While the topic of net neutrality has been on the rise, leading up to the US vote on whether to get rid off it or keep it, which will happen on December 14th. Despite the fact that this vote will happen exclusively in the United States, the impact will stretch far beyond that, as many countries, including Canada, mimic the US policies and net neutrality may be included.

So why does net neutrality matter? To answer this question, it is worth examining what the world would look like with or without net neutrality. Well, currently we do enjoy net neutrality. Specifically, we pay internet service providers (ISPs) a flat rate to have access to internet, where we can do as we please. To most, it should come intuitively that that is the basic nature of the internet: people’s ideas cannot be censored by governments or anyone else. In a way, the internet does not tolerate censorship and corruption.

So, if net neutrality is revoked on December 14th, there would be drastic changes to the way we use internet. For example, in addition to paying a flat rate to the ISPs, customers will find that this does not include Youtube or Facebook or Twitter. That would be odd…The reason for that is that net neutrality is the only thing preventing the ISPs, that are just profit-hungry, from blocking whatever website and internet-based services they want. If that becomes a reality, the very way we interact on the internet will be controlled and monitored by the ISPs. To make things worse, since internet provision is relatively monopolized, there would not be any other options. It would be either submission to the ISPs and letting them dictate what you see on the internet or not using internet at all.

While the United Nations has recently declared that internet is a basic human right, the ISPs in the US are investing millions of dollars on an attempt to take that right away from the US citizens. That is happening in the country that have gone above and beyond to preserve its freedoms. The issues of net neutrality does have a huge impact on personal freedoms that define countries like Canada and the United States, and therefore, should be a mainstream debate.

What should the role of government be when it comes to economy? Today, the free-market model seems to be the most prosperous and dominant across the world. So should the government listen to free-market economists who promote the idea that governments should stick to fixing market failures when they arise?

Or should the governments do more? After all, if government enters the economy, like a private entrepreneur , it would be the most influential, resource-abundant player in the economy. Such capabilities may potentially lead to technological breakthroughs and overall economic growth. But they may also lead to failures and this is where governments differ from private entrepreneurs. Government resources come from taxpayer’s money, whereas private companies get their funds from private investors. While private entrepreneurs answer directly to their investors, governments answer to all of the taxpayers. Taxpayers do not have a say in what the government would be doing as an active player in the economy because it is logistically impossible. There cannot be a coherent discussion among millions of taxpayers. So the key difference between private entrepreneurs and governments is that private entrepreneurs get their funding from willing parties that acknowledge the high risks of such ventures, while governments get their money from millions of citizens, some of which would not want it to spend taxpayer money unnecessarily. By unnecessarily, I mean investing money in risky start-ups, something that private capital venturers usually do.

The decision whether governments should act more along the lines of private venture capitalist is unclear. There is opportunity of economic and innovation growth in doing so, but it does not come without a cost. The cost is accepting that government will undoubtedly fail here and there, losing taxpayer money. Is that something we should be okay with? Or is it something that we should leave to private venture capitalists?

Apple’s tax evasion has been among the most recent headlines. There is a good reason behind it, this topic raises questions that should not remain unanswered. Is anything going to be done about big corporate companies stashing away profits in offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes? This is not the first time a big corporation have been caught on tax evasion charges. Companies like Amazon, Starbucks, UPS and Coca-Cola are among those who have been implicated in tax avoidance.

Why do these corporations keep doing it? Currently, tax avoidance is generating serious attention and has potential to hurt these corporations. Clearly, there is a big risk to tax avoidance but it does not seem big enough. The case of Apple shows that even the biggest, most prominent and wealthy corporations in the world choose to take the morally-questionable route of tax evasion. Why do I say “morally” questionable? It is because legally speaking there is a loophole, making the practice of tax evasion relatively easy and takes out criminal responsibility. What does this say about the state of corporate social responsibility in some of the wealthiest countries in the world.

Apple is not the first example of a big corporation evading taxes. Yet, the culture does not seem to change. Is the case of Apple big enough to finally do something about it? Or is it one of those cases that generate lots of attention for a little while only to have people forget about it and move on? This is the narrative that needs to be considered. Unless something is being done about tax evasion, there will be new cases of corporations doing it. Ultimately, it matters because it exposes the nature of our societies, countries and cultures. Currently, we are living in the state where regular, hard-working people pay close to half of their earnings in taxes, while wealthy companies pay less than a percent of their profits.