“Free Culturists” demand the elimination of IP rights? News to me. I read (and loved) the book “Free Culture” and that wasn’t anywhere near Lessig’s intent.

It isn’t.

Network providers can’t treat different traffic differently based on content, and still claim that they bear no responsibility for that content.

If they want a free ride on the liability for the data on their networks (effectively common carrier status), they need to not selectively pick certain content for special treatment.

Personally, I think that it would be a good trade for them to make: network neutrality in return for no liability for the data crossing their networks.

But it should be their free choice to make.

So people would then be free to drive on whatever side of the road they wanted? Come on now. For that, move to Somalia. We in the ‘civilized’ world understand that some rule sets have to be in place in order for society to function.

Before I respond to this in detail, could you please clarify what rights exactly you’re referring to.

You’re absolutely right… that is the answer. I’ll even take it a step further… the best approach to solve our economic woes is to repeal *all* regulation in *all* industries.

“The government has monopolized all of our rights to freely broadcast and communicate, and placed them into the hands of telecom and cable carriers.”

Right again. This is the government’s M.O. Control, regulate, control, regulate… then when bad things happen, blame the “free” market so they have an excuse for more control, more regulation.

“If the fullest extent, lamentably, happens to be by imposing net neutrality regulation, then I have every right to do that, just as surely you would recognize that I have a right to recover loss from a thief or assailant.”

But why argue for more regulation? If it was regulation that got us into this mess… why argue for more of it? The cycle has to be broken. More power *cannot* be given to the government.

Why not instead go after the source of the problem… the source being that criminal organization we call government?

For regulation *is* unjust force. I agree, down with the companies who are able to gain an unfair advantage by utilizing the government’s control (see also: health insurance companies). Up with the competing companies who are being shut out by the government’s regulations, subsidies, and so on that give the bigger companies unfair advantages.

But don’t you think we should focus on getting rid of the government, which steals and controls and murders and oppresses? That created the beast, the regulations, in the first place?

“Property == Good, Patents == Property, Patents == Good.”

Actually, patents are not legitimate property, but rather a state-assisted method of force to inhibit competition. So Patents == Bad.

But a libertarian cannot honestly oppose net neutrality and yet not propose and fight for alternatives such as open spectrum. The government has monopolized all of our rights to freely broadcast and communicate, and placed them into the hands of telecom and cable carriers. They use arguments such as “natural monopolies” to justify this, without any basis in modern science.

As far as I’m concerned, I retain an interest in those rights taken from me, and it’s legitimate for me (and society) to exercise that interest to the fullest extent practicable. If the fullest extent, lamentably, happens to be by imposing net neutrality regulation, then I have every right to do that, just as surely you would recognize that I have a right to recover loss from a thief or assailant.

This idea of unjust force is uninformed and ignorant. The best constructive approach is for everybody to repeal *all* telecom regulation. Yes, it’s a daunting task to unwind the current administrative systems.

Short of that, I’m going to fight to retain some semblance of interest in my right. How dare you suggest that I should sacrifice my freedom so that the companies benefiting from the very expropriation can proceed to tax me! Preposterous! These companies stand to lose nothing more than what they’ve taken, and in actuality they’re losing significantly less. I’m getting a pittance in return.

Libertarians are against illegitimate control.

Forcing someone to do something that they don’t want to do — this is exactly what government does, this is how it operates… key word is “govern” — is illegitimate control, and is in fact a crime (or, at least, would be if the government wasn’t the one doing it).

And so where libertarians *are* against the idea of net neutrality is where the government unjustly steps in and uses *force* to tell the ISP how it can run it’s OWN business — even if the ISP is committing no true crime.

Unless the ISP is committing some crime against its customers — such as violating their contract, stealing private information, etc etc — then the ISP must be left alone, for a true free market operates on an extremely basic but also extremely important principle: the voluntary transaction. The voluntary transaction is king. Voluntary is the only just way. Millions of people *voluntarily* handing over their money to businesses in exchange for a service or product (note the difference between that and taxation, which is money stolen from the people by force).

That’s how it has to be. To say to an ISP, “we don’t like the service you provide, or the prices you charge, so you know what we’re gonna do? We’re gonna fine you, jail you, run you out of business, take over your business…” is completely wrong and completely *unjust*. You as the customer have the choice: pay them, or not pay them. Subscribe to their services, or take your business elsewhere. They are not breaking into your house government-style in the middle of the night dressed in ninja outfits armed with high-powered guns forcing you to subscribe to their services, are they?

Just because you don’t like what a company provides doesn’t give you OR the government the right to exercise control or any amount of force against said company if the company is committing no true crime against you. Otherwise you are committing a crime yourself.

*THAT* is where the libertarian is against net neutrality. Force is wrong, a crime is a crime, no matter who does it.

A true libertarian (note the small ‘l’, not the capital ‘L’, which would denote the non-libertarian political party) loves both the idea of net neutrality as well as the idea of open source software, and strongly supports both ideas.

There is absolutely no reason a true libertarian (read: one who is against the state as well as all other forms of illegitimate control) would be against net neutrality or free, open source software… unless, of course, one wished to force the idea of OSS on someone else.

As an anarcho-capitalist, I *strongly* support open source software, and have contributed to a few FOSS projects myself.

For a great example of what true libertarians stand for, check out LewRockwell.com. Lew, a well-known “anti-state, anti-war, pro-market” libertarian, is a champion for *true* liberty, and the folks that write articles for his website as well as his blog are *true* libertarians, who, by the way, have had nothing but good things to say about the open source movement.