The silly, ginned-up outrage over the FCC 86ing "net neutrality"

First, there's the term itself. There's been this trend on our society in recent years of the Left coining terms for laws and edicts it would like to see enacted for the sake of "fairness." They are crafted so as to confound the average citizen and obscure what is really going on. "Single payer" is another. It means the government "caring" for your health, but no one wants to state it that bluntly.

And then there is the over-the-top level of outrage that the Left brings to everything and anything anymore. Ajit Pai has been getting death threats against his entire family. A security alert at the FCC delayed yesterday's vote.

Here's the dirty little secret: "Net neutrality" is a solution in search of a problem.

People cannot tell you why the rules were necessary. They can only offer hypotheticals as to why the rules are necessary. But that’s like a cop pulling over a person with a new sports car and writing them a ticket because they might drive 125 mph in a 70 mph zone two weeks from that moment.

The internet didn’t require the nanny state before 2015. The system thrived in a competitive environment. People have so many choices in determining what content they want to watch and how they want it delivered. Everybody benefits. Everybody will continue to benefit once the rules get lifted.

If the ISP’s do what the fearmongers claim, then the government can deal with it if necessary. Until then, sit back, relax and enjoy.

And let's not forget that one of the major principles involved here - arguably the most important principle - is that "net neutrality" was about government telling private organizations how to conduct their affairs:

The idea that internet service providers should be forced to provide unlimited access to content transmitted indiscriminately whether it is old episodes of Sesame Street, pornographic videos of simulated rape, or a column at The Week, makes as much sense as saying that a brewing company should be able to suck up all the water in a river so long as people like drinking it. We do not force bookstores to stock certain volumes or restaurants to prepare every conceivable dish. The prospect of a segregated internet in which much of the crap now gumming up the works remains legal but available only to those willing to pay a premium to access it is a welcome one.

Andrew Leonard at Rolling Stone lets the cat out of the bag many paragraphs into his argument that "net neutrality" is a good thing:

In a truly competitive marketplace, corporate moves such as these would be suicidal.

He goes on to cite an FCC stat that 50 million US homes have access to only one high-speed broadband provider.

Sounds like a situation for which the free market can provide a remedy.

That's the same kind of argument "single payer" advocates put forth. They throw. up the smokescreen of Big Pharma and big hospital conglomerates elbowing out possible competitors - hence, the need for government to step in and show us all how a "humane" monopoly can save the day.

In both cases, the word "greed" gets employed.

But never forget one of the very most important principles of economics: "greed" pretty much instantly prices itself out of the marketplace. You can't charge more for a product than the market will bear for very long without going out of business.

"But these big players will lobby Congress and federal agencies to give them special advantages," argue the leftists.

That's not the fault of the free market.

Which gets us back to the matter of the dire need for public officials who are driven by principle. Politicians who put economic liberty front and center in their campaign speeches, and continue to do so once elected and crafting legislation.

The Internet is the finest example of how elegantly simple freedom makes life better. Kudos to the majority voters at the FCC for seeing that.