I don't expect this reply to be popular, but I thought it would be helpful to share an alternative perspective in the name of open dialogue. I am not sure what the senator intended precisely, but I think a reasonable interpretation would be the following (which I claim only as my argument, not he senator's):
It is a choice to use the internet or not, just like it is a choice to purchase and eat food, purchase and live in a house, or to pursue a career and earn money. Obviously, if you want to live a long and happy life, these are good choices to make. However, each choice has a cost depending on the terms of the trade between you and the provider.
You have to pay for your food and your home and come to an agreement to the terms and conditions with the seller. If you don't like the terms and conditions available, you have to choose whether you want the services bad enough to use them under the terms offered or to search for better terms offered. If in a particular real estate market, the norms for purchase terms are not what you prefer, you are free to choose to live elsewhere where more favorable terms exist (e.g. leave the Bay Area to get more affordable housing). The choice is yours. The same is true for the internet. If you want internet (which I wholeheartedly agree we all should because it offers so many life promoting and time saving benefits), then the choice is yours what ISP to use and where to live to have a pro-privacy ISP if that is a priority.
Now some will say this is different because choices are limited by the ISP monopolies. I have two thoughts on this:
1. How did these become monopolies? Primarily because of government interference. Here is a quick link with more information (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-t...), but you can find much more detailed articles as well if you are curious.
2. If you don't find that compelling and believe ISPs would be "natural monopolies" without government interference, then ask yourself this... what is the meaning of telling that ISP what it can and cannot do with the data it consensually agrees to collect from customers? What is the meaning of a "right" to receiving internet without one's usage data being sold? At whose expense? The only way to enforce a right to a service someone else provides is government to force someone (the ISP) to provide their services to someone else (the consumer). If it is wrong for the ISP to consensually sell your usage data, why is it right for government to force the ISP to provide you a service with different terms than you consensually agree to? Is it right for the government to tell you what you can and cannot purchase? Is it right for you the government to tell you what you can and cannot eat? Is it right for the government to tell you what home you can and cannot purchase? I think the answer is no of course, because I think that all of these are forms of violating individuals rights: the right to voluntarily trade (as a consumer and a seller).
From farmers and other business people. I'm not claiming businesses are unimportant, simply that bankers are (because they redistribute that capital as loans to potentially successful new enterprises).
Where would the farmers get capital then? I think it's misinformed to claim that bankers are less important than farmers. There are clearly huge issues in the world of finance, but banking does serve an important and legitimate function.
Thanks Sam for the clarification. I think the likelihood of one developing is much greater with less government involvement (because now there is less incentive to start a competing infrastructure business since your competitor can lose money and not die). If government were not providing roads, we would have tolls (likely in aggregate costing us less than what we spend through bureaucracy) and a lot more people thinking creatively how to build infrastructure. It's such a 'schlep' problem (thanks pg) only bc you have to beat a competitor that can't die and can arbitrarily decree that you are not allowed to do certain things.
The post is overall good but it misses one huge question and seems to implicitly assume something that is incorrect.
I agree growth is good, but shouldn't we then ask what causes growth or halts it? The post does not explore this, but Sam seems to assume that growth is caused by government investment in infrastructure, science and technology. This is false. What are real concrete examples of this abstract idea 'economic growth'. Many of the best examples are actually due to individuals acknowledged in the post such as Peter Thiel and Paul graham. Growth comes from individuals like these choosing to invest in entrepreneurs (at various stages) based on their judgment. Those investors who judge right enough accumulate more capital to reinvest and continue encouraging growth as long as their judgment about what should grow is good enough.
Sam seems to suggest that growth is achieved through government investment. I disagree. Every dollar the government spends comes from a Peter, a Paul or an Elon. Who is going to do a better job investing and causing growth? Elon or a government bureaucrat. Elon is one of those rare entrepreneurs who has plowed into areas of deep regulation such as space travel and transportation. Imagine if the government wasn't financing roads with money taken from those accumulating capital, then how much easier would it be for Elon to disrupt transportation and grow that industry through innovation? How many more entrepreneurs would be willing to work in that industry?
Each of the most broken and stagnant industries are most touched by government: education, healthcare, defense, finance, transport, and energy. Growth has happened in software/tech because government is far away meaning it is easier to work on problems free of intervention and more people are willing to. Growth has stagnated in these other areas because government has disincentivized entry (and often teamed with established inneffectivr big cos) by getting involved, regulating, giving away for free, and generally making it difficult to impossible for entrepreneurs to enter and thus undesirable.
So what has caused growth? Individual investors and entrepreneurs exercising good judgment. What has slowed it? Government regulation as government has grown its tendrils into more and more areas. What should we do to promote growth? Shrink government leaving investors their money to invest and opening more industries for potential private investment that won't have to face burdensome regulation or competition against public entities that don't try to profit.
It is a choice to use the internet or not, just like it is a choice to purchase and eat food, purchase and live in a house, or to pursue a career and earn money. Obviously, if you want to live a long and happy life, these are good choices to make. However, each choice has a cost depending on the terms of the trade between you and the provider.
You have to pay for your food and your home and come to an agreement to the terms and conditions with the seller. If you don't like the terms and conditions available, you have to choose whether you want the services bad enough to use them under the terms offered or to search for better terms offered. If in a particular real estate market, the norms for purchase terms are not what you prefer, you are free to choose to live elsewhere where more favorable terms exist (e.g. leave the Bay Area to get more affordable housing). The choice is yours. The same is true for the internet. If you want internet (which I wholeheartedly agree we all should because it offers so many life promoting and time saving benefits), then the choice is yours what ISP to use and where to live to have a pro-privacy ISP if that is a priority.
Now some will say this is different because choices are limited by the ISP monopolies. I have two thoughts on this: 1. How did these become monopolies? Primarily because of government interference. Here is a quick link with more information (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-t...), but you can find much more detailed articles as well if you are curious. 2. If you don't find that compelling and believe ISPs would be "natural monopolies" without government interference, then ask yourself this... what is the meaning of telling that ISP what it can and cannot do with the data it consensually agrees to collect from customers? What is the meaning of a "right" to receiving internet without one's usage data being sold? At whose expense? The only way to enforce a right to a service someone else provides is government to force someone (the ISP) to provide their services to someone else (the consumer). If it is wrong for the ISP to consensually sell your usage data, why is it right for government to force the ISP to provide you a service with different terms than you consensually agree to? Is it right for the government to tell you what you can and cannot purchase? Is it right for you the government to tell you what you can and cannot eat? Is it right for the government to tell you what home you can and cannot purchase? I think the answer is no of course, because I think that all of these are forms of violating individuals rights: the right to voluntarily trade (as a consumer and a seller).