It's been an interesting few weeks in the life of Senator Aqua Buddha, bold brogressive mancrush and sworn enemy of people who want to drop a drone in your double-chai soy latte 30-weight blobbaccino. First, he takes a complete dive on the USA Freedom Act, the only legislation on offer that even meekly would restrain the surveillance state that so bothers his sleep at night. (His alibi? It didn't go far enough.) Now, as befits a Libertarian Superhero Who Can Talk To The Young, Aqua Buddha has weighed in against net neutrality on the grounds that it is an impermissible "government intrusion" and an example of genius-stifling "government regulation." (For the moment, we will leave aside the fact that the Internet itself is a "government intrusion" in everyone's life.) This, of course, is all in the name of...wait for it...freedom.

When asked by The Huffington Post on Tuesday morning whether he has concerns about a plan backed by President Barack Obama, which would reclassify the Internet as a utility and ban companies from charging for better Internet access, Paul said, "Yeah, I don't want to see regulation of the Internet. I think it's the wrong way to go about it."

4:57...4:58...4:59...

Net neutrality advocates fear that without FCC regulation, digital monopolies will develop, as big companies charge for Internet access. Paul said, "I don't like monopolies, but I also don't like monopolies where the government gives the monopoly. For example, in many cities, there's a virtual monopoly on cable." He pointed out, "I think if there's evidence that someone has a monopoly, let's take away government privilege that creates the monopoly."

Let us warm ourselves in the glow of genius. He doesn't like monopolies, but he really doesn't like monopolies. He doesn't like government intrusion, but we should "take away government privilege that creates the monopoly." The only way to do this, of course, is to have government intrude. Unless, of course, Aqua Buddha is all in favor of private monopolies that benefit the corporations whose dough he will need if he runs for president. He's all in against every attempt to abridge our liberties, except for those attempts that can be subcontracted to private interests that can write him some nice checks.

As a matter of fact, opposition to net neutrality is a hobby-horse of long standing both for Aqua Buddha, and for his pappy, Crazy Uncle Liberty (!). Back when the latter was conducting his Revolution in the 2012 Republican primaries,[link href='https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120705/10581919594/ron-rand-paul-net-neutrality-public-domain-are-really-evil-collectivist-plots.shtml' target='_blank' link_updater_label='external']they produced an Internet Freedom Manifestothat was very long on incoherence, and very short on brains. The folks in the techie community, many of whom found Crazy Uncle Liberty (!)'s notions about government intriguing, man, were somewhat, ah, baffled about how combatting monopolistic control over the Internet by, say, Comcast was an infringement on their freedoms.

Now, I agree that the whole "net neutrality" debate has been muddled over the years, but it is entirely possible to be for the end-to-end principles of the internet (which is what most people mean by net neutrality) and against bad regulations trying to "force" neutrality on the internet. But not in the world of the Pauls. To them, any support of a neutral internet must be about "coercive state actions" and "collective rule" over "privately owned broadband high-speed infrastructure." This makes me curious if the Pauls spoke out against the billions and billions in subsidies and rights of way grants that the government provided the telcos and cable providers to build their networks. Once again, I am against regulating net neutrality -- because it's obvious that the telcos will control that process and the regulations will favor them against the public -- but pretending that broadband infrastructure is really "privately owned" when so much of it involved tax-payer-funded subsidies and rights of way is being in denial.

No kidding.

Now, I agree that the whole "net neutrality" debate has been muddled over the years, but it is entirely possible to be for the end-to-end principles of the internet (which is what most people mean by net neutrality) and against bad regulations trying to "force" neutrality on the internet. But not in the world of the Pauls. To them, any support of a neutral internet must be about "coercive state actions" and "collective rule" over "privately owned broadband high-speed infrastructure." This makes me curious if the Pauls spoke out against the billions and billions in subsidies and rights of way grants that the government provided the telcos and cable providers to build their networks. Once again, I am against regulating net neutrality -- because it's obvious that the telcos will control that process and the regulations will favor them against the public -- but pretending that broadband infrastructure is really "privately owned" when so much of it involved tax-payer-funded subsidies and rights of way is being in denial.

No, it's about being whopping big fakes.

There are a few other whoppers in there, including the claim that the groups talking about a "right to privacy" rarely care about it when it comes to government snooping -- and, in fact, support government surveillance and collection of private citizens' internet data. That's funny, because the very groups that the Pauls appear to be slamming... happen to be the same ones who were central in the fight against CISPA, which was all about the government snooping on our internet activity. Frankly, this document is a joke from two people who should know better. There are some good points in there about limiting government regulation of innovative companies, but when they're supportive of two of the biggest government handouts around -- telco subsidies and copyright -- it's hard to take them seriously when they claim they're for smaller government and about getting the government out of the internet.

Kid, that's because you didn't apply the Blog's Five Minute Rule where it was clearly appropriate here. In their fundamental political souls, the Pauls are oligarchs. The only kind of "government regulation" they truly oppose, and the only kind for which they truly will go to the mattresses, is any attempt by the government that would prevent the rich from getting richer, or that would protect the rest of us from the political depredations of the corporate class. Everything else is a wink and a nod and a fake. So, somehow, keeping the cable giants from doing for the internet what Goldman Sachs et. al. did for the financial services industry somehow would make you there at your laptop, journaling away at your drone-free Starbucks, less free.

Oh, and he's also babbling on about Benghazi, Benghazi!, BENGHAZI! again.

Heed the rule, America. Please.

Charles P. Pierce Charles P Pierce is the author of four books, most recently Idiot America, and has been a working journalist since 1976.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io