A Different Way of Thinking About Net Neutrality

The US Justice Department issued a statement this morning in opposition to net neutrality:

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2007/September/07_at_682.html

This got me thinking about how most of the arguments floating around out there for or against net neutrality have been based on social utilitarianism or, more specifically, consumer welfare. Why does consumer welfare guide the debate? Just because I would be better off being able to buy a brand-new Audi R8 for $100 doesn’t mean I should be able to use the coercive power of the state to force Audi to sell it to me at that price. That would be a violation of Audi’s right to do with its property what it sees fit and its right to refrain from any bargain it does not wish to enter into. Certainly you as a consumer would not want Audi to be able to force you at the point of a gun to pay double the car’s sticker price.

You might be thinking that net neutrality is different from the bargain to buy a car. And you’d be right, of course – government has interfered much more in the market for internet access and traffic than in the market for cars. The government has created monopoly rights, subsidized the building of infrastructure, and passed other harmful regulations. For a cogent and succinct discussion of how this government interference is responsible for the problems at the heart of the network neutrality debate – and how to cure the disease instead of addressing its symptoms – I point you to a short piece by Tim Swanson:

http://blog.mises.org/archives/007100.asp