There’s this crazy idea going around these days that free access to the Internet is a human right. This idea is behind a few different movements going around today. One of them is Net Neutrality, an idea with a name so misleading that the metaphors used to explain it are constantly shifting.
But another idea kicking around is state-run Internet at a local level. This is no better than any other form of Communism, where the state runs the means of production, and must be rejected.
Continue reading »
It’s funny how the same House Judiciary Committee that took up SOPA is now taking up IRFA, opposed by a growing list of groups including Taxpayers Protection Alliance, ATR, CAGW, and ACU. SOPA of course would have grown government in the name of strengthening copyright. IRFA makes government meddle more in a way that weakens copyright. And not in a good way, either: IRFA would not encourage innovation or content creation. It just favors Internet broadcasters over everyone else.
Also yeah, the RSC paper on Copyright that I backed before it was wrongly pulled, it is not a statement against property rights nor is it against copyright at all. If the side favoring ever-lengthening copyright cannot argue honestly with us, and has to mischaracterize those of us who favor an approach to copyright that balances the interests involved, then that to me suggests a deficiency in their position.
Continue reading »
Why Mitt Romney must win the election: Dianne Feinstein is urging Barack Obama to defy the Congress, which refused to pass the Lieberman-Collins Cybersecurity Act, and rule by decree on the matter.
And I know it’s a lot of inside baseball, some of the details of which I’m not entirely up on, but the FCC has been making hay before the election, and it’s not even pretending to make sense. Much as I’ve previously noted the left-wing advocacy groups do, the FCC uses whatever argument it must for the immediate issue at hand. Consistency across issues is not required.
Continue reading »
California’s going to have a busy ballot in November. In addition to voting for Governor, Senator, and more statewide offices than you can shake a stick at, we’re going to have a long list of initiative statutes and constitutional amendments to deal with.
One of the more interesting ones is numbered 19. Proposition 19, the Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, if passed will legalize small time use, cultivation, and possession of cannabis for all Californians, instead of just those with doctor’s notes.
The first thing many critics of the initiative point out is that 19 can’t change federal law. That is true, but what it will do is turn California authorities into non-combatants on that front of the federal Drug War. That’s important, because according to Ballotpedia 99% of all cannabis arrests in America are by state officials, not federals. Without state cooperation, the federal cannabis prohibition will be, for all but the most high profile distributors, de facto repealed.
California is a sovereign state, and if we want to leave enforcement of federal law to the federals, we have every right to do that. If the FBI wants to start rounding up every idiot 16 year old who messes around with dope after school, instead of going after terrorists and international gangs, let them. But if Proposition 19 passes, that’s not our state government’s problem anymore.
The only factor in my mind that determines whether Proposition 19 should pass or fail is whether the policy is the right thing to implement. I personally don’t favor a sweeping new set of taxes combined with the legalization of a socially corrosive drug, and so I will vote against it. But standing up for expanded DC power at the expense of the states will be the last thing on my mind when I vote no.