You are here

SaveTheInternet effectively endorses "digital socialism"

SaveTheInternet and net neutrality proponents are losing their populist message discipline, and starting to show their true philosphical colors in blatantly calling for what is effectively "digital socialism."

Andrew Rasiej, the founder of The Personal Democracy Forum, challenged Presidential candidates to become the next "Tech President" in a recent blogpost. It's important to note that his views are mainstream in the net neutrality movement as evidenced by the hearty endorsement they received by SaveTheInternet and by Wired Magazine Blog.

Let's hear Mr. Rasiej's views which drew the support of the Save the Internet Coalition:

 "The following are very specific technology policy goals that we are asking every candidate to either endorse wholly or to offer alternative positions...

  • 1. Declare the Internet a public good in the same way we think of water, electricity, highways, or public education. "

    • Since "the Internet" is not public but private property in an obviously competitive market, declaring it a "public good" is tantamount to "nationalizing the Internet" much as Hugo Chavez, avowed socialist President of Venezuela has recently nationalized many private competitive industries there. (As you know, Chavez is angling to be the heir apparent leader of the International socialist movement after the death of Cuba's Fidel Castro.)  

      • Net neutrality may sound populist in its slick branding, but it is clearly socialist in its economic philosophy.

    • Let's review some "inconvenient truths" the digital socialists don't want to share with the public because it would undermine support for net neutrality:   


    • The Internet is not “public property.â€?


      • The Internet is a network of private networks enabled by many voluntary, universally-accepted, consensus standards that no one entity can control or change:  Internet transmission protocol (IP); Domain Name System (DNS) administered by ICANN, an international non-profit corporation; and the World Wide Web (www). 

      • All these private networks have freely and openly accepted these universal Internet standards, because it is in their self-interest to do so and in the interests of their users, not because it is required by Government!

      • While government and academic funds created and funded the original Internet, the U.S. Government commercialized the Internet from 1991 to 1995 and it has been operated privately ever since.

Now that Save The Interent has shown its true "digital socialist" colors in endorsing the call to "declare the Internet a public good", they owe the American people some answers to some very pertinent questions:

  • How much will the government pay broadband networks to turn their private property into public property? (Even socialist Hugo Chavez offered pennies on the dollar to the private property owners of Venezuela's industries.)
    • Does anyone at Save the Internet understand American broadband networks represent about a half of a trillion dollars of infrastructure investment?
    • Is Save The Internet proposing that the US Government raise taxes, increase the deficit or raise the public debt to pay compensation for declaring the broadband networks, which comprise the Internet, a "public good?"
  • Before our friends at Save the Internet say they don't have to compensate anyone...
    • they need to re-read the property-friendly: US Constitution;  US property law; and imminent domain precedent all of which guard against seizure of private property without just compensation.
  • Lastly, has Save the Internet thought of which Big Government entity would be responsible for running this public property?
    • The US Department of the Internet?
    • The US Internet Administration?
    • The US Internet Service?
    • The Federal Bureau of Internet?
    • The Federal Internet Commission"
    • The US Internet Office? or
    • Its Our Net of the United States?

These "progressives," they sure know their progress!

Q&A One Pager Debunking Net Neutrality Myths