OgEvolves - Charting the next revolution

I support net neutrality. In fact, I am writing a thesis on the subject.

But just because I am attempting to make a transpartisan argument for net neutrality does not mean that my position is, by definition, a transpartisan issue. Rather, the qualifier is that I take a transpartisan approach to analyzing, explaining, and advocating the net neutrality.

A “transpartisanship approach” refers to a perspective that transcends and includes other perspectives and seeks to find the most inclusive policy solution possible.

Yet there is a bottom-line: there is no transpartisan approach to genocide (or any -cide). There is no transpartisan approach to exacerbating climate change, to restricting product warnings that could protect the health of consumers, to remove basic civil liberties at the expense of democracy and freedom.

So even if the pro-net neutrality position is not inherently transpartisan, any anti-net neutrality position must pass the same transpartisan acid test. You can still take a policy stand in the transpartisan context; indeed, transpartisanship thrives on a diversity of ideas and perspectives.

But the defining question is whether those involved in the debate (or dialogue) speak from a transpartisan context — a commitment to taking on multiple perspectives; to striving for the highest moral and ethical ideals and standards; to seeing all policies as an interconnected, living, dynamic system; to looking at the subjective and objective dimensions of the individual (psychological and biological) and collective (cultural and economic–these are broad generalizations simply meant to convey the underlying point).