The Issue Of Digital Policy

We have all heard of this concept and we know what it means, and the Libertarian Party takes this notion for everything that it is worth. They support any policy that is tantamount to a weaker national government. You can almost think of them as the Anti-Federalists of the modern era. Government regulations, government restrictions and government taxation are deplored by Libertarians nationwide. Government involvement in the daily lives of citizens is what they desire to end, along with government control over the citizens’ income. Likewise, they also do not support Government programs or funding designed to better the lives of the people. Their ultimate goal is for the government to have as little control with as little power as possible in today’s day and age. This belief in hands off government is indirectly contrary to the views of Jill Stein. Since she is passionate in her desire to protect the planet and undo the damage done to it, she is quite obviously against this concept. The big steps she wants to take towards achieving her goals cannot be done without much government involvement. Regulations would need to be established and restrictions would need to be placed, and they must be enforced by a well-funded, strong central government for her plans to have a tangible effect. This is the key difference between Jill Stein and Gary Johnson. They have platforms that conflict with one another, which makes them different from each other as

Libertarians are often confused with Anarchists because both have anti-government and pro-individual views. These opinions are reinforced when the party 's primary election issues seem to revolve around what the government shouldn 't be doing, as opposed to what it can do to make the country, and even the world, a better place. For example, ask any Libertarian and they will tell you that a strong federal government is crucial to the protection of life and liberty. Where Libertarians veer away from the other major political parties is that we believe the military should only be used when the nation is in immediate peril and not for “police actions” or “nation-building.”

Libertarian conceptions of justice hold liberty to be the ultimate moral ideal. Libertarians believe the “laissez-faire capitalism” to be the only just economic system because it is based on individual rights. Libertarians believe that each person is in control of their own life and possessions and has the right to make their own choices on how they live it. They feel that everyone has the right to live his life in any way they choose just as long as they are respecting the equal rights of others. Philosopher John Hospers also supports the Libertarian outlook and says that “laws requiring people to help one another (example – welfare payments) rob Peter to pay Paul.”

In this paper, I will be arguing against the text by Lawrence Lessig by providing evidence and reasoning that proves that complete internet regulation would never be implemented on a global scale due to the privacy concerns that the United States would face while minimal internet regulation, like what Lessig suggests, would be unable to coexist with countries like China and Saudi Arabia who morally conflict with a global majority. Internet regulation will never be consistent in a global scheme and would require constant revision which makes it not provide enough utility to be considered when judging from Utilitarianism.

|Bob Barr. "The Cybercrime Treaty Threatens Civil Liberties." Opposing Viewpoints: Cyber Crime. Ed. Louise Gerdes. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, |

The internet is a resource with ever expanding content and applications for everyone to use however, net neutrality rules on the free use of internet remains a debated topic. The “Point/Counterpoint: Network Neutrality Nuances” presents Barbara van Schewick’s supportive argument on the applications of net neutrality rules, and the consequences of failing to do so. Schewick’s engaging justifications are well researched with arguments containing significant amounts of examples, strong and simplistic diction to reach her audience, and clean and smooth transitions to move between ideas.

Since the government cannot be allowed to command anyone to help another; giving individuals abundant opportunities to achieve economic success through the free market, will allow them to take care of themselves. Since free trade allocates resources in the most efficient manner, government interference is not necessary in access to housing and health care. These services would all be privatized under the Libertarians who trust that they would be most efficiently handled on the free

However, I believe that, if correctly used; Libertarianism and its beliefs will support our country. For example, economic liberty is one aspect that the United States’ Democratic Republic is being defeated in. [1] According to the Wall Street Journal and Heritage Foundation’s 2014 Index of Economic Freedom, the United States ranked 10th, with a score of 76. Above them in the rankings include Switzerland (a Federal Republic), Canada (a Parliamentary System), and Mauritius (a Parliamentary Republic). Now, one may ask, how is it that Parliaments and Republic systems that do not allow their citizens as much freedom as within a Democratic Republic, allow their citizens to enjoy more economic freedom? Arguably, this could be a result of the strict economic involvement of our government. While capitalism is a successful economic system, it is not without its flaws. Politicians can easily bide their opinion into legislation, and banks can participate in rings of illegal acts on a global scale. Citizens are urged to stay fiscally responsible, however the government has allowed the entire country to enter into debt. [2] As of 2015, the United States has $18 trillion worth of debt, 102% of our entire GDP. We as a country have more debt than what we produce; and this issue will have severe long term effects. If applied, Libertarianism will take steps towards healing the massive

Freedom requires sacrifices. For instance, our government requires us to surrender some of our freedoms in order to be governed (Janda, Berry and Goldman). In doing this, our government is able to maintain order. Without this order, “people would live as predators do, stealing and killing fro their personal benefit” (Janda, Berry and Goldman). Many groups have different ideas on how the governments power should balance out. Conservatives, liberals, and moderates all have different ideologies. An ideology is a system of ideas or ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

Nozick 's version of libertarianism says that what is controlled in society should be limited to what are the essentials to keep society together. A majority of the services and basics that people require to live can be provided by the private sector and not by the state that lead to unjust in the distribution of goods and services. The services that should be left to the government according to Nozick’s belief are those of security such as the police and military and the enforcement of common laws. These services are the basic essentials to what society needs to function with the most liberty being passed on to the people. The private sector which consist of the majority of the population will be the determining factor in deciding how services should be best executed to fit their needs and desires. In terms of distribution Nozick believes that redistribution is unjust for the reason that it is forced labor on the working people who in most cases do not consent to the redistribution of their wealth. Nozick states in his view on Libertarianism that “People have the right to Liberty” which in this case people should have the liberty to choose how their earnings are distributed. Furthermore, according to Nozick, Libertarianism should reject the redistribution of personal wealth. This statement is focus more of the earnings of people. Having a state that has an uncontrolled power over the distribution of one 's wealth can result in a structure that allows others to benefit off

" The United States government has a responsibility to ensure that every American has access to an internet that has a freedom of information. The internet has become a necessity in our everyday lives. School age Americans use the internet for research projects and even to submit homework. A vast majority of working-age Americans use the internet for the jobs or are involved in producing the inputs necessary to advance technology and keeping the current technology infrastructure working. The U.S. government has a limited duty in monitoring internet content. The government should have the ability to protect Americans from cyber acts and personal information theft. Currently the Federal Trade Commission has the power to regulate the internet

In today’s world, people, especially politicians, talk about liberty but they do not mean precisely the same. Liberty and freedom should be treated as the same thing. The reason attributed to this assertion is that the words liberty and freedom come from old English and old French respectively, and they both have the same meaning, which is being unconstrained. The problem with unconstrained is that the natural world, including rocks, gravity, and weather, limit man’s desires and power. However, man does not feel that nature oppresses, hurts, or bind him since it is what it is and he can use it as he wishes to. Also, man does not feel that the natural world oppresses him since his body is part of it.

In chapters five through nine of Change of State: Information, Policy, and Power by Sandra Braman, the information policy principles found in the United States Constitution are assessed and the influence that they have on the identity, structure, borders, and progression (of the state and on the individuals, communities, and organizations that make it up) are discussed. Braman presents current law, trends and penalties of several information policy issues for each category it affects. In this part of the book Braman defines how information policy affects identity and the structure of society. Furthermore an in depth analysis of how new borders is defined and then furthers the creation of new laws is presented. This book is attempting to prove that the power of the informational state is threatened by the increase of technology.

Recent congressional proposal to pass the Stop Online Internet Piracy (SOPA) Act was one of the latest attempts by copyright owners and their supporters in Congress to criminalize intellectual property theft through the use of the Internet. The bill has not passed yet partly because of public concerns that the Act could have adversely affect the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech. These concerns over intellectual property theft as well as the potentially negative consequences of copyright protection legislations, however, are not new in the digital age. The debate over electronic theft began during 1990s when increasing number of Americans began to gain access to the Internet. To protect copyright owners, the Congress in 1997 passed No Electronic Theft (NET) Act. It was a logical response from Congress given the fact that the Internet could be used to violate copyright laws on a massive scale unless properly regulated through appropriate legislation. However, the NET Act also turned out to be largely ineffective and its scope reached beyond what was justified.

Since the recent passage of the Internet Tax Freedom Act, on October 21, 1998, making the Internet tax free, there has been an intense debate on whether to tax or not to tax Internet purchases. The conservative side, also known as the Republicans, is opposed to Internet taxation saying that it is too costly to collect taxes on Internet purchases. They also believe that since Internet retailers do not have a physical presence in every state, why should the state receive sales tax on a nonexistent store in that state? This would be taxation without representation (par. 18 Lukas). On the other hand, the liberals, also known as democrats, believe that taxation of the Internet should be lawful because