The Control of Net Neutrality: Third Way economics reinvented

One of the great failures of the human condition is the personal desire to control other people through manipulation, social titles, and just sheer domination. Anyone who has worked in an environment where other people were constantly in interaction, they have witnessed this desire for control over others in all its dysfunction. Control is essentially the primary reason for the governments’ desire for gun control over its population. It is also the primary reason Obama through the FCC wants control of the internet through Net Neutrality. The control desired isn’t anything needed, but is only to satisfy the egos of bureaucrats and their lust to have the kind of control over others that they can’t get in their personal lives. If the root cause of the human desire for control is analyzed in most situations it will be found nearly 100% of the time that those who desire control over others most are those least secure about how to guide their own lives from moment to moment.

Often control is disguised to be seen as a helpful measure. An insecure parent might desire to control the finances of their children so to keep them close—so not to leave them vulnerable to social judgment which might otherwise be noticed. A boss might desire to control an employee they know is superior to them by crafting mundane procedures to wear down the challenging individual in hopes that the tasks will hone down ambition so corporate superiors might not notice. And the government at all levels–from the local zoning board all the way up to President of the United States can’t resist controlling other people through rules and regulations. For the political employee it is difficult to resist when power is confiscated through government mechanisms and provided to the desk of a bureaucrat the means to sort through and re-distribute the fruits of productivity to those they deem worthy. For the zoning administrator the rich land owner who wants to build a new garage will have to pay more and grease many more wheels to get approval than the hot young blond who wants to build a deck to sun bath upon. When the rights of others must be filtered through some government bureaucrat abuse through control is a common occurrence.

It is because of this human frailty desiring control over others that economies struggle and do not reach their full potential. It is also why there is much resistance to laissez-faire capitalism as opposed to socialism, communism, or some mixture of those ideas, especially by the political left. If the mind of those who call themselves democrats is analyzed correctly, it will be discovered that deep down inside they typically have serious personal control insecurities—which is why they are Democrats to begin with. Those who lean liberal tend to be insecure with themselves and desire to use re-distribution of resources through politics as a means to inflate their personal power over others. This was never more apparent than in the 1990s when then President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Tony Blair attempted to hide their human frailties behind economic policies that pretended to support capitalism, only with a new spin on the type of socialism that control addicts desire most. They called it “The Third Way.”

In politics, the Third Way is a position that tries to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of right-wing economic and left-wing social policies.[1][2] The Third Way was created as a serious re-evaluation of political policies within various centre-left progressive movements in response to international doubt regarding the economic viability of the state; economic interventionist policies that had previously been popularized by Keynesianism and contrasted with the corresponding rise of popularity for economic liberalism and the New Right.[3] The Third Way is promoted by some social democratic and social liberal movements.[4]

Major Third Way social democratic proponent Tony Blair claimed that the socialism he advocated was different from traditional conceptions of socialism. Blair said “My kind of socialism is a set of values based around notions of social justice … Socialism as a rigid form of economic determinism has ended, and rightly”.[5] Blair referred to it as “social-ism” that involves politics that recognized individuals as socially interdependent, and advocated social justice, social cohesion, equal worth of each citizen, and equal opportunity.[6] Third Way social democratic theorist Anthony Giddens has said that the Third Way rejects the traditional conception of socialism, and instead accepts the conception of socialism as conceived of by Anthony Crosland as an ethical doctrine that views social democratic governments as having achieved a viable ethical socialism by removing the unjust elements of capitalism by providing social welfare and other policies, and that contemporary socialism has outgrown the Marxian claim for the need of the abolition of capitalism.[7] Blair in 2009 publicly declared support for a “new capitalism”.[8]

It supports the pursuit of greater egalitarianism in society through action to increase the distribution of skills, capacities, and productive endowments, while rejecting income redistribution as the means to achieve this.[9] It emphasizes commitment to balanced budgets, providing equal opportunity combined with an emphasis on personal responsibility, decentralization of government power to the lowest level possible, encouragement of public-private partnerships, improving labour supply, investment in human development, protection of social capital, and protection of the environment.[10]

The Third Way has been criticized[11] by some conservatives and libertarians who advocate laissez-faire capitalism.[12] It has also been heavily criticized by many social democrats, democratic socialists and communists in particular as a betrayal of left-wing values.[13][14][15] Specific definitions of Third Way policies may differ between Europe and America.

In other words, the Third Way is identical to the corporate boss who is technically incompetent who steals the ideas of a superior minded employee so to impress their bosses when performance reviews are requested to drive up job security. Government has recognized that socialism and communism tend to rob people of initiative, so they give the illusion of capitalism so that the work excess produced can then be stolen and re-distributed to their political supporters to keep them in power. So essentially the Third Way is socialism without the title designed to hide the intentions toward control. It would be equivalent to the jealous husband who won’t let his wife drive a car under abusive circumstances—afraid she might find a better lover—by telling her that driving is dangerous and that he loves her so much that he doesn’t want her to get hurt. That is the essence of the Third Way economy patterns so prevalent today, introduced by progressives like Bill Clinton and heavily supported by open socialists like Barack Obama.

The point of this article is to illustrate what is really going on behind Net Neutrality. Under the current policy of Internet regulation and creativity, it is essentially a model of laissez-faire capitalism. Products are bought and sold rapidly in great number because there is an incentive to make money—so a very diverse number of products are available to consumers at a wide range of prices driven by competition. Government regulation hardly exists on the Internet and this has allowed a market sector to flourish—much the way the economy in America did during the 1920s, and 1980s under presidents Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan.   Communists and socialists however have had their presidents elected in most of the other periods and the result has been lackluster economic growth—except for the advent of the Internet. At the heart of the desire for Net Neutrality is the desire to control the economy and the people who make it up.

There is no problem with the Internet, there is no unfairness. Everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed or fail on the Internet because of its limitless creative options. It has regulated itself through competition the way laissez-faire capitalism tends to anywhere it is utilized without controls imposed upon it by weak-willed personalities. Net Neutrality is all about control over others. That need for control is built on inner insecurities by lesser individuals who want to appear as equal or even superior to their betters. With Net Neutrality weak people who know they can’t compete in life need the protection of government so that they can feel equal to everyone else. Under open market capitalism, they can’t, so they must sabotage the successful so that they can feel equal. That is what is called “social justice.”

Net Neutrality is all about control and insecurity. It’s about a government that is useless trying to make itself relevant with “social justice” by stealing from the productive and giving to the lazy. It is just another version of the Third Way. It’s a scam—just like most things in government are. It’s an attack on laissez-faire capitalism. It’s all about control from inferior minds over superior ones in the only way that such an arrangement can occur—through manipulation, emotion, and a promise of security from illusionary concerns. Net Neutrality is a false argument against freedom by a lying government for the sole purpose of convincing the strong to give up their rights to the weak so that social justice through the Third Way of compromise can occur—which is nothing more than a way to hide the inadequacies of failed personalities from the realities they’d otherwise make for themselves.


Rich Hoffman