Saturday, May 17, 2008




This was a really tough choice for me. The title alone seemed above reproach. Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008.
Who could argue against that? I see you already guessed it. Lol. I thought it was a bit too good to be true so I started to investigate.
First a LINK to the bill HR 5353
Sorry the link above won't work, If you want to see the bill go to my right side bar about 3/4 ths down under "Research Links" click on US House Tracking It'll take you to the Thomas site. In the Search box type hr 5353 then under that box check bill number then click search it should take you to the bill. I don't know why the link won't work. If someone knows a way around that problem please let me know. thanks.
Next a link to a pretty partisan article. Does frame one side well. IMO
Next an article from a group I usually am in favor of CAGW (Citizens Against Government Waste).
Well I’ve decided for now to side against HR 5353 in favor of my principle that say less regulation is better. Also the old cliché comes to mind. “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it”

What really bothers me comes from the last series of articles I wrote titled “Shell Games - A 3 Part series” in which I talked about the harmful effects of bureaucracies. See my blog archive. In those artilces I wrote about how they all are started for the very best of reasons. This initial (enabling) legislation usually only starts with setting up the infrastructure to (study) the problem. Costs and regulation is hardly mentioned because the study is minimal. The real regulations and costs come later, out of the recommendation of the study group. Then over the years the group (read bureaucracy) grows. I’m afraid the language of this bill fits my template like a glove. From the wonderful title, to the lack of mention of any possible regulations, I really start to worry that this may enable exactly what it claims to be protecting us from, for all the right reasons. I’m afraid it would put this wonderfully free media into the hands of the politically correct. Much like the threat of the “fairness doctrine” on the radio waves.
At least for now I’m siding with CAGW. When it comes to giving the government enough rope I’m usually against it (Think about it) as we are the ones they hang with it.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative

2 comments: said...

Reminded of the original argument among the founders over the dangers of a Bill of Rights. The worry wasn't that the State would over-reach without them but that with certain rights enumerated it might one day be assumed that those not listed didn't count.


live dangerously said...

Great Nick. In all my philosophical rants, I missed the obvious about the Bill of Rights. They just got done enumerating the sole duties of the government in which they trie to limit it by doing so. Then it makes sense that they might think that by enumerating our rights that it could follow those rights were being limited in like fashion. I get it. Thanks. I probably would of still voted for it under the theory that if all else failed we would have those rights at least carved in stone as it were.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative