"Morality does not trump reality. I don't really care for your idea of what is and isn't moral. I only care about facts."
[strike]Yes it does.[/strike] Edit: You know, actually, this statement doesn't even make sense. Morality isn't in conflict with reality. The contention here is not that we must choose between morality or reality, that doesn't make sense. What you're
actually saying is that morality doesn't overrule pragmaticality. That is, if something is beneficial enough, by some yet to be defined in this discussion standard, then it is acceptable to violate moral principles. You're absolutely wrong in that assertion. Morality absolutely overrules pragmaticality. The most basic of examples might be this: A man is on the brink of starvation. He passes a store with glass windows. The store is closed. Through the window he can see a loaf of bread inside. There is no way that he may be able to ask for charity before succumbing to starvation. Is it morally acceptable for him to steal - an obvious violation of private property principles - in order to survive? No. Starvation is tragic, and is real. It occurs every single day, even here in the US, even here in my own city. We must find solutions to these problems that
are consistent with morality. It is possible, but some, as you apparently do, believe that, when lacking the knowledge of a morally acceptable solution to the problem, abandonment of principle and morality is acceptable. The real kicker here is that we aren't even lacking morally consistent solutions, some just don't understand them.
"Fact: there is no competition in the ISP market."
Absolutely false. Most zip codes in the US are served by at least 3 broadband providers. According to the FCC, as of 2006, 87.4 percent of U.S. ZIP codes were served by three or more broadband service providers.
"Fact: competition without regulation is a pipe dream."
This isn't the question. Rather, the question would be, whether or not competition is a pipe dream outside of US federal government regulation. This statement really doesn't even pass the common sense test, and could really be considered a straw man. Certainly some regulations are justifiable; regulations against violence, theft, fraud, etc. are not being opposed. You present this statement as if ISPs would be entirely "unregulated" without the regulations that were just voted on, which I believe is purposefully misleading.
"Fact: ISPs are throttling services."
This might be the only statement that you're presenting as a "fact" that actually has any truth to it.
"Fact: this hinders the online market, by allowing ISPs to be the gate keepers."
False. This charge is discussed in more depth, here:
http://www.libertarianism.org/media/free-thoughts/internet-doesnt-need-be-saved Edit: if you want me to provide a timestamp for the part of the discussion that addresses this specific issue, I can do that for you, since this discussion is fairly lengthy.
"Fact: the people complaining about net neutrality are suggesting the government will use it in the long run to control the content on the internet."
False. While that certainly is a concern, and not entirely an illegitimate one, economic debate easily takes center-focus in this discussion.
"Fact: the FCC ruling does the complete opposite, by allowing all online services to be treated equally."
This is false, the FCC ruling does little or nothing to impose limits on future efforts by the federal government to control or manipulate "content" being served via the internet.
"Fact: the ISPs were controlling the content on the internet."
This is absolutely dishonest.
"What all this means is that net neutrality supporters were calling attention to things that are happening in reality. Net neutrality opponents are proposing a hypothetical situation."
What this means is that supporters of net neutrality were successfully deceived and, using fear, mislead toward supporting a socialistic increase of established central planning and power and regulation by the federal government.
