity. By this I also mean honesty.

Loyalty. Loyalty is the glue that makes people stick together. Loyalty can be to a cause or to a person or group. A person can have multiple loyalties: country, state, soccer club, etc. A person should take care that the chosen loyalties don't conflict with each other, or to be explicit about which one would be chosen in the case that a conflict arises in the future. Keeping a conflict in loyalty secret is called divided loyalty, and it demonstrates a lack of integrity.

Duty. By this I also mean responsibility and keeping promises.

Charity. By charity I also mean kindness and helpfulness. I place charity at the end of the list because I wouldn't sacrifice my other values for charity. Value conflicts aside, charity is something that should be done when one determines oneself to have what is needed.

Courage and bravery. I value courage below loyalty and duty because being courageous is meaningless if it's not done for the purpose of accomplishing something else of value - such as respect, integrity, loyalty, or duty. Because I only value courage in the context of achieving something else of value, and not for the sake of being courageous, it belongs beneath the values that merit courage.

Instrumental values:

Family. I value family because I value life. Family is the way that human beings organize to create life and protect it. It's the foundation of other social relationships whose purpose is ultimately life. So I value family as a means to promoting life and enjoying it. 

Earth. By this I also mean protecting the environment, including endangered species. But this is not an intrinsic value - I don't value the Earth for itself. I value the Earth because I value life. For this reason, when I make decisions I may choose the Earth over other things (convenience, cost, right to property) because life is my foremost value and protecting the Earth promotes that value for many people. Also, for this reason I advocate that environmental protection is a governmental function - because protecting the Earth is important to preserving many people's lives in current and future generations, it's more important than convenience, right to property, and most other costs. When I think about situations in which I value something more than the Earth, the only ones I come up with are situations in which the choice is between life and life, and in those I tend to value more life. That is, if the choice is between protecting few lives or many, and all other things being equal (not "us versus them" but "all of us" or "all of them", and no differences in innocence or other factors), I generally choose to protect the many.

Community. I value community because it's an extension of family. Communities work for the common good of their members, and if their members share similar core values then this is a very good thing. I value being a member of a community of people who share my values. I disvalue membership in any community of people who do not share my values or prioritize theirs in a way that would frequently conflict with my value priorities. For me, community includes the concept of friendship or friendliness.

Honor. By this I mean a system of behavior where a one's actions credit one's reputation, as a means to promoting intrinsic values of life, liberty, justice, right to property, opportunity, respect, integrity, loyalty, duty, and courage.

Trust. I value trust because it's so convenient. Trust allows me to save much time and effort by not checking every assumption. I value trust because I value convenience and expediency and because it helps me to acquire my other values.

Cleanliness and sanitation. I value keeping clean as it relates to promoting life, family, and community. 

Frugality and thriftiness. I value conservation of property as it relates to promoting life and the enjoyment of life. That means, I don't avoid spending for the sake of avoiding spending. I avoid spending for the sake of maintaining a potential to spend later on something that is more important to me, and all other things being equal, it makes sense to find ways to spend less to obtain the same value, because it leads to more value.

Cheer. I value cheerfulness in other people except when it is inappropriate - I value respect more than cheer.

Rest. By this I mean that I value rest from work. This includes the Sabbath. 

No God? No, God is something I wrestle with, not something I value. I can't have God, demonstrate God, or exercise my God. I can't obtain God, keep God, or give God away. And I've decided what my values are in this lifetime whether God exists or not, whether I'll ever get a second chance or not. I also haven't come to a conclusion yet whether I value the concept of God - whether it brings more good than harm, or if there are rules about the concept that cause it to bring good or harm that people haven't discovered and codified yet.