Net Neutrality and the Free Market

This blog post was inspired by a discussion on Facebook when I shared that I had contacted my so-called "representatives" in Congress regarding my concerns about the importance of preserving Net Neutrality.  Two of my friends, both brilliant, articulate and very kind gentlemen, did a great job of presenting both sides of the argument in the lively discussion that ensued.  Roger is a professor of economics, a big proponent of the free market, who has been patiently trying to teach me how stocks work and answers all my dumb questions.  Peter is a senior assistant at a law firm who describes himself as a "socially-liberal, fiscal conservative" and has generously advised me on legal matters.  Neither of these gentlemen identifies as "libertarian."  Below, I will discuss the issue from my perspective as a left-libertarian.

But first, here is Congressman Neal Dunn's reply. This is the sort of response I nearly always get from my alleged "representatives," i.e., "Thank you for sharing your thoughts... but I am going to obey my corporate masters regardless of what you and the other voters want."  It is rather subtle, but if you read between the lines, he opposes Net Neutrality by using "regulate" and "regulatory" along with "Obama Administration" as bad words:

"I understand your support of the FCC’s net neutrality rules, and I appreciate your concern that they may be rescinded. These rules were established by the Obama Administration to regulate the internet as a public utility. The internet has revolutionized how we communicate and do business, and we must keep the internet free and open so we can continue to use it to innovate and grow. As Congress continues to review the regulatory actions of the Obama Administration and in particular the FCC’s actions, please know that I will keep your views in mind."

Senator Bill Nelson, however, supports Net Neutrality! Here is his answer:

"Thank you for contacting me regarding Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai’s proposal to undo the agency’s net neutrality rules.  I support the existing rules, and as a result, I oppose Chairman Pai’s proposal, which would gut the existing rules and rob Americans of vital protections that preserve our access to a free and open internet."

Now, here's what is interesting.  Read the two statements again.  Do you notice anything odd?  I'll give you a hint: "free and open."  Rep. Neal Dunn (R) wants to end Net Neutrality, while Sen. Bill Nelson (D) favors maintaining it, and yet both Congressmen clearly state that they support a "free and open internet."  How can both assertions be true at the same time?  Is this some kind of Orwellian mindfuck?  Yes, it is!  The title of the net neutrality rollback order is, "Restoring Internet Freedom."  So the question becomes, "freedom for whom?"

Rep. Dunn says, "we must keep the internet free and open so we can continue to use it to innovate and grow," while Sen. Nelson states that the current Net Neutrality regulations, "preserve our access to a free and open internet."  The key here is that "we" and "our" refer to two completely different entities!  Rep. Dunn's "we" refers to telecom corporations, which contributed $18,500 to his campaign.  Sen. Nelson's "our" refers to individual American citizens.

Former FCC commissioner Michael Copps states, "The language used to discuss Chairman Pai's plan implies the opposite of what the proposal will do, which is make the internet most free and open only to those with the deepest pockets while the industry giants rake in still more money."

Not only is Net Neutrality very important to me as a small business owner, blogger and political activist, the issue also serves as a great illustration of the difference between my own left-libertarianism, a.k.a. classical anarcho-socialism, versus the far-right modern variation endorsed by the Tea Party poseur-libertarians or "GOP lite," as I will explain below.  Let me first point out, though, that some right-wing politicians claim to be "libertarian" while having an "R" after their name.  If it has an "R" rather than an "L" it's technically not a Libertarian, but a Republican.  I can call myself a "duck" and produce some quacking noises, but that doesn't make me a duck.  So what is the difference and how does it pertain to Net Neutrality?

In a nutshell, both types of libertarians claim to want less government regulation, but of what, and to whose benefit?

Left-libertarians regard civil rights such as privacy, bodily autonomy, self-ownership, freedom of expression and association, and freedom of or from religion, as our #1 priority.  We view the proper role of government as upholding the rights and freedoms of individuals to live as we please so long as we harm nobody else.  We want less government interference in our personal lives, e.g. what we do in the privacy of our own home, what plants we may grow in our yard, whom we may marry and/or have whatever kind of sex among consenting adults, whether or when to have children, and what we choose to eat, drink, smoke, snort, inject or otherwise put into, or remove from, our own body.  We believe that government regulation belongs not in the private, but in the public sphere, to protect us against force and fraud from other persons or corporate entities, to prevent the powerful from preying upon the weak.

Right-libertarians, or those who call themselves "libertarian" while espousing a mostly Republican philosophy, don't seem to have much objection to government interference in the lives of private citizens, whom they would prefer to keep on a fairly short leash.  They have little concern for things like bodily autonomy or marriage equality, are often anti-choice with regard to reproductive rights, and support the War on Drugs.  They may even deny a constitutional right to privacy except in so far as it pertains to private property, i.e. finances.  Their focus is, rather, on removing governmental regulation of banks and industry.  They are generally ok with the government regulating wombs and bedrooms, but not corporate boardrooms.  When they speak of "freedom" it is nearly always in the context of allowing Wall Street and big corporations free reign to put profits ahead of people, even if it means mercilessly exploiting employees and consumers and/or destroying the environment.

So, while the left-libertarian philosophy of social order is the Golden Rule, with the government playing the role of referee in case people fail to abide by it, the philosophy on the right could be expressed as, "Whoever has the gold makes the rules," the government being the guardian of private property, so that the rulers may keep their gold and spend or invest it as they see fit.

My liberal friends characterize that philosophy as heartless or greedy, but there are plenty of good and generous people on the right including my own father, a Reagan Republican, who sincerely believe that so-called "free market" capitalism ultimately benefits everyone by generating wealth which then magically trickles down to enrich all households, kind of like Santa Claus bringing gifts down your chimney.  One of my favorite Libertarian authors, Dr. Mary Ruwart, explains with great enthusiasm how capitalism creates "unlimited wealth" that has lifted humanity out of poverty.  The wise and benevolent Invisible Hand of the Free Market knows what is best for us and guides our financial interactions accordingly to the benefit of society.

I want to believe that.  It would make things so much simpler.  I imagine that some of my atheist friends feel similarly when they tell me they wish they could believe in God - not that I myself "believe" per se, but that is a different story for another time.  I want the fair and benevolent Free Market to be true.  It would reduce the cognitive dissonance I endure as a result of the "L" on the voter card in my wallet.  But like my atheist friends, I just can't convince myself of the evidence for it.  In my personal experience as someone who has worked very hard since 1980, when I was 17, enriching other people by my labor, having also owned and managed several [failed] small businesses and ended up bankrupt in my 50s, it seems to me rather that the Invisible Hand pats the rich on the back, slaps the poor down whenever they try to climb up out of poverty, and gently but persistently pushes the middle class backwards towards poverty.

Be that as it may, what all libertarians on both the right and the left have in common is that we are strongly averse to being forced to do anything.

My right-wing friends correctly point out that corporations, unlike government, cannot force us to buy their products or services (except when the government makes us do so, e.g. the ACA).  But, what if that product or service is something that we need, e.g. water, power, healthcare, phone or internet service?  If we remove the government as referee, the corporations can charge us whatever they want, whether we can afford it or not, especially if they manage to eliminate their competition.  Or, they can simply refuse to provide services to people in less profitable areas, which is why I cannot obtain cable internet in my neighborhood on a dead-end road out in the boondocks.  I only have DSL via phone line because fortunately the government requires the phone company to provide it under the current telecom regulations.

Now, right-wing libertarians and many of those on the left, claim to support "the free market" but again, they mean different things by that phrase.  It should be noted that a truly "free market" does not exist in the United States today, if ever one did.  In fact - and here is the irony - the closest thing we have to a truly "free market" is the internet under Net Neutrality!

From the left-libertarian perspective, in a true "free market" everybody has equal opportunity to freely trade goods and services on a fair and level playing field.  But, that can only happen if everybody plays nice and nobody has unfair advantage.  The Big Boys would have to play by the same rules as the other 99% of us.  The fact that you have more money should not give you a greater right to freedom of speech or association, a right to silence those who disagree with you, or a right to crush potential competition by keeping entrepreneurs out of the marketplace.  Therefore, we on the left see Net Neutrality as an example of the proper role of government regulation, in a similar way as the enforcement of equal rights, labor laws, health and safety standards, and protection of the environment in which we all live and the air we all must breathe.

In our Facebook discussion (click on the blue link at the beginning of this article), my friend Roger explained at some length that government regulation takes away the ISPs' profit incentive for much needed improvement of internet technology which, in his view, is the main advantage of the "free market."  By removing that regulation, consumers will benefit, "like in all our economic dealings.  The internet isn't some kind of magical exception."

Ah, but it is!  Or at least it has been, up until now.  Under Net Neutrality, the internet was a magical place where everybody* was on equal footing regardless of income.  It was a place where small businesses like mine had an equal opportunity to compete with huge corporations, our websites allowed the same bandwidth and exposure as theirs, to freely trade goods, services and information with people around the world.  It was a venue embodying the essence of the First Amendment where all ideas could be expressed and discussed in blogs and forums, free associations formed and political movements organized, without restriction and at no additional cost.  Presidents, princes, peons and paupers could tweet to their heart's content and all voices heard.

The Neutral internet was also a news and fact-checking source where people could share and learn about stories not covered by the mainstream media due to disapproval by corporate sponsors.  For example, upon googling Noam Chomsky to find his insights about Net Neutrality, I was surprised to learn that he has just been awarded a peace prize, which was never mentioned on t.v. news.

And all of the above is exactly why those on the far-right want Net Neutrality overturned, so that the free market of the internet will become exactly like the crony capitalist system that exists in corporate America today, where money talks, the poor have no voice, and whoever has the gold, makes the rules as to who can buy, sell, trade, speak out or associate with one another.

Ironically, the purpose of the Net Neutrality regulation was to prevent corporations from regulating the internet.  In much the same Orwellian manner that the Trump administration's "Religious Liberty" order allows corporations to discriminate against employees and consumers on the basis of religion, the "Restoring Internet Freedom" act permits telecom corporations to control the activities of competitors and consumers on the internet, restricting their freedom of access and expression while increasing their own profits.  Whether you agree with my position or not, your opportunity to debate with me about it could disappear now that Net Neutrality is gone and AT&T will have the freedom to either censor my blog, or else make it too expensive for me to continue writing it.  

Many thanks Roger and Peter for their considerable contributions to this discussion.

footnote:
*  assuming that everyone could get high-speed internet access at all, a goal of the Obama administration which unfortunately did not quite succeed, perhaps because he was distracted by other matters like war, terrorism and continual opposition from Congress.