Politicians are great at naming their legislature from a marketing perspective. Liberals will create something like the “Protect the Puppies Act” and do so to put their opponents in a harder defensive position. How could you not want to protect the puppies? Do you hate puppies? What kind of monster are you not to want to protect puppies?
These politicians go out of their way to give their proposed laws/regulations names like these to hide the true affects of what they are doing. What do you do when you find out that the “Protect the Puppies Act” requires a huge amount of new government regulation? What if it includes burdensome and excessive healthcare requirements that make it so you can’t even afford the puppy? Knowing liberals, it’ll probably even require puppy counseling so they can adjust from separation from their mothers before going to their new homes.
This was the case with the 2015 Net neutrality ruling. Who could be against making sure the Internet stays equally accessible to all? The problem is is that that is not what it did. In its limited time, It has accomplished little other than to create burdensome regulations, stifle innovation and limit the growth of small Internet service providers (ISPs).
What horrible thing to this act protect us from in the past 22 months? What horrible thing about the Internet exhausted 22 months ago that necessitated this act? Proponents of the rule will tell you that while they cannot answer either of these questions, the act protected consumers from potential bad business practices of ISPs. That’s a rather nebulous answer, saying that you are imposing a mass of onerous regulations on an industry for something that isn’t a problem but might become one.