End of Net Neutrality

I think it's the fundamental appeal. Our national myth is all about individual freedom obtained via overthrow of tyranny, and large government is tyranny. We interpret a suspicion of government as American pride, and so the more of that the better.

The only thing is when this runs up against reality. Yes, the government can perpetrate tyranny. But so can the private sector. In fact, this should be one the most important functions of our collective government: to provide for defense, not just to safeguard our lives against foreign militaries but to safeguard our freedoms against unrestrained actors, public or private, who would dominate us if they could.

The conservative dream is in a lot of ways an insistence that the private sector can do things better, and so to suffocate the public sector as a way of proving it. 

It's the kind of fairy tale that you need, I guess, to make sure people keep conflating "personal freedom" with "corporate freedom". To have people fool themselves into thinking they are "pro-market" when they are really "pro-big corporations", who want market dominance, not competition.

 
knapplc said:
That wouldn't explain why people who aren't employed by the corporation stand up for the corporation. 
Click to expand...
Most people work for "a" corporation.  So, they understand it, know how it works and benefit from it.  So, when another corporation does something, it's less disturbing than an entity that is constantly costing them money or taking things from them or telling them they can't do something.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster said:
Most people work for "a" corporation.  So, they understand it, know how it works and benefit from it.  So, when another corporation does something, it's less disturbing than an entity that is constantly costing them money or taking things from them or telling them they can't do something.
Click to expand...


Eh. People also understand that they receive things they pay for, because they all shop for groceries. So the same argument could be made that they would be inclined to like the government for giving us the military, roads, laws, etc that we're paying for. 

People don't just "like" corporations.  They take our money, too. 

It really does boil down to the message.  Who's pushing what message to them?

 
When people buy gas, they don't sit there and think...."wow....I'm helping pay for this nice road I'm driving on".  Even though their gas tax is doing just that.

People take roads completely for granted and think they just appear out of nowhere because that cost is hidden in a gallon of gas and they don't think about it.

Instead, they may think..."Hmmmm......Casey's has nice gas stations that are convenient for me to drop in, buy gas, pop and a pack of cigs."

The benefit of Casey's Corporation is evident and easily recognized that this is what I'm paying for.  The benefit of the road I drove on to get to and from Casey's is much less evident as coming from that same purchase.

Instead, when the state wants to raise gas tax...they blow up saying...."Why the hell do they need that?" because they don't realize the road needs replaced at some point.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you guys both hit the nail on the head there.

Here, we just do not see government as "we pay for what we get". We see the government as taking "our stuff", and to a serious extent take everything that is provided as for granted, or something that doesn't benefit us personally and is probably wasteful. 

The messaging is really one-sided, and the mythos is honestly an effective and appealing one.

 
BigRedBuster said:
When people buy gas, they don't sit there and think...."wow....I'm helping pay for this nice road I'm driving on".  Even though their gas tax is doing just that.

People take roads completely for granted and think they just appear out of nowhere because that cost is hidden in a gallon of gas and they don't think about it.

Instead, they may think..."Hmmmm......Casey's has nice gas stations that are convenient for me to drop in, buy gas, pop and a pack of cigs."

The benefit of Casey's Corporation is evident and easily recognized that this is what I'm paying for.  The benefit of the road I drove on to get to and from Casey's is much less evident as coming from that same purchase.

Instead, when the state wants to raise gas tax...they blow up saying...."Why the hell do they need that?" because they don't realize the road needs replaced at some point.
Click to expand...


I think you're vastly mistaken if you think John Q. Public thinks corporations are benevolent or good. 

 
Hm, I do think there's a reluctance to recognize corporations as dangerous if left unchecked. 

That's really a key ingredient to "regulations are always bad". There's a real urgency to the idea that companies should get maximal freedom for all our sakes, and no conception that they would use this to inflict harm on people for their own benefit. I think it would be fair to call this an assumption of fundamental benevolence -- one which is not merited.

We're far too sympathetic to the poor multinational conglomerate, weighed down by government regulations. We're not sympathetic enough to the workers who negotiate their own rights without the benefit of organized labor -- we're even, broadly, rather hostile to that idea. And while we have cultural terms like "rat race" we don't tend to regard people who aren't paid a livable wage as folks at the mercy of companies who don't care about depriving them of livelihood while benefiting from their productivity. We blame them for not winning the game better.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
knapplc said:
I think you're vastly mistaken if you think John Q. Public thinks corporations are benevolent or good. 
Click to expand...
I think you're vastly mistaken if you think the vast majority of people look at corporations as these big mean entities that are out to destroy us and eat our young.

They realize they do get some benefit from them. They earn a living, they provide goods and services, they provide entertainment...etc.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster said:
I think you're vastly mistaken if you think the vast majority of people look at corporations as these big mean entities that are out to destroy us and eat our young.

They realize they do get some benefit from them. They earn a living, they provide goods and services, they provide entertainment...etc.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s done maliciously it’s just the nature of the beast . Corporations are money making machines with replaceable parts top to bottom . Making money for upper management , and stockholders is the goal , everything else is a necessary evil . There’s no motivation  for them to care about any individual piece of the machine, or worry about the human aspect , we’re all replaceable .  I’ve worked for one for 23 years lol I know the deal . 

 
Big Red 40 said:
Making money for upper management , and stockholders is the goal , everything else is a necessary evil . 
Click to expand...


They also make money for millions of employees and provide good livings.  Yes, there are bad things they do.  But, corporations are nothing more than an entity that people perform certain tasks with for benefit.  Yes....some drastically take advantage of people for the benefit of the few.  But, at the same time, there are millions across America that many people provide for their families very well with.

Big Red 40 said:
There’s no motivation  for them to care about any individual piece of the machine, or worry about the human aspect , we’re all replaceable .
Click to expand...
Maybe you're working for the wrong one.

 
Corporations do what they do because the name of the game is to survive. You can't expect one corporation to voluntarily fall way behind its competitors and not get crushed for it. At least, few are interested in that liability. Of course they hoard cash. Wouldn't you?

The way to combat this is to change the rules of the game for everybody. If the government is stripped of its ability to do this duty, then we are at the mercy of the companies who have won once and can no longer lose.

 
zoogs said:
Corporations do what they do because the name of the game is to survive. You can't expect one corporation to voluntarily fall way behind its competitors and not get crushed for it. At least, few are interested in that liability. Of course they hoard cash. Wouldn't you?
Click to expand...


What you described here is different in my mind than...."only existing to make top management rich".

 
BigRedBuster said:
They also make money for millions of employees and provide good livings.  Yes, there are bad things they do.  But, corporations are nothing more than an entity that people perform certain tasks with for benefit.  Yes....some drastically take advantage of people for the benefit of the few.  But, at the same time, there are millions across America that many people provide for their families very well with.

Maybe you're working for the wrong one.
Click to expand...
I came here 23 years ago because it was the only job around my area to offer health insurance . Young family of 5 needed it and that’s the only way I could afford insurance at all . Stuck here til something changes on the healthcare scene . 

 
I mean, my point is they're not inherently evil. They're just trying to maximize. If there's something twisted here it's in the system itself which creates people who devote their lives to these efforts. If you have valuable, effective managers and they're not getting enough at your company they'll move on to somewhere else. In aggregate it's a brutal system. Laborers get whatever they can be minimally spared while still being productive. 

The funny thing is, we would never accept this model of treatment from government. Our government guarantees our rights, and defends them (or it's supposed to!) -- it doesn't dole them out at their discretion and mercy. Not only are we OK with worker conditions being up to the benevolence of their employer (as you say: "just find another company"), we tend to not like the suggestion that maybe the government should uphold worker's rights to a stronger extent. 

The weirdest twist to that is it still somehow gets packaged as "I'm for individual freedoms". When really, it's giving corporations as much latitude as they want to see how much they can get away with holding people at their mercy. Some people earn a lot of flexibility and leeway, but I think it's an everybody right. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top