<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">----- Mensaje original ----<br><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">De: Valentin Villenave <v.villenave@gmail.com><br>Enviado: viernes, 5 de septiembre, 2008 13:54:53<br>> This guy is (as far as I can tell) involved with the Republican Party (he reminds that Obama<br>> supports the principle of Net neutrality, whereas McCain does not).<br><br>Don't know US scenario; maybe Obama supports Net Neutrality not because believing in it -maybe even he's not willing to fulfill his promises regarding that issue-; maybe McCain rejects Net Neutrality just because Obama supports it.<br><br>> - how do we, as a non-right-or-left party, deal with such issues?<br><br>However, I think we shouldn't support an
issue depending on who supports it; if a cruel dictator supports non-commercial filesharing, would we stop supporting it? what if a charismatic leader with democratic pedigree rejects government accountability and transparency? We should have our own agenda, which may match in some issues those of so-called left-winged parties (e.g., net neutrality, as you said, is supported by Obama), while in other issues matching those of so-called right-winged parties (e.g., if you consider libertarian parties as right-winged, they support not considering cultural works as private property); and even the rest of issues wouldn't match any known agenda.<br><br>> Just in case you have a minute to think about it... :-)<br><br>:) Ok let's try to analyze Rockwell's stances<br><br>> <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/swanson7.html" target="_blank">http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/swanson7.html</a><br>><br>> Basically, his points are:<br>> - most of
the Internet traffic nowadays are spams and P2P exchanges<br><br>And a high percentage of traditional mail is also spam; would we allow post offices to check our incoming mails with the pretext of avoiding spam? I think we wouldn't.<br><br>> - filtering data is good to guarantee that real-time communications (VoIP, telemedicine, gaming<br>> etc) are given a low-latency priority over non-critical communications (e.g. BitTorrent)<br><br>I think we can ask Rick Falkvinge: he said in Berlin that he has 100/100 Mbps cable internet connection -does such connection offer troubles while using real-time communications?-. Is there net neutrality in Sweden? If the answer is yes, then we should wonder if telco markets like Swedish one are so intervened by the State, of it's just Rockwell lying.<br><br>> - non-filtered data is bad for capitalism and networks development, since the major<br>> infrastructures, backbones, optic fibers etc. will no longer
interest compagnies and will instead<br>> be controlled by governments only<br><br>It's not about preventing business models; it's about preventing ISPs to sniff users' packages to check what are they communicating.<br><br>> - "The internet is not a public utility, nor should it be treated as such."<br><br>That fallacy from Rockwell seems to come from a mock <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism"><span style="font-weight: bold;">libertarian</span></a> -or at least from a libertarian who just wants liberty within business, while surrendering liberty in personal and social life-.<br><br>Net neutrality is mostly about privacy; so it's not about public or private utilities, but about civil rights and liberties. I thought even a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchy"><span style="font-weight: bold;">minarchist</span></a>, while wanting a minimum State, still wants civil rights and liberties to be stated and enforced; what's
Rockwell then? does he give any importance to privacy? From Wikipedia, "<span style="font-style: italic;">minarchism</span> [...] <span style="font-style: italic;">is the belief that the only role of the government is to <span style="font-weight: bold;">protect individuals from coercion and violence</span></span>"<br><br>What's Rockwell, then?<br><br>> - Shall we, for instance, support one of the two USA candidates on this?<br><br>What was that liberticide agreement that both Democrat and Republican party agreed some weeks ago? was the one on invading privacy in airports? or was another one?<br><br>I think that supporting a party means<br><br>- to find acceptable most of its principles<br>- to not find rejectable any of its principles<br><br>If some of the parliamentary agreements dealt by Democrats & Republicans altogether can be found rejectable by us, as PPI I think we shouldn't support neither of those two parties.<br><br>> -
Does supporting the principle of net neutrality bring us closer to (e.g.) Obama than McCain?<br><br>No way. Neither would China supporting free non-commercial filesharing bring us closer to China :) Regards,<br><br><br> Carlos
Ayala<br> ( Aiarakoa )<br><br> Presidente de la Junta Directiva Nacional de PIRATA<br></div></div></div><br>
</body></html>