The Pauls' New Crusade: "Internet Freedom"

[Cody1]

Internet private property? Are you kidding me. I'm appalled and disgusted. You can't own an idea, why is this so hard to grasp?

EDIT: Actually wait, what did they mean really? IP or just actual private property in digital form such as bitcoins are?

Exactly I wanna know too. That was a horrible article with vile comments. One hell of a spin if ya ask me. We need the internet support to stay strong, not fracture. Could someone enlighten me please?

 

[jmdrake]

We saw how powerful the media was this election cycle, we also know that the mainstream media is a dying bread as the youth of this nation get most of their information online. So it's very important to have the internet remain free if we hope to continue our momentum.

Is there any credible evidence that it won't remain free? *Gasp* We must have net neutrality in order to protect internet freedom! *Gasp* Net neutrality is really a big government plot to end internet freedom! Yes, we as the "liberty movement" must intervene to protect big cable companies rights to throttle bandwidth to websites they disagree with because they aren't powerful enough to lobby for themselves. Give me a break! Real internet freedom depends on things like TOR and not on Comcast.

 

[jmdrake]

Exactly I wanna know too. That was a horrible article with vile comments. One hell of a spin if ya ask me. We need the internet support to stay strong, not fracture. Could someone enlighten me please?

The NWO farmer isn't going to kill the internet goose that's laying the golden eggs. Think about it. If folks perceived the internet was no longer "free" would they put all of their private information (and some of yours too) on Farcebook?

 

[Cody1]

The NWO farmer isn't going to kill the internet goose that's laying the golden eggs. Think about it. If folks perceived the internet was no longer "free" would they put all of their private information (and some of yours too) on Farcebook?

I meant with the article I had quoted..a little less sarcasm could go a long way.

 

[specsaregood]

Yep. All that matters is raising money and donating. Personal freedom for the rest of America be damned.

No, for me paying the mortgage and feeding my family takes a frontseat to taking a flight, so for me internet freedom is more important.

 

[jmdrake]

I meant with the article I had quoted..a little less sarcasm could go a long way.

Sorry. I wasn't being sarcastic. I was being serious. I may be alone in this but I don't think that there is a serious threat to our ability to organize via the Internet on the horizon. Remember the SOPA fight? Remember the loose consortium that fought SOPA? Facebook, Wikipedia, Google, etc. Let's just take Facebook as an example. How could the PTB make facebook unavailable for liberty organizing without destroying the viability of Facebook? I was halfway joking when I first posted in this thread, but the more I think about it the more I see this as a distraction. I didn't donate to Ron Paul is 2008, Rand in 2010 and Ron again in 2012 just to protect the internet. Sure I see the net as an important tool. It's a means to an end. But we've got to start reaching some of those ends.

 

[jmdrake]

No, for me paying the mortgage and feeding my family takes a frontseat to taking a flight, so for me internet freedom is more important.

And what about when your family decides to drive to its next destination only to get pulled over by a TSA VIPR team?

 

[Cody1]

Sorry. I wasn't being sarcastic. I was being serious. I may be alone in this but I don't think that there is a serious threat to our ability to organize via the Internet on the horizon. Remember the SOPA fight? Remember the loose consortium that fought SOPA? Facebook, Wikipedia, Google, etc. Let's just take Facebook as an example. How could the PTB make facebook unavailable for liberty organizing without destroying the viability of Facebook? I was halfway joking when I first posted in this thread, but the more I think about it the more I see this as a distraction. I didn't donate to Ron Paul is 2008, Rand in 2010 and Ron again in 2012 just to protect the internet. Sure I see the net as an important tool. It's a means to an end. But we've got to start reaching some of those ends.

No worries here, I was just dumbfounded by the way that article was written to accuse the Pauls of selling out on internet freedom when I'm guessing c4l was just trying to incorporate the property right angle instead of the complete lawlessness that these lefty groups want? Please correct me if I'm wrong I'm just confused. There were a whole lot of comments from people that "donated" to ron calling him a corporate sellout. Sounds like typical left propaganda to me.

 

[jmdrake]

No worries here, I was just dumbfounded by the way that article was written to accuse the Pauls of selling out on internet freedom when I'm guessing c4l was just trying to incorporate the property right angle instead of the complete lawlessness that these lefty groups want? Please correct me if I'm wrong I'm just confused. There were a whole lot of comments from people that "donated" to ron calling him a corporate sellout. Sounds like typical left propaganda to me.

Ah. I get it now. Well there seems to be a basic split among people who want internet freedom. Everyone (who's decent anyway) wants the internet to be free. Some folks don't trust the big corporations. Others don't trust big government. The first want government to step in and do things like enforce net neutrality so that the big corporations can't say "We want people to use YouTube instead of Vimeo, so if you use Vimeo we're going to lower your bandwidth when accessing it." The second groups says "The big corporations wouldn't do that anyway because the market would punish them. We're more afraid of big government bureaucrats taking over." If you belong to the first group then you're naturally going to be suspicious of anyone in the second group and vice versa. And net neutrality has been something the Ron Paul movement was (is?) split on. So it's not surprising to me to see people who donated to Ron Paul criticizing this move. Frankly I don't think that either the end of net neutrality by the corporations or its protection by the government will end our ability to organize and raise money on the internet. Our current lack of focus is a far bigger threat I'm a afraid.

 

[July]

I'm skeptical of the potential twisting of some of the language as well, like "public domain" etc.

I agree Internet freedom is a big deal--if it becomes the new "television" we're pretty much doomed.

 

[NoOneButPaul]

Sorry. I wasn't being sarcastic. I was being serious. I may be alone in this but I don't think that there is a serious threat to our ability to organize via the Internet on the horizon. Remember the SOPA fight? Remember the loose consortium that fought SOPA? Facebook, Wikipedia, Google, etc. Let's just take Facebook as an example. How could the PTB make facebook unavailable for liberty organizing without destroying the viability of Facebook? I was halfway joking when I first posted in this thread, but the more I think about it the more I see this as a distraction. I didn't donate to Ron Paul is 2008, Rand in 2010 and Ron again in 2012 just to protect the internet. Sure I see the net as an important tool. It's a means to an end. But we've got to start reaching some of those ends.

This is all about the future... the are setting themselves up to be the protectors of the internet and when the taxing and regulation of it inevitably comes down from DC Rand will be the one to cheerlead this issue all the way through a POTUS campaign. The people will love him for it because the people overwhelming want the internet left alone and will freak the hell out if its usage were taxed on like an hourly wage or some BS.

It's such a general issue, and one that so many people from all political spectrums agree on, that it's a great building point for 2016.

 

[awake]

A free internet has the means to end the Federal Reserve, and much better: end the power of the Federal Government.

 

[Okie RP fan]

Meh, doesn't do much for me.

Ending the TSA would have been a better choice, IMO.

I'd argue that without the Internet, we can't effectively fight against the TSA.

Anyway, I saw several liberal types making fun of us and how Ron Paul is running a cash scam, and how we are all suckers for donating to him...

 

[July]

Ah net neutrality, and corporations vs. govt. It's the age old debate between libertarians and progressives that we can never agree on. I think it is because we are both right. Strip away all the bells and whistles, and what is a government really? A monopolized point of force. Who has already captured the regulatory boards on that monopolized point of force? The mega corps. Shut the regulatory boards out, and the mega corps will be forced to compete like the rest of the new start up companies. Well...in theory.

 

[jmdrake]

This is all about the future... the are setting themselves up to be the protectors of the internet and when the taxing and regulation of it inevitably comes down from DC Rand will be the one to cheerlead this issue all the way through a POTUS campaign. The people will love him for it because the people overwhelming want the internet left alone and will freak the hell out if its usage were taxed on like an hourly wage or some BS.

It's such a general issue, and one that so many people from all political spectrums agree on, that it's a great building point for 2016.

Except people across the political spectrum can't agree whether net neutrality protects or destroys internet freedom. Hell, people within the Ron Paul movement can't agree on that. On the flipside everybody can (or should) be able to agree that the TSA shouldn't be molesting little kids and the TSA shouldn't be exempting itself from doing employee background checks. Yet....nothing's happened on that point.

A free internet has the means to end the Federal Reserve, and much better: end the power of the Federal Government.

Uh-huh. And the "fre internet" ain't going anywhere. This is just more fear mongering.

I'd argue that without the Internet, we can't effectively fight against the TSA.

Anyway, I saw several liberal types making fun of us and how Ron Paul is running a cash scam, and how we are all suckers for donating to him...

So why haven't we effectively fought the TSA with the free internet we already have? There's always some other battle that's more import to fight than actually repealing physical assaults against the American people? We must "win the Whitehouse". We must "audit the fed". Now we must "defend the internet". How about doing something worthwhile? I don't think the internet is in trouble.

Ah net neutrality, and corporations vs. govt. It's the age old debate between libertarians and progressives that we can never agree on. I think it is because we are both right. Strip away all the bells and whistles, and what is a government really? A monopolized point of force. Who has already captured the regulatory boards on that monopolized point of force? The mega corps. Shut the regulatory boards out, and the mega corps will be forced to compete like the rest of the new start up companies. Well...in theory.

^Thread winner.

 

[RonPaulMall]

The taxing issue is probably the most important internet "freedom" that could win votes for us in the future. Amazon has caved to various state governments and now is joining forces with Big Government to tax sales on the internet (if everybody is punished equally, Amazon still suffers in the short term but their smaller rivals go out of business altogether so they win in the longer term). The push for a Federal Law to enforce sales taxes on all states that collect sales tax is going to be HUGE. If Rand can position himself as the champion of the people in saving them literally hundreds or thousands of dollars a year on their internet purchases, he will win a lot of supporters and converts to the liberty movement.

 

[affa]

On Drudge: RON PAUL'S NEW CAUSE: 'INTERNET FREEDOM!'

http://drudgereport.com/
currently near the top, center.

in case they remove the link, it's going to:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/the-pauls-new-crusade-internet-freedom

 

[realtonygoodwin]

The Internet is already pretty much free. A mass movement to essentially preserve the status quo? I think there is probably a better use of our resources.

 

[IDefendThePlatform]

I was hoping for a better article. "crusade", "manifesto" and just a slightly condescending drudge headline.

 

[IDefendThePlatform]

Their headline: Pauls' New Crusade: "Internet Freedom"
Less biased version: Pauls Lay Out Principles for Protecting Internet


Their sub-headline:
Defending the Internet —*and the corporations that invest in it —*from government regulation is the new “End the Fed,” Paul advisors tell BuzzFeed exclusively. A new Paul manifesto: “This is our revolution.”

Less Biased Version:
Defending the Internet from government regulation is the new “End the Fed,” Paul advisors tell BuzzFeed exclusively. Pauls: “This is our revolution.”



Them: "...and attacks not just the..."
Better: "...and criticizes both the..."


There's more but I don't have all night. Hopefully the rest of the Internet will give us better coverage.