So, taking a break from my norm of talking about the constitution to post a little reply to this article:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/?p=2046
I would like to state, that yes I am a programmer, and yes I make my living on the internet. I am also 100% against net neutrality, or any other regulations on the internet.
The big issue the writer of the previous article throws out is CHOICE. Yes, choice. If an ISP were to start charging websites(like the one I work for), then I would have 2 choices. I could go ahead and pay the charge, or I can refuse the charge, and not get traffic from that ISP.
But are those the only choices? Not by a long shot. If an ISP were to stop allowing traffic to certain sites, then their users are not going to be happy. I personally use AT&T(they bought out SBC) for my internet. If AT&T were to introduce such charges, then I the customer will not be allowed to visit sites that don't pay. Thus, I would immediately change to an ISP who didn't do such things.
Likewise, if a website wanted to charge an ISP, then I would simply not go to that site. I seriously doubt any website would do such a thing, as it goes against everything about being an internet based business.
What do government regulations do? They remove that choice. They instead use FORCE to make everyone do something. Under regulations, I will no longer have a choice of using a better ISP, as all ISP's will be made to follow the same rules. Let me be very clear on this - NO THANK YOU.
The author himself starts out saying - money decides things in politics. He even goes to use this as a fault for Ron Paul. Well, given this information, then who do you think this law is for?
So I have looked for a candidate who will leave an OPEN internet, VOID of regulations, and that candidate is Ron Paul. However, that is hardly even close to the real reasons I'll be voting for him.
May I however suggest that you start looking at things beyond the name of a bill. Net Neutrality is about a neutral internet as much as the Patriot Act saved our liberties.
Showing posts with label ron paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ron paul. Show all posts
Monday, August 6, 2007
Monday, July 9, 2007
Adding social programs the constitutional way - amendments
So previously I explained how the abuse of the general welfare clause was bad for all Americans. I also explained why those who say the current social programs are unconstitutional are right. So now, this is where republicans start to hate me. Because I'm going to tell you how to do them constitutionally.
So, now we know that the general welfare clause is actually what gives power for congress to protect our rights. So in a limited government, in order to add to that power, you need an amendment! Once you add an amendment, then congress has the authority to do things, under the general welfare clause. But it gets better, aside from just being constitutional, it will actually better fit your goals.
Because if you add it as an amendment, then it is added as a RIGHT for all citizens, not just citizens represented by special interests groups, not citizens who will vote for them because they receive them. Because it will go to EVERYONE EQUALLY. And, in doing so, you've only given congress to do the 1 thing you actually wanted to do, not a broad open door to do whatever they want to do. Immediately, our governments role in our lives and in our pockets will be reduced to only the things we exactly want, nothing more.
Passing an amendment is much harder. It requires 2/3's majority in the senate. This is where it takes out partisan politics. As instead of issues being decided on near 50/50 issues, where the American people are basically yo-yo'd around depending no what swing state voted in who, it will require an overwhelming amount of majority to pass things. And once passed, it is then a right for all people, and all people will be treated equally. And that is the main goal of most people who are in favor of socialized programs.
And candidate or politician who isn't trying to pass amendments on social issues, is just looking out for special interest groups and lobbyists. Because they clearly have a better way, and yet they just ignore it, and continue to serve special interest groups and lobbyists.
I personally think these social programs are a bad idea on a federal level, and that they could be handled on the state level much better. IMO, 50 states doing their own programs allows for more creativity, and leaves the other states to adopt their practices when it works, and not be punished by bad ideas another state drops. With the federal government, we are reduced to 1 program, which is only adjusted every 4-8 years and everyone is made to pay for mistakes, while new ideas can't be tried as easily. But at least if amendments were passed, everyone would be treated equally, and we wouldn't have to accept the extra stuff nobody really wants.
I think if this were to happen, education would have a pretty high chance of having an amendment. The big change with this would be that rather than funding being done by the community, all schools would be funded equally. I am personally against this for the above reason, but I think it would have the highest chance of being passed since even some republicans like it. I think how well it did would have an affect on things such as healthcares chances, which would only be around 50% support right now.
So that is how our government is supposed to work, and will hopefully work 1 day again. You'll see that you have more control over the government this way, and it is forced to treat people equally. I think this is something both republicans and democrats can understand, and hopefully we can work together to return to this in the future. In my opinion, Ron Paul is the only candidate who has shown he will get both the republican party, and the democrat parties on the right track.
So, now we know that the general welfare clause is actually what gives power for congress to protect our rights. So in a limited government, in order to add to that power, you need an amendment! Once you add an amendment, then congress has the authority to do things, under the general welfare clause. But it gets better, aside from just being constitutional, it will actually better fit your goals.
Because if you add it as an amendment, then it is added as a RIGHT for all citizens, not just citizens represented by special interests groups, not citizens who will vote for them because they receive them. Because it will go to EVERYONE EQUALLY. And, in doing so, you've only given congress to do the 1 thing you actually wanted to do, not a broad open door to do whatever they want to do. Immediately, our governments role in our lives and in our pockets will be reduced to only the things we exactly want, nothing more.
Passing an amendment is much harder. It requires 2/3's majority in the senate. This is where it takes out partisan politics. As instead of issues being decided on near 50/50 issues, where the American people are basically yo-yo'd around depending no what swing state voted in who, it will require an overwhelming amount of majority to pass things. And once passed, it is then a right for all people, and all people will be treated equally. And that is the main goal of most people who are in favor of socialized programs.
And candidate or politician who isn't trying to pass amendments on social issues, is just looking out for special interest groups and lobbyists. Because they clearly have a better way, and yet they just ignore it, and continue to serve special interest groups and lobbyists.
I personally think these social programs are a bad idea on a federal level, and that they could be handled on the state level much better. IMO, 50 states doing their own programs allows for more creativity, and leaves the other states to adopt their practices when it works, and not be punished by bad ideas another state drops. With the federal government, we are reduced to 1 program, which is only adjusted every 4-8 years and everyone is made to pay for mistakes, while new ideas can't be tried as easily. But at least if amendments were passed, everyone would be treated equally, and we wouldn't have to accept the extra stuff nobody really wants.
I think if this were to happen, education would have a pretty high chance of having an amendment. The big change with this would be that rather than funding being done by the community, all schools would be funded equally. I am personally against this for the above reason, but I think it would have the highest chance of being passed since even some republicans like it. I think how well it did would have an affect on things such as healthcares chances, which would only be around 50% support right now.
So that is how our government is supposed to work, and will hopefully work 1 day again. You'll see that you have more control over the government this way, and it is forced to treat people equally. I think this is something both republicans and democrats can understand, and hopefully we can work together to return to this in the future. In my opinion, Ron Paul is the only candidate who has shown he will get both the republican party, and the democrat parties on the right track.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)