Those who might think I've given up my "no politics" stance need not worry.  The title is just a little bit of sensationalism to perk everyone's ears up on this lazy Saturday.  It could just as easily say John McCain up there. 

The reason I used Obama is because the inspiration for this post is a quote by Robert Scoble in his most recent post entitled "The changing power in Washington DC".  In it he says...

Interesting to have been in that room, though, talking about tech policy with one of Barack’s advisers. He told me that Obama is going to make tech (both the policy of, and understanding of) one of the key differentiating points between Obama and McCain. To me that mattered more than who was raising money for the candidates, even as that story swirled all around us.

Now first lets address the Obama issue.  Regardless of what people might tell you no candidate gets an issue all to themselves.  If Obama unveils an "online plan" then John McCain will have one three days later.  That's the nature of politics. 

So this really isn't about one candidate its about the nature of Government itself. 

That being said, and with as little intended offense as is humanly possible, the above quote is profoundly ignorant of what I think are the realities of the world we live in.  Government involvement is not a good thing.  Ever.  Sometimes it's a necessary thing and that is why Governments exist in the first place but its  never preferable. 

Why is that?

Because Government exists to restrict freedoms.  That's their job.  If you get drunk and then hop in your car you are a danger to others around you so Government makes laws to prevent it.  They restrict your freedom to drive based on your intoxication level because of how dangerous your intoxication makes you to others.  But they are restricting your freedom because that is what Government does. 

So the question becomes whether there's something so dangerous on the Internet that it requires the restriction of people's freedoms.

Because there is a danger in Government intervention itself and that is Government's inevitable need to over restrict.  The FCC started as a service that simply assigned frequencies to people so they wouldn't interfere with each other's broadcasts.  But its now grown into an agency that concerns itself with everything said and done on any of those airwaves and which actually doles out punishment for saying things that the Government doesn't approve of. 

If you remember nothing else from this post remember this: Once Government turns its attention to something it will continually place more restrictions on that thing. 

This trend is so inevitable that it even has a name, the "slippery slope".  Anyone who studies history knows that this "slippery slope" has brought the end of almost every form of Government in history.  Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Government is as close as we have to absolute power in this world.   

So my question becomes why do people like Robert Scoble want Government involvement in the Internet?  What do they think it will accomplish other than to restrict it? 

Sadly, I appear to have gotten my answer in a quote further down in the post... 

I asked Ross to get Obama online to demonstrate he’s willing to use online media to listen to his supporters and have conversations. I also encouraged Ross to bring Obama out to meet with other bloggers so he could explain his tech policies and how they are different from McCain’s.

So really this comes down to plain old self importance.  They might as well create a lobby entitled "Bloggers so desperate to feel important that they're willing to bring down the Whole Internet to get attention"

Addendum: For the record some will cite "net neutrality" as a reason for Government interference but honestly that, like many things in politics, is a made up issue.  No ISP is ever going to impose bottlenecks because its too good of an opportunity for their competitors to steal market share.  The only way "net neutrality" is an issue is if every ISP imposed those bottlenecks and that is an anti-trust violation and already against existing laws.