by Ira Woodward

Created on: April 15, 2008

To begin with, taxing the "internet" doesn't even make sense. What is the "internet?" The "internet" consists of a variety of people and businesses. For example Internet Service Providers, the companies that provide access to the internet, are already taxed by the government like any other business. Come to think of it, so are all companies doing business on the internet. Many of these companies are very large, with revenues in the billions of dollars. Should Amazon or Google be allowed to make all of this money tax free and if so why? It seems the burden is on any business or person to prove that they should be exempt from taxation when everyone else has to pay taxes. The whole idea of taxes is that we want everyone to have access to roads, fire protection, public libraries, public schools, and other services provided by the government. Therefore we all have to pay taxes; someone has to pay them. It completely escapes me why a company like Google or Amazon ought to be tax free unless we should all be tax free.

I see the regulation of the internet in similar terms. Why should companies that happen to be related to the internet be free of regulations that other businesses are subject to? What is so special about them? For example, any conflict between people or companies involved with the internet is ultimately subject to a court of lawthe government. Furthermore, what other entity would be involved in setting rules for the operation of the internet if not the government? Again, someone has to do it. This doesn't have to mean government spying or arbitrary interference in the way that people can communicate. Instead, think about positive government regulations, like the speed limit, or traffic lights, or traffic laws more broadly. These are basically rules that we all agree to abide by in order to get around safely and efficiently. In the case of the internet, functions like assigning domain name were long carried out by governmental agencies. This seems to make sense, as keeping the internet open means that domains ought to be fairly cheap and accessible. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_governance) Also, the government ought to be involved in making sure customers are not getting ripped off by internet companies, in making sure that the wires that actually transmit the internet are not electrocuting anybody and that their installation doesn't interfere too much with road traffic and private homes. This is what government regulation at its best ought to be forto solve problems that no business would find profit in solving.

I would add finally that the internet originated within the government and would not exist without it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_service_provid ers, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_internet . Most industries in this country are intimately associated with government, and the various businesses associated with the internet are no exception. The question ought not to be "should government interfere with the internet," but rather "in whose interest and in what ways ought the government to relate to the internet." For example, the government can pass laws defining file-sharing as a violation of intellectual property rights, thereby limiting creativity and greatly reducing the free flow of information. Alternatively, consumers of music could tax themselves in order to pay artists; then there would be no problem with unlimited downloads of music. (For more on this idea see http://www.zcommunications.org/zmag/viewArticle/1348 8) We can come up with many other examples if we use our imaginations.

Learn more about this author, Ira Woodward.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.