Quote from: Wilikon on November 19, 2014, 05:09:10 PM

Quote from: username18333 on November 19, 2014, 05:08:42 AM

Quote from: Wilikon on November 19, 2014, 02:21:05 AM

Quote from: UnunoctiumTesticles on November 19, 2014, 01:55:30 AM

Readers should read the logic in the prior two threads on this "net neutrality" debate:

Obama says FCC should reclassify internet as a utility

Obama's Net Neutrality Statement: What it Really Means

Logic does not matter. Some here are willing to fight for their belief that a more powerful centralized power is good for humans, on a forum dedicated to an amazing fully working decentralized creation...

I will never get that.

Regarding this, it should be noted that I presently hold to anarchist communism and am merely pursuing your own logical consistency.

Anarchist communism?. I have never heard of this. What is it exactly?

Allow me:

Quote from: Peter Kropotkin, Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets link=http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/revpamphlets/anarchistcommunism.html

ANARCHIST COMMUNISM: ITS BASIS AND PRINCIPLES

I

Anarchism, the no-government system of socialism, has a double origin. It is an outgrowth of the two great movements of thought in the economic and the political fields which characterize the nineteenth century, and especially its second part. In common with all socialists, the anarchists hold that the private ownership of land, capital, and machinery has had its time; that it is condemned to disappear; and that all requisites for production must, and will, become the common property of society, and be managed in common by the producers of wealth. And in common with the most advanced representatives of political radicalism, they maintain that the ideal of the political organization of society is a condition of things where the functions of government are reduced to a minimum, and the individual recovers his full liberty of initiative and action for satisfying, by means of free groups and federations--freely constituted--all the infinitely varied needs of the human being.

As regards socialism, most of the anarchists arrive at its ultimate conclusion, that is, at a complete negation of the wage-system and at communism. And with reference to political organization, by giving a further development to the above-mentioned part of the radical program, they arrive at the conclusion that the ultimate aim of society is the reduction of the functions of government to nil--that is, to a society without government, to anarchy. The anarchists maintain, moreover, that such being the ideal of social and political organization, they must not remit it to future centuries. but that only those changes in our social organization which are in accordance with the above double ideal, and constitute an approach to it, will have a chance of life and be beneficial for the commonwealth.

. . .