Rand Paul makes the conservative case for Internet freedom
posted at 8:41 am on August 2, 2012 by Rob Bluey
A month ago as Americans were celebrating Independence Day, two dueling factions released competing visions of Internet freedom. Both dubbed the “Declaration of Internet Freedom,” they represented a post-SOPA attempt to articulate principles for tech policy.
One of those declarations attracted the support of hundreds of individuals and organizations across the political spectrum. Its broad language won over a diverse mix of supporters that ranged from Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Patrick Ruffini on the right to Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Eli Pariser on the left.
The other declaration proclaimed to be the free-market vision for Internet freedom. Spearheaded by TechFreedom and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, it sought to clarify why government shouldn’t interfere with the Internet. It served as a contrast to the more ambiguous declaration that liberals will predictably use to push net neutrality.
Conservatives need clarity on the issue — and a champion of the cause. Four years ago, Sen. John McCain’s campaign couldn’t even find a surrogate to represent the presidential candidate at Wired’s debate on tech policy.
That can’t happen again in 2012. And that’s why Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) plays such an important role. As a freshman lawmaker and tea-party conservative, Paul is stepping up to the plate to lead on the issue. His supporters at the Campaign for Liberty have endorsed the free-market declaration and are rallying libertarian-leaning activists to embrace the issue.
Today at 9:30 a.m. ET, Paul delivers what could be the most significant talk on Internet freedom this year. He’ll be joined by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), another leading conservative who this year will serve as co-chairman of the platform committee at the Republican National Convention.
Paul has indicated that he will make Internet freedom a signature issue in the years to come. That gives conservatives a leader they’ve been lacking in recent years. It should also help them clarify the stark differences between the right and the left on tech policy.
As the free-market Internet freedom declaration so eloquently states in its first principle:
First, do no harm. No one can anticipate what the future holds and what tradeoffs will accompany it. Don’t meddle in what you don’t understand — and what you can all too easily break, without even seeing what’s been lost. Often, government’s best response is to do nothing. Competition, disruptive technological change, and criticism from civil society tend to resolve problems better, and faster, than government can.
That’s an approach lawmakers in Congress should adopt for most issues. Under the watch of both Democrats and Republicans, Washington’s meddling has introduced red tape throughout the U.S. economy. The last thing Internet innovators need is more of it.
Rob Bluey directs the Center for Media and Public Policy, an investigative journalism operation at The Heritage Foundation. Follow him on Twitter: @RobertBluey
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Milton Friedman would be proud.
Lost in Jersey on August 2, 2012 at 8:47 AM
Any politician that supports Internet freedom and resists centralized governmental control of it will find welcome in my voting booth and, if needs be, my wallet. By signing on SOPA, Marco Rubio buried his conservative credentials for good; I hope he has a Senate career long enough to regret that signature.
Archivarix on August 2, 2012 at 8:47 AM
Rand Paul: America’s first Tea Party President!
petefrt on August 2, 2012 at 8:56 AM
…imagine the internet being like the MSM.
KOOLAID2 on August 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM
Rand has proven to be a great Republican so far, not a punchline like his dad.
TonyR on August 2, 2012 at 9:06 AM
To be fair, I believe he removed his name from it when he actually found out what was in it…
Defenestratus on August 2, 2012 at 9:06 AM
Bluey,
Pretty good advice for government in general, such as RomneyCare, which your “conservative” organization cheerleaded, wouldn’t you say?
Dante on August 2, 2012 at 9:16 AM
Does no one else find it odd that this is a supposedly conservative website, one that rails against ObamaCare constantly, yet employs a gentleman who directs the “Center for Media and Public Policy” for an organization that authored and pushed for an individual mandate and for RomneyCare? This same individual then writes about “conservatism” and the need for “conservatism”.
All of you are being played.
Dante on August 2, 2012 at 9:22 AM
Does no one else consider someone who spends all their time on a website complaining about the content providers a troll?
MadisonConservative on August 2, 2012 at 9:36 AM
The proponents of Net Neutrality assume that the state can be trusted more than the companies that actually own the infrastructure in question.
From an ISP perspective, a service provider is far more likely to limit usage based on bandwidth usage per subscriber fee than due to content issues. When you get government involved, content and censorship get involved. In other words, your internet provider wants the right to make you pay a subscriber fee in line with the amount of bandwidth infrastructure you use per month. Why should Grandma checking her email pay the same amount as a couple trying to run their own streaming stupid videos site? And if the stupid videos people want to try to get away with paying Grandma’s subscriber rate, the ISP should be able to slow them to a crawl until they pay a commercial rate.
Sekhmet on August 2, 2012 at 9:40 AM
It is what the founders of this great nation envisioned when they wrote the consititution. GRIDLOCK was the objective. Split up government and give it checks and balances so that it could first do no harm. and only if the need was great would the government be able to function at all. sadly we as a nation have forgotten that. Yes government is necessary but first and formost it is evil and thus should never be the first thing we turn to to fix our “problems” it should be the very last choice when all other options have been tried and have failed.
unseen on August 2, 2012 at 9:41 AM
Why? its a stupid business model and doomed to fail. the ISP’s tried that approach at the beginning of the internet and it wasn’t until companies like AOL decided to do a flat monthly rate no matter the usage that the internet took off. If ISP’s go back to charging for usage then people will limit their usage. Which means less customers surfing the web, less business being done on the wrb, less ads, less economic activity. ISP’s might get a better profit margin by not having to install more bandwidth but growth stops. It would be like putting up a toll road through a downtown business district. people will simply go somewhere else. and the entire downtown business district will be impacted.
unseen on August 2, 2012 at 9:47 AM
I don’t know…That seems like too much common sense.
rndmusrnm on August 2, 2012 at 9:48 AM
Perhaps a rookie Senator mistake but, a terrify one.
roy_batty on August 2, 2012 at 10:00 AM
I actually think Dante has a legit beef about Bluey, though. Conservatives have by-and-large accepted the premise that under certain conditions, “goverment must do something.” Bullshit. Government should do exactly what it’s doing now with the internet: NOTHING.
gryphon202 on August 2, 2012 at 10:02 AM
AOL’s flat fee was during a time when bandwidth usage in general was limited by the technology of dial-up. Nowadays, a home-user level of bandwidth can be a whole heck of a lot. Coming to the attention of the teergrube would come at a level it is very hard for a regular user to reach. The big concern is file-sharing of pirated content. Along with the high level of bandwidth usage, you get the ISP’s share of liability in having the infrastructure easily available for the pirates to use. So they get it on both ends. Black Bart the Movie Pirate not only ends up with thousands of dollars in additional local infrastructure just to accommodate his bandwidth usage without torquing off his neighbors by slowing down their regular usage, the ISP has to pay more legal beagles to deal with the MPAA lawsuits that come their way for simply having Black Bart as a subscriber.
And if the Net Neutrality folks had their way, Black Bart would get all this for 20 bucks a month, same as his lower-usage neighbors. The ISP would looooove it if Black Bart went on down the road to someone else.
Sekhmet on August 2, 2012 at 10:03 AM
Freedom never needs to have its case made. It just needs to be respected. Tragic that it isn’t.
Extrafishy on August 2, 2012 at 10:04 AM
“What lovely new clothes you have, emperor!”
Dante on August 2, 2012 at 10:15 AM
hmm seems like a problem with a law then. what you are saying basically is we shouldnt build bigger roads because thieves use those roads for their bank robberies.
Your argument about AOL being a differnet time doesn’t make sense. It would be like saying the roads back in the day were built for horses but since we now built a road for cars we need to charge fast cars more to run on the roads because all horses went about the same speed. the fact of the matter is simple its a question of growth. The ISP’s don’t want to spend the money to continue the growth of the internet because that growth requires them to invest in building more bandwith which cost them money and hurts their profit margins. SO instead of building a 6 lane super highway they want to charge more for the two lane highway they already have. which is fine if they can get away with it. But the only way for them to get away with it is to build a moat around their business and they need government for that. Which is why the political fight in the first place. and the more the ISP’s limit usage and raise charges the more demand their will be for government to “regulate” those fees and usage.
the ISP’s aren’t going out of business they are doing fine. they are able to make a profit and keep up with the growth at the present time. they just see that if theyt could invest less in their growth they would make more money. And while I don’t have a problem with companies increasing their profit margins the law od supply and demand tells me you increase the price for something you decrease the demand for it. which means limiting growth and once you limit growth in a sector then the techonolgy “discoveries” start to slow also.
unseen on August 2, 2012 at 10:53 AM
Keep your eyes on this guy.
newportmike on August 2, 2012 at 10:55 AM
Romney/Paul ’12?
playblu on August 2, 2012 at 10:57 AM
because they don’t see the cost of Black Bart leaving. They just see the cost of him staying. they say if only we got rid of this big user then our profit margins would go up. but the only way to get rid of that user without the “government” putting him out of business is to charge usage fees which would cause not only BArt to leave but many other users. they don’t see the cost of a redbox on the street corner charging $1.00 for that movie that their usage fees will cost $4.00 for. They don’t see that email starting to cost more than snail mail and thus losing business to the post office again. Or 100 more things that I or anyone else can’t see at this time. All they se eis Black Bart costing them money so they want him to leave. history shows that flat fee user rates bring growth and per unit fees slows growth. It all depends if you want a growing internet economy or one in slow decline.
unseen on August 2, 2012 at 11:02 AM
If Congress would move the copyright down to something reasonable, say 12 years, then you wouldn’t ‘need’ SOPA. Or DMCA. The only reason we go with life + years is for Disney and Mickey Mouse, and we have gotten a Mickey Mouse government because of it. If these corporations weren’t looking to ‘protect’ intellectual property well past its expiration date, we would have a much larger pool of ideas to draw from without having a Nannystate trying to force every single red cent out of stuff created DECADES AGO.
This stuff isn’t about ‘privacy’ or ‘piracy’ but making law to go far beyond any meaningful interpretation of ‘limited time’… save for the SCOTUS being fine with ‘limited time’ being up to one second before the universe ends… get it out of the courts by making the old stuff public domain and I bet a lot of ‘problems’ disappear in a puff of smoke. Simple legislation that should pass easily. If it weren’t for a Mouse.
ajacksonian on August 2, 2012 at 11:02 AM
Reasonable would be eliminating copyrights and goverment-granted monopoly privileges.
Dante on August 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM
If you want to know how govenrment would regulate the internet once udage fees are inplemented instead of a flat rate jus look at the history of turnpikes in the USA:
So who will bribe which sneator to get them an exemption from the usage fees first? And do we really want the government regulating. If not then the the only other alternative is a flat rate. Once you start charging people more for usage then it becomes profitable to bribe those in power to get you a special deal.
unseen on August 2, 2012 at 11:16 AM
agreed. the copyright laws in this country to protect vested interests who have enough money ot bribe a senator or congressman are insane. It is not what a free-market is about. You make a movie or write a book you should make your money off of it, for X number of years then release that “idea” to the community so that they can then add to your idea.
unseen on August 2, 2012 at 11:19 AM
I vote you go first. Henceforth anyone here can assume the Dante handle and post anything they like.
Difficultas_Est_Imperium on August 2, 2012 at 11:19 AM
You are contradicting yourself. Either you want a free market or you don’t. Copyrights and intellectual property are simply government interventionism into the marketplace, and when that happens, there is no free market, whether the copyright is one year or one hundred years.
Dante on August 2, 2012 at 11:21 AM
no then that would wipe out the profit motive for ideas and technoloy and invention would come to a stand still.
People should have thier ideas protected for a short period of time then it should be released to society. which is the entire concept behind copyright laws in the first place. And one reason why the West civilization was able to out pace the rest of the world.
unseen on August 2, 2012 at 11:22 AM
Are you under some delusion that I claim a copyright or intellectual property “rights” to the handle Dante, or that one exists regardless of a claim?
Try to make some sense.
Dante on August 2, 2012 at 11:23 AM
It would absolutely do no such thing.
Here’s some information for you:
Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Dante on August 2, 2012 at 11:25 AM
It’s not a contradiction at all its called a compromise. It is the same concept of limited government. Government is evil we all know that or should know that but without it we have no society. Therefore its a necessary evil. without copyright laws you have no inventions no works of art, no books, no entertainment because there is no profit in them. therefore copyrights need to exist but they should be as short as possible.
unseen on August 2, 2012 at 11:26 AM
Do you actually have an answer, or are you just going to blubber and b!tch like you usually do?
MelonCollie on August 2, 2012 at 11:37 AM
While I tend to agree with you, 18-wheeler trucks have to pay additional highway taxes because their weight causes more need to repair the road.
Odysseus on August 2, 2012 at 11:43 AM
It’s a contradiction, not a compromise. You say you want the free market, but then you say you desire government interventionism.
I think you are operating from a status quo position. Copyrights have always existed in your lifetime and well before your lifetime, therefore you think they should exist. You are also incorrect on your assessment of government and society. Society is not government; society exists independent of government, it did not come about because government was created. It existed, and government was created. Equally, works of art exist without a need for government to exist.
Dante on August 2, 2012 at 12:09 PM
Agreed, but in this case it’s more of a broken clock scenario. Dante has complained about Ed, Allah, Tina, Erika, Ron, Dustin…I’m trying to think of any authors he hasn’t “revealed” as not agreeing entirely with him, which therefore makes them not conservative.
MadisonConservative on August 2, 2012 at 12:14 PM
I’m not the one b*tching about the content on a site that I don’t have to visit. Apparently you find that to be a worthwhile contribution, because you enjoy that sort of thing.
MadisonConservative on August 2, 2012 at 12:18 PM
A gross misrepresentation, as usual. It isn’t that one must agree with me to be conservative, it’s that one must actually hold conservative views to be a conservative. If one doesn’t hold conservative views, then they aren’t exactly a conservative. Far too often, the authors here do not come down on the side of conservatism, despite pretenses.
Dante on August 2, 2012 at 12:20 PM
For example, both Ed and Tina gushing over Santorum and both endorsing him, despite his boasting of voting to fund Planned Parenthood, and despite Tina’s constant abortion blog posts. Ed dismissed it as a “debunked myth,” when it was neither a myth nor debunked.
Dante on August 2, 2012 at 12:31 PM
We have a process for doing that… amending the Constitution.
Now, defining the definition of “limited Times” is within the bounds of Law, passed by Congress and signed by the President.
dominigan on August 2, 2012 at 12:49 PM
Ok…what’s your point? Are you just arguing about something to which no one is disagreeing?
Dante on August 2, 2012 at 12:52 PM
That’s because it’s only half true.
But then, is Ron Paul ever wrong? Like when he panders to illegal aliens by claiming racism on the part of Americans who want them to come here legally?
MadisonConservative on August 2, 2012 at 12:53 PM
Sir, let’s be fair. You are not discussing issues, but slamming conservatives every chance you get. No conservative is perfect (as you know since you neither debate issues nor suggest improvements).
However, your constant jousting at windmills instead of discussing issues with an eye toward improving them in a conservative way is frankly… a joke.
Don Quixote, please take your jousting games that accomplish nothing elsewhere.
dominigan on August 2, 2012 at 12:54 PM
And you hold every one of your views as the conservative view, and decry any of the authors that deviate from any of those views as “not conservative”. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with you disagreeing, but you rarely make it a point of saying “that’s not a conservative position” as much as you make it a point of saying “you’re not conservative”. You have done it for years to both commenters and authors, normally with a healthy dose of passive-aggressive condescension. If you are so outraged that so many here don’t fit your mold that you consider “conservative”, then stop coming here. If you continue to stay and spend almost all your posting time telling others that they aren’t conservative, then you are, by definition, a troll.
MadisonConservative on August 2, 2012 at 12:58 PM
Apparently you are NOT Captain Obvious, thus I will spell it out.
You proposed eliminating copyrights and monopoly privileges granted by our government.
I pointed out that those are mandated by the Constitution.
You replied (that you were clueless and apparently have amnesia regarding your previous posts).
I am now pointing out the obvious…
…to one who didn’t get it.
dominigan on August 2, 2012 at 12:58 PM
Liar.
Besides using the Alinskite tactic of attempting to force people to live up to unattainable standards (Free markets mean Anarchy in the marketplace and anthing less is Hypocrisy!) to hammer at conservatives, you are deliberately lying here. A Free market does not mean No-Rules, but very limited rules set by Government.
Patents, granted by the Government, are a perfectly legitimate form of Government rule making, just Government enforcing private property laws by setting standards for meets and bounds on real estate or specifying the true length of a yard. Anarchy (no standards set by Government at all) would be the “free-for-all” of stealing another person’s idea and churning out copies, like China does. Copyright and Patent laws prevent the destruction of ideas in books and inventions.
Patents, frankly should be set for longer (say 50 years or for three generations) and Copyrights the same, but those are legitimate, debatable points on rights enforced by Government. A free people have found it a Good thing to allow a monopoly on an Idea by the creative, giving them time to reap financial reward from their ideas.
This is actually one of the few new Rights of Men that have recognized in the past 300 years that actually adds to true Freedom and Individual Sovereignty. The recognition that some “property” is invisible, yet exists as much as real estate does, that ideas have as much power to elevate men as a field of radishes and that recognizing ideas as property and granting title to them is trait only found in the most Advanced Cultures.
Please drone, go back to the Daily Kos, the hive is calling.
Bulletchaser on August 2, 2012 at 1:01 PM
Too rich, but I guess this is what can be expected from a government worshipper. You have absolutely no understanding of the free market.
I suggest you read Hayek, Mises, and Friedman, among others. Become familiar with the Austrian School of Economics, then maybe you wouldn’t resort to your ignorant inanities that have been disproven decades ago.
Dante on August 2, 2012 at 1:07 PM
Once more, no one said that they aren’t found in the Constituion. I correctly said that copyrights are government-mandated monopolies. You stated the obvious that didn’t need to be stated – a Constitutional clause mandates monopolies. So your response to my statement that copyrights are government-mandated monopolies is to point to a clause mandating monopolies.
Brilliant.
No one said or was arguing that eliminating copyrights wouldn’t require a Constituitonal amendment. So what’s your point besides arguing about something no one was arguing about?
Dante on August 2, 2012 at 1:14 PM
I have read them all and do understand the free market. Again, the free market does not mean Anarchy. If I own private property, that is a grant recognized by the government (this is like speaking to a child), the property boundaries are set by Government rules, the amount of space and the “bundle of rights”, mining, farming, air space, are all set and enforced by a contract by Government, else the next strongest gang could come on the property and push me off and seize my property.
Intellectual property in the same, it’s just invisible.
Please stop using Alinsky here, it only shows you to intellectually dishonest and childish.
Bulletchaser on August 2, 2012 at 1:23 PM
Dante, you did not answer any of the points I made other than to state that they are somehow “Government Worshipping.”
Please expand. How are they “government worshipping”? Is recognition of Real Estate rights also Government “interference”. Who prevents the strong from taking someone’s house away from them, or their factory? If copyright is so bad, would you agree that I should be able to take a book, like “1984″ and reprint it with my name as Author? Why? In the case of patents, if I spend 700 million developing a new drug for nail fungus and my lab assistant leaves with the formula and then starts manufacturing tomorrow, that harm has been done to me? That “Property” has been taken? Who would you have enforce Real Estate law? Copyright law? Patent Law?
Bulletchaser on August 2, 2012 at 1:36 PM
You’ve just proven yourself to either be a liar, or someone who is unable to understand what he’s read. Your knowledge of rights and the free market, especially given your claims to have read these authors and philosophers, is suspect.
Private property is not set by government rules. Private property is an inalienable right. Our right to life – our right to exist – is the first property right, and the foundation of property rights. I have signed no contract with the government in regards to my rights or to my rights of property.
Additionally, you don’t understand what anarchy is. Anarchy means without ruler, not without rules. Those rules, however, do not come from government but from participants in the voluntary exchanges that comprise the free market.
You are arguing the collectivist, government-worshipper position.
Dante on August 2, 2012 at 1:50 PM
Cruz-in, Chicks, Will on his A game today, and now ultra-creep doubles down on stoopid? good days! Everywhere I look, it is the Happy.
Just off poland and the future capital of Israel. Good week. Things are lookin’ up people. Momentum. Hang in there, get involved locally!
later kids
PaleoRider on August 2, 2012 at 4:14 PM
oops, wrong thread. Read the above under the Dingy Harry piece.
Thanks!
Agree with Rand. Been hoping conservatives would pick up on this, also TSA, Homeland security, crazy SWAT teams, privacy, right to get the darn gov’t off me, in general. We don’t need no stinkin…
You know?
Later kids.
PaleoRider on August 2, 2012 at 4:17 PM