The internet is like cake
Do you support a baker’s right to refuse service to a gay couple asking her to make a wedding cake for their wedding?
If you answered no, then net neutrality is probably for you.
My response might seem a little strange, but hopefully I can help you make sense of it. You see, this post is actually about the internet and what’s constitutional. It’s not really about cake. But to figure this all out (it’s really confusing), I suggest we think about cake.
Also, disclaimer: This is pretty simplified. It’s also not a super clear-cut issue, as both sides make good arguments. Thus, I hope my words here serve as a conversation starter for what’s truly best for American capitalism.
Back to my wedding cake question.
Did you answer yes? Why did you answer yes?
Here’s why I say yes.
Privately-owned businesses have a right to operate any way they see fit. They can structure their company and sell their products however they’d like. The truth is, if they have really poor ideas, the free market will straighten it all out. They won’t make money, whether that means they get squished by a competitor who has better ideas or nobody buys what they’re selling. Inversely, if they have a really great idea — even at the risk of discriminating against a segment of the population — consumers, those who make up the free market, will cause them to succeed. And at the end of the day, Adam Smith smiles from the grave.
Argument #1: No business should be allowed to discriminate against a consumer based on race, religion, or sexual orientation.
Response: Says who? There is no Constitutional amendment prohibiting businesses from discriminating against consumers. That’s why No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service exists.
Argument #2: What if the baker runs her business in a rural part of America where no other bakers are around to provide this service to the gay couple? That bakery has a monopoly and is infringing upon the innocent consumers’ right to happiness via wedding cake.
Response: See response to Argument #1.
Argument #3: It’s not fair.
Response: Liberty is always the most fair.
Let’s add more dimensions to this scenario. Imagine the baker isn’t solid about her convictions — she can be paid off. She tells the gay couple that if they pay double for the cake, she’ll make it for them. Is this unconstitutional? Nope. It’s no more unconstitutional than golf tournament officials making the men tee off farther away from the hole than women.
Also, as it turns out, the gay couple really wants that cake. In fact, they need it. Purchasing a cake from that baker and sharing it with their wedding guests is the only way to guarantee a blissful wedding reception. The gay couple could try to come up with another cake by some other means, but this baker is essentially the gatekeeper to surefire happiness. Does that change the legality of the baker’s refusal to serve? It does not.
Finally, the wedding guests, upon hearing about the wedding reception cake that will bring so much joy, have decided to partake of it because they want to be happy. In fact, each of these wedding guests uses the baker for their personal needs and knows just how good her cakes can be. The only catch in regards to their participation at the wedding is that they must bring a gift as an “entry fee” of sorts to get into the reception. If the gay couple doesn’t pay up for their wedding cake (which is priced higher than it normally is), their guests will be paying their entry fees for nothing. They will not get the results they paid for.
Would this make the baker’s actions unconstitutional? The answer is still no.
Now replace the hometown baker with a big cable company, an Internet Service Provider, say, Comcast. Replace the gay couple with a big-time website like Netflix. The wedding reception is the internet users’ experience on sites like Netflix. Replace the wedding guests and their gifts with internet users and the money they pay to Comcast and Netflix for their internet and video streaming services, respectively.
And now walks into the picture big government — big government that wants to tell the baker what she can and can’t do with her business. Big government that wants to tell the internet service providers what they can and can’t do with their businesses. Big government that wants to tell you what you can and can’t do with your stuff.
The big companies that run what are essential monopolies across America in the internet service world are Comcast, AT&T, and the like. They know what websites create the most traffic on the cyberspace streets they own. Thus, through a little logic and a lot of greed, they might decide that they want to charge those companies more if they want faster speeds for delivering services to the consumer — though they haven’t gone there quite yet.
One more illustration. Imagine the interstate nearest you was privately owned. Because it’s not tax-funded, people have to pay to use it. Obviously, the road won’t maintain itself and will need to be taken care of over time. The owner decides that those who travel the road most should pay more because 1) they’re causing the most damage and 2) he’ll make a ton of money since they have to use his interstate to get around efficiently.
Some might say that’s sensible. Some might say that’s unnecessarily greedy. Either way, he’s free to do that. If people don’t like it, they should build their own interstates.
And this leads to perhaps the biggest threat regarding Net Neutrality. It squashes competition and hinders innovation. If the internet is regulated to create a level playing field for everyone, there’s no reason why anybody would come up with something bigger and better.
The government wants to become Daddy of the internet. They want to teach, lead, direct, scold, and be sovereign over that which should be free. (For a look at their track record, see Amtrak, the Post Office, and the public school system). Considering this current administration’s personal accomplishments (see Benghazi, ISIS, Health Care regulations, etc.), that should frighten us.
Less government = more liberty. Always.
For more thoughts, see this: https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/99193487?access_key=key-1rwebqaszy0zhnihjs7x&allow_share=true&escape=false&view_mode=scroll
