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

Truth Detector · Apr 30, 2009

Zyphlin said:
Neither of your links are working. Point me to post numbers perhaps? I'd be interseted to see exactly where in this thread you think you've said something that goes against you thinking that the government should be children's "nanny" and that they should act as "mom and dad", using government agencies to enforce rules and regulations limiting the freedom of citizens "For the children" and taking the choice and responsability away from Parents and vesting it instead to the great good and just government.

Once more you attempt to bait and inflame the debate with the specious use of words like "nanny," "mom and dad" which are actually nothing more than hyperbolic condescension and hardly intended for honest debate.

The notion that PORN should be broadcast across public airwaves can only be supported by the tiny minority of loons who typically infest web site debate forums and make their rabid claims of "perceived" freedoms of expression that few in the REAL world would support as being an idea unique to me requires the willful suspension of disbelief wouldn't you agree?

But to place things in better perspective, my argument is for the need to have regulation and that also entails rules of decency based on the public consumption.

Those "rules" have to draw the lines and some here think there should be no lines; I am fine with their OPINIONS, but that hardly makes it a reality or can be supported by the general public and it is hardly a uniquely “Conservative” point of view as those here so desperately try to assert.

It is also trite for certain members to argue about parental responsibility regarding children based on their personal narcissistic views, compounded by an equally naive and uninformed notion about how to raise children, dealing with child behavior and the responsibilities and difficulties that go with having children and raising them.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ment-crackdown-airwaves-2.html#post1058005703

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ment-crackdown-airwaves-2.html#post1058005703

Ikari · Apr 30, 2009

Children are not part of the debate. Your children are your responsibility, not mine. I should not be expected to abdicate any of my rights so you can have an easier time raising your kid. That argument has been sufficiently put down, continual regurgitation of the tripe is nothing more that intellectually dishonest argument made to deflect from the actual core. The fact of the matter is, you need the children thing because the "Oh won't someone PLEASE think of the children" is the base of your argument. I prefer to think of the rights and liberties of the individual and let people handle the rearing of their own kids themselves. You want to sit there and say how you can't watch your kids all the time, you can't control them all the time, thus you need the government to censor and regulate images and words broadcast on TV and radio media. You want the government to nanny over people, it's not baiting when it's true.

It doesn't matter how many people want nanny government, if the actions of that government infringe upon the rights of the individual which does include property and speech, then the action of the government can not be rightfully taken. That's the base. Not all of us think that we need to government to save us from nasty stuff. It's like saying that the FCC should be censoring video games. I mean, you can't control your children all the time right? You can't control them always, right? What if they get Grand Theft Auto...maybe some hot coffee mod action going. Shouldn't the government protect you from that too? It's the same base argument you place forward; it's why "decency" arguments aren't good to base government policy off of. The "decency" is too variable. Instead, one should base things in the rights and the liberties of the People and aim to restrict government intervention. Not proliferate it so that we can have nanny state government take care of us and all the nasty, unpleasant things we may be able to be exposed to at some time.

Zyphlin · Apr 30, 2009

So lots of words and it still comes down to "Think of the Children", "Government knows best", "Mom and Dad can't monitor or handle what the kids watch so the government needs to do it for them".

Seriously, what it comes down to is you're saying that the government should have an agency dedicated in part to telling private business what they can and can not do and telling private citizens what they can and can not consume based on the "Children" possibly being damaged by it, which should only really happen if a parent is so derelict in their duties as to allow their children to watch any show and any channel they wish.

If the FCC was limited only to the couple "broadcast" networks I'd even possibly be okay with enforcing some kind of base level of rules upon it. But to my understanding basic Cable Channels also have requirements placed upon them by the FCC in terms of what can and can not be said, shown, or depicted. If I am wrong in this understanding, and I fully admit I can be, then I'll be happy for you to correct me if there is no government agency that regulates and restricts what basic cable channels can and can not do.

And, even on broadcast TV, it would seem that the FREE MARKET...wonderful thign that....would actually dictate to them that it is likely in their best interest not to have porn going on at 3:00 in the afternoon or airing a George Carlin "7 words you can't say on TV" segment in the middle of TGIF.

Truth Detector · Apr 30, 2009

Ikari said:
It's not air, it's radiation. And you keep talking as if you are passive in all of this. Yes, there is broadcast information, but you just don't pick it up. You have to have machines for it, you're not a passive element in the equation; you have dynamics on your side which are necessary for the reception of the signal. You're not some poor guy just walking down the street and then BAM, a commercial for Light Speed Briefs appears in your head. This all has the hallmark of private business. Someone pays for the rights to a certain frequency and power, they have a studio and broadcast equipment, other people are not permitted to use that same frequency in the area purchased by that private owner. At no point is the public funding any of this, it's all private. As such, it should be considered private property. Same as bars and restaurants.

Your trite and simplistic assumptions about how waves arrive at their destination aside, what part of PUBLIC consumption do you continue to so willfully ignore.

No one gives a rats buttocks about your narcissistic notions about how you personally feel or that you should be entitled to whatever content your heart desires, you just cannot expect it to be transmitted over PUBLIC airwaves.

It goes along with your equally absurd and simplistic notions about making broadcast communications private or de-regulated.

But then based on your absurd and simplistic notions about child rearing, I am hardly surprised that you can have such "simple" ideas.

Suffice it to say, that even if I were to beat into your head the fact that transmission of signals over the air REQUIRES regulation in order to prevent anarchy of the airwaves, in other words pirating signals that will interfere with other signals resulting in a useless pile of garbled transmissions and transmission pole blight across the country, I still doubt you would get it.

Yes, you could possibly put a SINGLE private company in charge of all signalization, but now we are back to where we started; thus the circle of futility every argument with you seems to head because you are so arrogant, so patently uninformed, so condescending and so incredibly stubborn that even if I stated that my eyes are blue, you would desperately argue that in actuality they are grey.

You are hardly interested in a debate using the facts and dealing with societal realities, you are interested in absurdity for the pure sake of being absurd and your equally nonsensical personal narcissism that suggest that regardless of your behavior's effect on others, you are entitled to act any way you desire and society has no right to place limits on it. But alas, we live in a real world where the law tends to disagree with your naive and simplistic notions about freedom of expression.

Do a little test of this some time so we can laugh at you; stand outside your neighbors house on public property and start screaming what an asshole they are repeatedly for several nights in a row at say, about midnight; let's see how far your freedom of expression gets you. :rofl

And lest we forget, my comments were never directed to you; you interjected your rabid nonsense which surpassed even that made by Nerxst basically claiming that it was a "Conservative" conspiracy.

Dismissed. :roll:

scourge99 · Apr 30, 2009

Truth Detector said:
Do you have any facts to support your assertion? If that is their argument, I haven't seen evidence of it.

see link below

I have seen a lot of hyperbole, OPINION and empty headed assertions, but I have yet to see anything that supports what you claim.

This is blathering. Blather count = 1.

Why don't you add to the debate and provide a link that states clearly that the FCC was NOT created to censor content?

http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/ar2008.pdf

Page 4: Mission
Page 9: Strategic Goals and Objectives

I suppose the FCC doesn't clearly state that the FCC was not created to generate a 500' mecha-Godzilla to take over the world either. Hmmmmm. :mrgreen:

No it would NOTHING like purchasing land for a home; we are talking about the AIR and content broadcast to the public.

So you don't understand what an analogy is? That is what you are saying? Shall I spell out how the analogy works?

I think you understand exactly what I said. You are just being purposely obtuse in hopes that I'll waste my time explaining the obvious.

Zyphlin · Apr 30, 2009

Oh, as a note, I don't have many issues with the FCC in theory. I do see how the airwaves are "public" domain and protecting from people pirating it and such is needed. My issue is more with the over censoring and regulation of content than anything else.

Ikari · Apr 30, 2009

Truth Detector said:
Your trite and simplistic assumptions about how waves arrive at their destination aside, what part of PUBLIC consumption do you continue to so willfully ignore.

No one gives a rats buttocks about your narcissistic notions about how you personally feel or that you should be entitled to whatever content your heart desires, you just cannot expect it to be transmitted over PUBLIC airwaves.

It goes along with your equally absurd and simplistic notions about making broadcast communications private or de-regulated.

But then based on your absurd and simplistic notions about child rearing, I am hardly surprised that you can have such "simple" ideas.

Suffice it to say, that even if I were to beat into your head the fact that transmission of signals over the air REQUIRES regulation in order to prevent anarchy of the airwaves, in other words pirating signals that will interfere with other signals resulting in a useless pile of garbled transmissions and transmission pole blight across the country, I still doubt you would get it.

Yes, you could possibly put a SINGLE private company in charge of all signalization, but now we are back to where we started; thus the circle of futility every argument with you seems to head because you are so arrogant, so patently uninformed, so condescending and so incredibly stubborn that even if I stated that my eyes are blue, you would desperately argue that in actuality they are grey.

You are hardly interested in a debate using the facts and dealing with societal realities, you are interested in absurdity for the pure sake of being absurd and your equally nonsensical personal narcissism that suggest that regardless of your behavior's effect on others, you are entitled to act any way you desire and society has no right to place limits on it. But alas, we live in a real world where the law tends to disagree with your naive and simplistic notions about freedom of expression.

Do a little test of this some time so we can laugh at you; stand outside your neighbors house on public property and start screaming what an asshole they are repeatedly for several nights in a row at say, about midnight; let's see how far your freedom of expression gets you. :rofl

And lest we forget, my comments were never directed to you; you interjected your rabid nonsense which surpassed even that made by Nerxst basically claiming that it was a "Conservative" conspiracy.

Dismissed. :roll:

So all you have for defense of your nanny state government is insult. Noted.

It doesn't take a lot of intellect to insult, and that seems to me to be all your posts are ever composed of.

Ikari · Apr 30, 2009

Zyphlin said:
I do see how the airwaves are "public" domain and protecting from people pirating it and such is needed.

I'm not sure I could make the public argument out of necessity to protect against pirating though. In fact, to me it seems that the anti-pirating thing is a good argument for private instead. If it's public, then the public can use it. It's like the parks. The people as a whole pay taxes, those taxes go towards some thing like parks. Everyone is free to use the park. That's clearly public. It's a tad more difficult when what you are talking about is electromagnetic radiation. I mean, who owns that? Is it the owner of the broadcast equipment which sourced that radiation? I would say yes, it seems reasonable especially given that they are the ones which pay the government in order to be able to use a certain frequency and power in an area. I haven't heard convincing argument as to why it should be considered public. And if it's public, why aren't taxpayer dollars going towards it?

Truth Detector · Apr 30, 2009

Zyphlin said:
So lots of words and it still comes down to "Think of the Children", "Government knows best", "Mom and Dad can't monitor or handle what the kids watch so the government needs to do it for them".

Well then you fail in reading comprehension and have chosen to view my arguments out of context from the inane assertions of the typical DP cabal of libertarian and liberal thought police.

Zyphlin said:
Seriously, what it comes down to is you're saying that the government should have an agency dedicated in part to telling private business what they can and can not do and telling private citizens what they can and can not consume based on the "Children" possibly being damaged by it, which should only really happen if a parent is so derelict in their duties as to allow their children to watch any show and any channel they wish.

Why do you insist this is JUST about children as Ikari so desperately keeps referring to? Do you naively believe that adults do not want to be subjected to uncensored content?

If you do you are living in a pretend world like Ikari.

Zyphlin said:
If the FCC was limited only to the couple "broadcast" networks I'd even possibly be okay with enforcing some kind of base level of rules upon it. But to my understanding basic Cable Channels also have requirements placed upon them by the FCC in terms of what can and can not be said, shown, or depicted. If I am wrong in this understanding, and I fully admit I can be, then I'll be happy for you to correct me if there is no government agency that regulates and restricts what basic cable channels can and can not do.

Well how could you be MORE wrong? One can indeed obtain pornographic material and uncensored movie productions on cable and from satellite; things that are not permitted through PUBLIC Broadcasts.

Zyphlin said:
And, even on broadcast TV, it would seem that the FREE MARKET...wonderful thign that....would actually dictate to them that it is likely in their best interest not to have porn going on at 3:00 in the afternoon or airing a George Carlin "7 words you can't say on TV" segment in the middle of TGIF.

I am hardly against "free market" principles, but that is not what this is all about. I also don't leave my brains behind when it comes to the "public" and the understanding that we all share this world and are entitled to a principle of "quiet enjoyment;" therefore the notion that I should be able to play my guitar at full blast regardless of my neighbors desire for peace and quiet should hardly be viewed as an "infringement" of my free speech. It is called respect.

This same respect is shown in FCC regulations, created by Bureaucrats who are empowered to do so by our elected representatives, which encompass the views of the entire population and the knowledge that many people find exposure, pornographic material and cussing objectionable.

It's not that hard a concept to comprehend is it? But my main issue is the notion that the airwaves can be privatized which I feel is an absurd argument based on the REALITIES of how the airwaves work.

Such notions are not well thought out.

Ikari · Apr 30, 2009

Truth Detector said:
Well then you fail in reading comprehension and have chosen to view my arguments out of context from the inane assertions of the typical DP cabal of libertarian and liberal thought police.

Is this anything like when you were asserting that some of us were clamoring for anarchy with the airwaves? Cause it seems maybe a bit hypocritical that you would bitch about "reading comprehension" and taking arguments out of context when it appears that you primarily use that as your main technique in "debate".

maybe those in glass houses shouldn't cast stones.

Truth Detector said:
Why do you insist this is JUST about children as Ikari so desperately keeps referring to? Do you naively believe that adults do not want to be subjected to uncensored content?

How would I be subjected to uncensored content? I control my TV, if there's something on it that I don't like I change the channel. Adults can act like that...you know make informed and responsible choices. You're arguments came down to "won't someone please think of the children". Don't go blaming others for your terrible debate skills.

Truth Detector said:
If you do you are living in a pretend world like Ikari.

If I lived in a pretend world, people like you wouldn't be allowed it. So obviously, I'm living in the real world.

Truth Detector said:
Well how could you be MORE wrong? One can indeed obtain pornographic material and uncensored movie productions on cable and from satellite; things that are not permitted through PUBLIC Broadcasts.

Basic cable is censored. Comedy Central and that stuff...they can get away with it sometimes, but many channels are actually censored. John Stewart couldn't show porn on the Daily Show without getting in trouble from the FFC. And actually probably Comedy Central...they themselves probably wouldn't be to pleased. Which is why I also think that if the FCC were relegated to only its proper role in property, things wouldn't be horribly different than they are now.

Truth Detector said:
I am hardly against "free market" principles, but that is not what this is all about. I also don't leave my brains behind when it comes to the "public" and the understanding that we all share this world and are entitled to a principle of "quiet enjoyment;" therefore the notion that I should be able to play my guitar at full blast regardless of my neighbors desire for peace and quiet should hardly be viewed as an "infringement" of my free speech. It is called respect.

I would hardly claim you are any source of respect. Do you see any of your posts? Do they sound respectful? No, they don't. You don't appear to be arguing from "respect" or that other people are around. You're arguing based on what you want on TV, what you think is appropriate to be shown, and for reason which are all together your own. Don't try to play the philanthropist here, you're very easy to see through.

Truth Detector said:
This same respect is shown in FCC regulations, created by Bureaucrats who are empowered to do so by our elected representatives, which encompass the views of the entire population and the knowledge that many people find exposure, pornographic material and cussing objectionable.

The only thing shown by the FCC control is government power over business and what they think should be seen and heard.

Truth Detector said:
It's not that hard a concept to comprehend is it? But my main issue is the notion that the airwaves can be privatized which I feel is an absurd argument based on the REALITIES of how the airwaves work.

Such notions are not well thought out.

The REALITIES of how the airwaves work is that someone, a private company or person, BUYS from the government the RIGHTS to broadcast on a frequency at power in an area. They OWN the broadcast equipment, they OWN the ability to use that frequency and power. No public money has been used or spent, the use of the bandwidth is not open to the public at large, and the viewers are not passive elements in a circuit. That's reality.

Truth Detector · Apr 30, 2009

Zyphlin said:
Oh, as a note, I don't have many issues with the FCC in theory. I do see how the airwaves are "public" domain and protecting from people pirating it and such is needed. My issue is more with the over censoring and regulation of content than anything else.

Okay, let's deal with the "idea" of censor as it is being abused in this thread so here are some questions to ask yourself;

Do you think people should be allowed to get drunk and wander around in public?

Do you think that people should be allowed to undress and wander about naked in public streets?

Do you think people should just have sex when the notion compels them in a public street?

Do you think someone should just be able to take a **** on the sidewalk; after all, when you have to go, you have to go right?

Do you think a person should be allowed to yell obscenities at you while you are standing in line at a movie theatre?

Do you think it is okay to hurl obscenities at the person taking your money in the movie ticket booth?

These are all behaviors we could say are "censored" for the most part public decency laws. But alas, you say, why have such laws! After all, we are all adults here aren't we and we know how to NOT behave. Unfortunately, the real world just doesn't fit that idealistic point of view.

The PUBLIC airwaves are not that much different. If you want to take a ****, you can do that all day long in the privacy of your own home, just don't do it on the sidewalk where I am in line at the movies. The same thing can be said for Cable and Satellite; you want Howard Stearn to freely express himself, subscribe to his satellite broadcast.

Dr_Patrick · Apr 30, 2009

Truth Detector said:
Why do you insist this is JUST about children as Ikari so desperately keeps referring to? Do you naively believe that adults do not want to be subjected to uncensored content?

But adults have the ability to change the channel if they don't want to view something that they find distasteful. Why should we have to censor things just because some people may get offended? It's silly. Plus, people get offended over many different things. If we were to cater to what everyone considered offensive there would be very few things left.

I am hardly against "free market" principles, but that is not what this is all about. I also don't leave my brains behind when it comes to the "public" and the understanding that we all share this world and are entitled to a principle of "quiet enjoyment;" therefore the notion that I should be able to play my guitar at full blast regardless of my neighbors desire for peace and quiet should hardly be viewed as an "infringement" of my free speech. It is called respect.

That's hardly a valid comparison. People aren't "subjected" to offensive things on television. They are the ones choosing to tune into that channel. Whereas playing guitar at full blast is subjecting people to something that they have no control of, which is why it is disrespectful.

Dr_Patrick · Apr 30, 2009

Truth Detector said:
Okay, let's deal with the "idea" of censor as it is being abused in this thread so here are some questions to ask yourself;

Do you think people should be allowed to get drunk and wander around in public?

Do you think that people should be allowed to undress and wander about naked in public streets?

Do you think people should just have sex when the notion compels them in a public street?

Do you think someone should just be able to take a **** on the sidewalk; after all, when you have to go, you have to go right?

Do you think a person should be allowed to yell obscenities at you while you are standing in line at a movie theatre?

Do you think it is okay to hurl obscenities at the person taking your money in the movie ticket booth?

These are all behaviors we could say are "censored" for the most part public decency laws. But alas, you say, why have such laws! After all, we are all adults here aren't we and we know how to NOT behave. Unfortunately, the real world just doesn't fit that idealistic point of view.

The PUBLIC airwaves are not that much different. If you want to take a ****, you can do that all day long in the privacy of your own home, just don't do it on the sidewalk where I am in line at the movies. The same thing can be said for Cable and Satellite; you want Howard Stearn to freely express himself, subscribe to his satellite broadcast.

Except that people have no control over the items that you listed. A person can't just "change the channel" or choose not to tune into it in any of those situations. The examples you listed are examples of people actually subjecting others to things that they may find distasteful.

Truth Detector · Apr 30, 2009

Ikari said:
Is this anything like when you were asserting that some of us were clamoring for anarchy with the airwaves? Cause it seems maybe a bit hypocritical that you would bitch about "reading comprehension" and taking arguments out of context when it appears that you primarily use that as your main technique in "debate".

maybe those in glass houses shouldn't cast stones.

You continue fabricating arguments where none were made; I stated very clearly that NOT having any control over radio frequencies would lead to anarchy in transmission resulting in conflicting and garbled junk.

Imagine if you will, what the landscape would look like if anyone who wanted to could just set up a HUGE transmission tower wherever they pleased to transmit on whatever frequency they desired knowing that by having a MORE powerful megawatt transmission, they can out broadcast everyone else. Then in response another entrepreneur decides to put an even HIGHER and LARGER tower up with even MORE megawattage...oh yeah ugh ugh ugh.

That is what I meant by anarchy. Did you know that these towers also affect air traffic and are also subject to FAA regulations?

Carry on. :2wave:

Truth Detector · Apr 30, 2009

dclxvinoise said:
Except that people have no control over the items that you listed. A person can't just "change the channel" or choose not to tune into it in any of those situations. The examples you listed are examples of people actually subjecting others to things that they may find distasteful.

Of course they can "change the channel" just as you suggest they can do on the TV, they can go somewhere else.

:cool

Ikari · Apr 30, 2009

Truth Detector said:
You continue fabricating arguments where none were made; I stated very clearly that NOT having any control over radio frequencies would lead to anarchy in transmission resulting in conflicting and garbled junk.

Imagine if you will, what the landscape would look like if anyone who wanted to could just set up a HUGE transmission tower wherever they pleased to transmit on whatever frequency they desired knowing that by having a MORE powerful megawatt transmission, they can out broadcast everyone else. Then in response another entrepreneur decides to put an even HIGHER and LARGER tower up with even MORE megawattage...oh yeah ugh ugh ugh.

That is what I meant by anarchy. Did you know that these towers also affect air traffic and are also subject to FAA regulations?

Carry on. :2wave:

And that was clearly no one's arguments. You keep trying to make believe that people made these arguments; but no one has. I for sure haven't. In fact, if you read people's posts many agree that this should be the ONLY job of the FCC; to police property rights. No one said to take that part of the FCC away. That's you making **** up to try to get your point across. If all you have is hyperbole, distortion, and lie to back up your arguments; well so be it. But don't get your panties in a twist when people refuse to accept them as credible argument.

Carry on. :2wave:

Dr_Patrick · Apr 30, 2009

Truth Detector said:
Of course they can "change the channel" just as you suggest they can do on the TV, they can go somewhere else.

:cool

Yes, but they turned on the television and changed to that channel that they found offensive in the first place. They aren't being "subjected" to it like they would be in your example.

Ikari · Apr 30, 2009

Truth Detector said:
Of course they can "change the channel" just as you suggest they can do on the TV, they can go somewhere else.

:cool

There are a few distinctions. While people can go elsewhere, they can not do so instantaneously. Thus it's not exactly as changing the station (well it's not instantaneous either, but it's on a much faster time scale). Public streets are also clearly public streets, and thus certain rules can be made. The public pays for the streets and the public is given "free" (nothing above taxes) access to them for use. That's not true with the electromagnetic spectrum.

scourge99 · Apr 30, 2009

Ikari said:
There are a few distinctions. While people can go elsewhere, they can not do so instantaneously. Thus it's not exactly as changing the station (well it's not instantaneous either, but it's on a much faster time scale). Public streets are also clearly public streets, and thus certain rules can be made. The public pays for the streets and the public is given "free" (nothing above taxes) access to them for use. That's not true with the electromagnetic spectrum.

Safeguards can also be put into place. For example, many websites warn you that provocative content is contained on their page before allowing you to enter. The same information can be used for digital television or a public list can be provided.

All public TV shows are required to have ratings displayed anyways.

Truth Detector · Apr 30, 2009

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

Kandahar · Apr 30, 2009

Truth Detector said:
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

You think that you're being funny, but I bet there are a lot more letters sent to Congress from independent citizens saying exactly that, than there are indecency complaints sent to the FCC from independent citizens (i.e. not the Parents Television Council).

Wessexman · Apr 30, 2009

Ethereal said:
There is some form of ownership inherent to a licensure, but I understand your point. However, it brings up an interesting question: Why should certain frequencies be considered public property? They are not essential to life and they are physiologically inutile. It seems the reasonable thing to do would be to treat them the same as we do land. They are finite resources which cannot be utilized simultaneously by different individuals with divergent interests. A sound argument establishing the "public" nature of broadcast signals does not appear to exist; perhaps you could convince me otherwise.

The problem is though why should they be considered private property then? In the sense of owned by one individuaul/group. Why should I respect the someone else's ownership of these frequencies? How did they come to own them? Obviously by paying the state.

obvious Child · Apr 30, 2009

Truth Detector said:
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

Savings Private Ryan is "Smut?"

:rofl

Ethereal · Apr 30, 2009

Wessexman said:
The problem is though why should they be considered private property then? In the sense of owned by one individuaul/group. Why should I respect the someone else's ownership of these frequencies? How did they come to own them? Obviously by paying the state.

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.

Wessexman · Apr 30, 2009

Ethereal said:
I see no reason to view frequencies as being any different than land. Both are constrained and defined by the same basic principles: neither can be utilized simultaneously by different people with divergent interests, and both are finite resources.

If I purchase a specific frequency - just as I would purchase a specific piece of land - I should be able to transmit whatever I like, just as I should be able to build whatever I like on my land. Obviously, the manner in which one utilizes their frequency or land would necessarily be constrained by the rights of others but anything beyond that is an infringement. The FCC should protect property rights and nothing more. Censorship is the responsibility of parents.

But people have different views on land. I myself am a Georgist.

What is really being said is the state should interfere greatly to set up these few owners and maintain them but then shouldn't interfere at all.

Now I don't believe much in censorship but I can't say I'm that fond of the above view.

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

Truth Detector

Ikari

Zyphlin

Truth Detector

scourge99

Zyphlin

Ikari

Ikari

Truth Detector

Ikari

Truth Detector

Dr_Patrick

Androgyne

Dr_Patrick

Androgyne

Truth Detector

Truth Detector

Ikari

Dr_Patrick

Androgyne

Ikari

scourge99

Truth Detector

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

Wessexman

Dorset Patriot

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater

Ethereal

Wessexman

Dorset Patriot