States' rights were first employed as an argument by New Englanders opposing the War of 1812. Their more famous Southern exponents were not troubled by the Fugitive Slave Law. I'd argue that there is nearly nobody who has a principled commitment to states' rights, rather than using it as an instrument to their true ends.
I'd like to go a step further and make each state fully autonomous, with a loosely coupled 'union' for a military force (albeit, MUCH smaller than it is currently) and intrastate issues like commerce/roads/etc. Each state would pay taxes to cover those things. State taxes would be > fed, and would cover Medicare, education, medicaid, and decide their own social programs, and legal laws.. This would give more freedom, if you can afford/want to live in a progressive place with universal healthcare move to a state with that, if not move to the deep south, where they no longer have separation of church and state, and everything else Republicans want.
The "State's Rights" crowd is also generally synonymous with the "Rule of Law" crowd. I don't see hypocrisy in supporting the application of law as it is written while opposing the existence of said law itself. Laws are not immutable and there's a process for changing/repealing them (legislation) as well as a separate process for invalidating them based on constitutional merit (judicial). Until both those processes have been tried, I don't see this as an innately hypocritical viewpoint.
I don't think most conservatives who understand NN actually support it. It's just the entrenched political class who stands to benefit from it that support it.
I don’t know. I have mixed feelings on net neutrality. I’m sure I’m to the right of a lot of HN, based on comments, but I lean left on a few issues too.
I’ve recently moved to the greater Seattle area and where I live my choices for internet are Comcast and centurylink. I was pretty disappointed as I had fios at my last house.
In general principle I am pro letting Comcast throttle whatever. Mainly because of property rights. But at a personal level it would totally suck if they throttled Netflix to the point that it affected me.
But forcing Comcast to be “good enough” by law might be an adequate bandaid for the short term, it actually helps reinforce their local monopoly.
>I’ve recently moved to the greater Seattle area and where I live my choices for internet are Comcast and centurylink.
Me too. I moved last year away from flawless 100/100 with a local Seattle ISP, to flawless gigabit for $45 with a local Seattle ISP, and now I'm 5 or so miles south of Seattle and I had to settle with Comcast since Centurylink DSL was my only other choice. Seattle DOES have good ISP's, but only really new buildings & downtown get that luxury.
Comcast does give me good speeds and reliability so far however, for a reasonable price. I still dislike them, and the sign-up process as well as the spam calls I received for weeks were terrible. They tried to get me to sign up for 10 TV channels I already had on my antenna in higher quality so they could gouge me on their TV rental equipment fees.
Property rights are important, but there's also something to be said of an industry that's benefited from billions of taxpayer dollars, failed to fulfill their commitments from that money, and is skirting the edge of antitrust laws. Capitalism unchecked is not healthy for 99.99999% of the population, and there needs to be limits to rights of corporations because of this.