I do NOT find it inconsistent to agree with criminalizing the act of harming someone, and yet believe in the inherent goodness of "freedom". This does not, to me, logically contradict an abhorrence of slavery in anyway. You can try to educate me off-list if you like, but if your need for binary morality cant distinguish "criminal" from "slave" ... then I'm not sure your take on morality is one I want to come to understand. (I'm not trying to be mean ... but it seems you tried play the enlightened viewpoint card and it just doesnt seem that enlightened to me at all).
Anyway ... back to the topic (kinda) ... You said in another response "And as long as they do NOT forcibly take away anyone's freedom (or do something else that is morally wrong) in doing this, then they have done nothing morally wrong." and "I've worked in corporate world. I've seen what some people are willing to do for wealth or control."
That's the very point of the concern. Without Net Neutrality they very easily could trounce all over others rights and they would indeed be financially incented to do so ... And its these very corporations that are asking to be able to create an environment ripe for abuse.
--
http://www.DavidMeade.com
feed: http://www.DavidMeade.com/feed
SPONSORED LINKS
| Fireant | Individual | Typepad |
| Use | Explains |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
