because in good old days they got-by by exploiting cheap labor (in other words slavery). Things went down south since they couldn't do it anymore legally.
The new admin is generally against regulations that restrict business. Net Neutrality is one of these. Whether you think that is legit is up to you. But don't fall into the trap of thinking the other side is disingenuous and evil.
Oh, but they are. Otherwise they wouldn't endanger lives with their health care shutdown while talking so much about pro-life, or threaten to shut down the legal marijuana business in the states that legalised it (which also serves as a convenient example to show how little they actually care about 'states' rights')
If you lack the intellectual capacity to consider the motives of the other side believing that a freer healthcare market is a superior means to save lives (a notion backed by history and economic theory), then you have completely discredited yourself with regards to speaking about political topics.
Just call me stupid and skip the intellectual hyperbole =) That aside, I'm pro Affordable Healthcare Act. It's getting better and smoothing out. Like any venture it has to work out some kinks, which takes time. In very specific instances, one party can claim superiority to the other, through the lens of history. Both parties, however, have very checkered and dubious pasts. Not recognizing that and judging an evolving political party based on a single issue may, in your words, prove my intellectual capacity but it also puts us in a situation like we see at this very time. I do not watch the news with a smile on my face, like the intellectually deficient subhuman creature you seem to profess me to be =) Now, I have to go play with my puzzle. It's a 14 piecer I haven't quite figured out yet, but I'm close. Only 8 pieces to go. I'm nearly 1/2 way there!
All I have heard in favor of removing net neutrality is "it's a regulation, and regulation is bad."
Of course, this argument falls to pieces very quickly no matter what angle I try to think of it from.
As far as I can tell, there really is no legitimate argument. I like to think that I can consider any perspective on an issue, and understand why someone might disagree with me. In most cases, I can do that, but removing privacy and net neutrality rules are two subjects where I have been completely unable to do so.
I don't like to give up, and jump to the conclusion that my perspective is the only plausible one. I want to make it clear that I haven't given up on listening for the other side of the story, but thus far, I haven't heard a peep of it. I hate to say it, but there likely isn't one.
Because new administration is very pro monopoly, and therefore they are scaling down anti-trust limitations. Net neutrality is just one of them. TL;DR: they pretend to be pro free market, but in essence they are against strong competition.
Also corruption. Monopolists pay them a lot, and play the dumb "don't regulate, the invisible hand of the market will fix all" card which simply doesn't apply in monopolized cases.
Is the 2012 appointment of Ajit Pai, who will gut net neutrality and return the Internet back to the people, the greatest accomplishment of the Obama administration?
