Politics, News & Issues >
Constitutional & Contract Law
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould the Internet be monitored and taxed by the government?
Results so far:
| Yes | 9% | 36 votes | Total: 399 votes | |
| No | 91% | 363 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesThough this is bound to be an extremely touchy subject with privacy advocates and libertarians in the world the obvious answer to whether the government should monitor and tax the Internet would be yes - to a limited extent. At one time the Internet was a means for the free exchange of ideas but it has become so large and chaotic that without some way of stifling it's growth it will simply explode into a mass of totally useless and sometimes dangerous pseudoknowledge. How many more hidden camera videos of college kids or hate spewing personal blogs does the world need?
The Internet is a safe haven for numerous sources that wish to harm other people; whether they be drug dealers, terrorists, or child molesters they utilize the Internet to communicate between each other and locate their victims. Government monitoring of the Internet would make it much harder for these dregs of humanity to operate freely and would make it much easier to track them down and get them off the streets. Some might believe that government monitoring of the Internet would lead to censorship and it would - self-censorship. If the Internet were monitored, the anarchists in the world whose sole purpose is to stir up the embers of discontent among the masses of the world might think twice before trying to spread their hateful messages. Monitoring would also make it possible for the government to post warning disclaimers or age verifiers on websites that have inappropriate or potentially harmful content considering that the current filters and website owners are woefully inept at doing the job.
Taxing the Internet is a bit harder to justify considering the heavy tax burden the public at large currently has to bear but it should be considered as a means of lessening the taxes the average citizen now pays. There are many companies that utilize the Internet as a way of avoiding taxes that they should be rightfully paying and there are many countries that use the Internet as a doorway into other countries that does not require their paying duties and tariffs. These are the areas of the Internet that should be primarily targeted for taxation. An Internet tax would also help to curb the proliferation of public scam brokers that peddle useless information to unwitting victims for exorbitant amounts of money. Considering the current size of the Internet these taxes could amount to trillions of dollars that could be used to lessen tax burden for millions of average people.
As much fun as the Internet can be for millions of people it seems that it's original purpose of being a clearinghouse for the free exchange of useful information has given way to commercial interests. Because the Internet has been co-opted by these commercial interests it should be treated as any other business enterprise and succumb to government oversight and pay it's taxes.
Learn more about this author, Robert D. Twitchell.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
Should the Internet be monitored and taxed by the government? Should we all be monitored out on the streets? Should we have to wake up every morning for government mandated exercise routine? Isn't big brother just looking out for our personal safety? Welcome to 1984, the gates have finally been opened and we're all plunging into the maelstrom of federal government's safety measures. The suggestion of Internet monitoring is as ominous as totalitarianism itself. Our Internet use should not, in any way shape or form, be monitored by the government.
This concept is strictly unconstitutional. We, as American citizens, have a right to privacy while presiding in our residential homes. The government might as well have a mandated government agent living on our property. Such sicking and putrid thought should be enough to nauseate any American citizen. Is freedom really worth loss of individual freedom in the name of public safety? The government does not have the constitutional right to monitor and tax our Internet use, just as they do not have the right to place an agent into our home without permission.
Everythin g and anything is always in the name of public safety. Hitler concluded that eradicating the Jewish people would be in the interest of economic and public safety. Stalin believed that eradicating and punishing religious beliefs would be necessary to protect public safety. First, they monitor child molesters, and then seizure victims whose condition was caused by an Internet image. Soon, 90 percent of the American public fits into one of such categories. Soon, reading an article speaking negatively of Internet monitoring is reason for rehabilitation. Protection from terrorists is one thing, but invading privacy and ignoring our human rights is a completely different topic.
Programs such as these, cost money. Can our federal government, already plunged into debt, afford to even put into effect these safety measures? The American tax payer would begin to pay even more in taxes, including property taxes, income taxes, cigarette taxes, luxury taxes, and a myriad of others. Of course, such ideas are regardless to Big Brother's idea of safety, and everything is expendable. I would rather bury my family then see this atrocity ever become a government safety measure.
The government does not have the right to monitor and tax our Internet use. If we sit in fear over terrorists, to an extent we willingly sacrifice our personal rights, they have truly one. Our American bourgeoisie leaders may convince us that this is all in public safety. But this is not an issue that is really about safety, it is about power. When progressive parties insist on a stronger federal government to increase moral fiber, we lose every right we have. Any who agree to government monitoring of Internet use is a fool and lives in irrational fear of terrorists. To quote Patrick Henry, "Give me liberty, or give me death!"
Learn more about this author, Jake Dalton.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Constitutional & Contract Law
- Should the government have the right to require a background check before you can purchase a firearm?
- Do mandatory seat belt laws violate individual rights?
- Should prisoners classified as enemy combatants be able to challenge their detention in U.S. courts?
- Do you believe that people have a fundamental right to bear arms?
- Should a human ovum be granted legal "personhood?"
