• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The U.S. Supreme Court gives OK to government crackdown on the airwaves.

This argument can be applied to any form of property. Needless to say, the land I live on now must be respected regardless of the Iroquois who lived on it hundreds of years ago. A free market allocation of such frequencies is the most efficient and fair method available. Utopian ideals of "non-ownership" need not apply.

Actually it can't be applied to all property simply natural things that are scacre or made artificially scarce and into property and it can be resolved in many ways for instance the Georgist land value tax on ground rent is an excellent ways to resolve the issues of private ownership of land, maintain social justice, end land speculation and monopoly and remove or greatly reduce taxes on the labour and capital of individuals.

One is not talking of free market allocation because it is the state allocating them.
 
Last edited:
Actually it can't be applied to all property simply natural things that are scacre or made artificially scarce and into property and it can be resolved in many ways for instance the Georgist land value tax on ground rent is an excellent ways to resolve the issues of private ownership of land, maintain social justice, end land speculation and monopoly and remove or greatly reduce taxes on the labour and capital of individuals.

One is not talking of free market allocation because it is the state allocating them.

Be more specific. You can't just say "the state allocated them" and expect to be taken seriously.
 
I have your solution people: all of you can write to your congress people and tell them how angry you are that THIER regulations are interfering with your 1st amendment rights to see and listen to smut.

:rofl

I'll be sure to remind you of the same every time you whine about Obama, democrats, and liberals. :fueltofir
 
Be more specific. You can't just say "the state allocated them" and expect to be taken seriously.

What do you mean? These people broadcasting on these frequencies have a monopoly because of the state, I thought that was pretty well known and obvious. In general they are not the people who first used that frequency, particularly when talking on any scale.
 
These people broadcasting on these frequencies have a monopoly because of the state, I thought that was pretty well known and obvious.
Wow, that came out of left field. How in the heck do they have a monopoly? That would require the control of an entire industry, not just a frequency.

In general they are not the people who first used that frequency, particularly when talking on any scale.
So?
 
There was little doubt that this was going to come surface once a Democratic majority was in place in Congress.

Curious reaction, since the liberal judges all voted against this....it was the conservative block that voted for it. Are you now agreeing that we need more liberal judges on the Supreme Court?

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who dissented Tuesday along with the other three liberal justices, similarly raised constitutional concerns. Ginsburg said that in a case that turns on government restriction of spoken words, "there is no way to hide the long shadow the First Amendment casts over what the commission has done."
 
Last edited:
Wow, that came out of left field. How in the heck do they have a monopoly? That would require the control of an entire industry, not just a frequency
.They have a monopoly of the frequency.

Well Lockeans, which I assume Ethereal is in some sense, believe in the labour-mixing idea of original appropriation so if these people weren't the people who first used it or bought it off those who did etc then it poses a problem. If they are simply given it by the state then as Murray Rothbard suggested such property can be legitimately homesteaded, i.e. treated morally unowned even by the most rightwing of Lockean libertarians.

From my take I'm against censorship and state intervention but do find it strange that the state created and maintains this monopoly and then some supposed propertarians ignore this but maintain the absolute rights of those benefiting from this state socialised system.
 
Savings Private Ryan is "Smut?"

:rofl

It is if TD says it is. I mean, won't you please think of his children! Could you imagine parent having to control their TV!!!!! Inconceivable! Why this piece of the electromagnetic spectrum in which a private person/company paid for the rights to use, only they can use exclusively, that they own the broadcasting equipment and pay or make the material which is broadcast....that's public. Can't you see that? It's public because we have to think of the children and the parents. Why the real world allows this interference by the FCC, so it's just. It's rightful use of government. If you don't like it, write your congressman, but I'm going to condescendingly laugh at you even though I can't put together proper argument against your position. I mean, when slavery was legal, that was clearly ok too. Because if the government does it, it's ok. Also I'm going to claim that to be "conservative" somehow (of course, not Reagan conservative, more big government neo-conservative...but let's ignore that). Think of the children would you! Why should what TD deems to be smut be allowed on TV? We know he's the moral superior here, don't you? Seesh. Think of the children! You people and your not thinking of the children or just accepting government interference into your life and private business are sickening. Smut can't be allowed on TV because it's icky and we can't turn the station or control our TVs well enough to prevent our children from seeing icky, nasty things which are prevalent in the real world; but I'm going to pretend to make real world arguments even though in the real world there is smut and naughty words and everyone will be exposed to them sooner or later.

If you guys can't think of the children, then I'll just have to think of the children for you!
 
Last edited:
Just a thought


V-Chip: Viewing Television Responsibly

The FCC has adopted rules requiring all television sets with picture screens 33 centimeters (13 inches) or larger to be equipped with features to block the display of television programming based upon its rating. This technology is known as the "V-Chip." The V-Chip reads information encoded in the rated program and blocks programs from the set based upon the rating selected by the parent. [News Release on TV Set Requirements and Ratings]

FCC V-Chip
 
The notion that you don't troll and bait is fascinating. I would expect that from you.

Carry on. :2wave:
If you don't like that your hypocrisy and double standards are pointed out then perhaps you should avoid making it public.
 
These people broadcasting on these frequencies have a monopoly because of the state, I thought that was pretty well known and obvious.

I don't understand how this applies to anything I've said. I was articulating how these frequencies should be allocated, so I don't see how their current status pertains to my proposition. You tend to confuse me.

In general they are not the people who first used that frequency, particularly when talking on any scale.

My family weren't the first people to use the land on which our home was built; does this mean our residence is illegitimate?
 
If you don't like that your hypocrisy and double standards are pointed out then perhaps you should avoid making it public.

I had no idea you were a self appointed hypocrisy cop!! So tell me, what parts of any of my posts were hypocritical?

Be honest Scourge, this has nothing to do with your self appointed attempts to point out hypocrisy, you just wanted to bait and troll.

Let me help you with the term because based on your “selective” outrage, it is obvious you have no comprehension of it:

Main Entry: hypocrite
Pronunciation: \ ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit \
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritēs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai
Date: 13th century
Results

1. a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

2. a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings


I look forward to you starting a thread that desperately attempts to prove I am a hypocrite, but making that claim here is merely an attempt at baiting and trolling.

It is very ironic and sad that you can’t even be honest when you get called on your trolling and have to derail a thread just because you don’t like someone.

:2wave:
 
I don't understand how this applies to anything I've said. I was articulating how these frequencies should be allocated, so I don't see how their current status pertains to my proposition. You tend to confuse me.
And you tend to be slow.;)

Okay but in your opinion how do you own a frequency?



My family weren't the first people to use the land on which our home was built; does this mean our residence is illegitimate?
Well private property means many things. In land there are many different rights. I would say you have the right to residency but being a Georgist I'd say you owe the community the ground rent and site rent which come from nature and society.
 
I had no idea you were a self appointed hypocrisy cop!! So tell me, what parts of any of my posts were hypocritical?

Be honest Scourge, this has nothing to do with your self appointed attempts to point out hypocrisy, you just wanted to bait and troll.

Let me help you with the term because based on your “selective” outrage, it is obvious you have no comprehension of it:

Main Entry: hypocrite
Pronunciation: \ ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit \
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritēs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai
Date: 13th century
Results

1. a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

2. a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings


I look forward to you starting a thread that desperately attempts to prove I am a hypocrite, but making that claim here is merely an attempt at baiting and trolling.

It is very ironic and sad that you can’t even be honest when you get called on your trolling and have to derail a thread just because you don’t like someone.

:2wave:

I don't need to prove anything, its self-evident. Nor do I need to continue derailing this thread. You may have the last word if you wish. I won't be responding to posts from you regarding this tangent any further. :2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom