Speaking of "pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted" here are the views on net neutrality by the FCC chairman here: online.wsj.com
The relevant section: "Into this divide has marched the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which under the banner of 'net neutrality' proposes an expansion of its powers over the Web. The agency argues it needs to control broadband Internet providers to make sure they don't discriminate in favor of or against any particular content, application or device. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski acknowledges that his agency operates in an "uncertain legal framework" that makes it unclear what power it has to set rules on the Web. Despite this uncertainty, he wants his agency to "evaluate violations of the nondiscrimination principle as they arise, on a case-by-case basis."
In other words, Mr. Genachowski plans to evaluate violations, not based on objective laws, but by his whims - by equivocating and twisting the meaning of discrimination to suit his ends. The same thing happened with the the mortgage defaults, with banks being forced to lend to the poor or face the consequences of violating the nondiscrimination principle. The question is: does a private business have the right to discriminate between those actions that are in its self-interest and those that will lead them to bankruptcy, or not? Mr. Genachowski, Barney Frank, and many others believe that they do not have this right, and that politicians will plan and decide.
I don't think even Rand could have predicted, that the real reality of 2009 would underscore her ideas more eloquently than the fictional characters and events portrayed in her books, which were written over 50 years ago. |
