I thought Conservatives just LOVED the Constitution?

[Damocles]

So freedom of the press and the dangers of malefactors of great wealth in our society have nothing to do with libertarianism? What does libertarianism have to do with Damo?

Again this is nonsense.

We'll continue the previous analogy.

Starting from the earlier analogy where the fellow poster told you they don't like chocolate and you used this nonsense logic to induce they did indeed like it because their oven produces heat....

You have now entered the arena of: "So. You are saying that chocolate doesn't exist because your oven never produced it?"

You do not know anything at all about libertarianism, you therefore make stuff up and spout utter nonsense rather than actually educating yourself.

We can spend years and dedicate a huge amount of study on libertarian philosophy. I'll try to simplify for you as best I can a complex system of beliefs here:

Libertarians believe that individual well-being and social harmony are best produced through two basic means:

1. As much liberty as possible without allowing others to intrude on the rights of an individual.
2. Only the absolute least amount of government intervention to guarantee those rights.

The libertarian inevitably looks to the government as the last resort rather than the first when facing a problem..

These are necessarily open-ended and can be delved into at leisure by many means. However, we'll use your example where the government intrudes onto every producer or owner of a private business to tell them what to produce, how it can "legally" be produced, who can speak and what opinions they must provide. All of this force applied without one direct victim. This is an unnecessary use of government force. In almost no way could it be induced that such a use of government force would fit within the libertarian philosophy.

Basically, you ask the first question and find that nobody is forced to listen to any of these programs and that those who want a differing opinion have a plethora of means at their disposal to gather those contrary opinions and you are left with, "Well, nobody."

I understand that you want to force Rush's listeners to hear your "side", but it isn't your place, nor the government's place, to ensure that they are forced to do that. In fact, that creates a direct victim and doesn't alleviate a problem, other than your personal issue that people can freely listen to what you don't want them to hear.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

You're clearly missing any form of ethics. Altering my post and attributing words I didn't say to me is pretty slimy...I see your philosophy clearly...

Whenever the human factors of economics come into question, you 'faux' libertarian right wing authoritarians 'cut & run'...

Ummm how does wanting the minimum amount of government possible possibly equal authoritarian?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Ummm how does wanting the minimum amount of government possible possibly equal authoritarian?

um.... because he SAID so? DUH..

 

[Bonestorm]

Again this is nonsense.

We'll continue the previous analogy.

Starting from the earlier analogy where the fellow poster told you they don't like chocolate and you used this nonsense logic to induce they did indeed like it because their oven produces heat....

You have now entered the arena of: "So. You are saying that chocolate doesn't exist because your oven never produced it?"

You do not know anything at all about libertarianism, you therefore make stuff up and spout utter nonsense rather than actually educating yourself.

We can spend years and dedicate a huge amount of study on libertarian philosophy. I'll try to simplify for you as best I can a complex system of beliefs here:

Libertarians believe that individual well-being and social harmony are best produced through two basic means:

1. As much liberty as possible without allowing others to intrude on the rights of an individual.
2. Only the absolute least amount of government intervention to guarantee those rights.

The libertarian inevitably looks to the government as the last resort rather than the first when facing a problem..

These are necessarily open-ended and can be delved into at leisure by many means. However, we'll use your example where the government intrudes onto every producer or owner of a private business to tell them what to produce, how it can "legally" be produced, who can speak and what opinions they must provide. All of this force applied without one direct victim. This is an unnecessary use of government force. In almost no way could it be induced that such a use of government force would fit within the libertarian philosophy.

Basically, you ask the first question and find that nobody is forced to listen to any of these programs and that those who want a differing opinion have a plethora of means at their disposal to gather those contrary opinions and you are left with, "Well, nobody."

I understand that you want to force Rush's listeners to hear your "side", but it isn't your place, nor the government's place, to ensure that they are forced to do that. In fact, that creates a direct victim and doesn't alleviate a problem, other than your personal issue that people can freely listen to what you don't want them to hear.

I think it's kinda funny that you are talking about what the government can and cannot do in relation to the public airwaves from a libertarian perspective. After all, isn't the libertarian perspective that there are no public airwaves and the government should auction them off to the highest bidder and let that bidder do whatever the fuck he, she or it wants with them? I imagine even the regulatory scheme designed to ensure that broadcasters don't drown each other out are too restrictive as well from a libertarian perspective.

In the end, libertarianism is really all about regulation by litigation, as litigating discrete disputes between parties is pretty much always the least amount of regulation possible for any problem that you can think of.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

I think it's kinda funny that you are talking about what the government can and cannot do in relation to the public airwaves from a libertarian perspective. After all, isn't the libertarian perspective that there are no public airwaves and the government should auction them off to the highest bidder and let that bidder do whatever the fuck he, she or it wants with them? I imagine even the regulatory scheme designed to ensure that broadcasters don't drown each other out are too restrictive as well from a libertarian perspective.

In the end, libertarianism is really all about regulation by litigation, as litigating discrete disputes between parties is pretty much always the least amount of regulation possible for any problem that you can think of.

Litigation doesn't always solve problems. So while it's nice for some things, it isn't the end all for us Libertarians.

 

[WinterBorn]

I think Bfgrn is finding out what makes this place so much fun.

While there is a lot of bullshit and petty name-calling, when an actual debate starts you better bring your A-game. Just repeating party propaganda won't get you far. Plenty of our people know their stuff.

Welcome to the grownup table.

 

[Bfgrn]

Again this is nonsense.

We'll continue the previous analogy.

Starting from the earlier analogy where the fellow poster told you they don't like chocolate and you used this nonsense logic to induce they did indeed like it because their oven produces heat....

You have now entered the arena of: "So. You are saying that chocolate doesn't exist because your oven never produced it?"

You do not know anything at all about libertarianism, you therefore make stuff up and spout utter nonsense rather than actually educating yourself.

We can spend years and dedicate a huge amount of study on libertarian philosophy. I'll try to simplify for you as best I can a complex system of beliefs here:

Libertarians believe that individual well-being and social harmony are best produced through two basic means:

1. As much liberty as possible without allowing others to intrude on the rights of an individual.
2. Only the absolute least amount of government intervention to guarantee those rights.

The libertarian inevitably looks to the government as the last resort rather than the first when facing a problem..

These are necessarily open-ended and can be delved into at leisure by many means. However, we'll use your example where the government intrudes onto every producer or owner of a private business to tell them what to produce, how it can "legally" be produced, who can speak and what opinions they must provide. All of this force applied without one direct victim. This is an unnecessary use of government force. In almost no way could it be induced that such a use of government force would fit within the libertarian philosophy.

Basically, you ask the first question and find that nobody is forced to listen to any of these programs and that those who want a differing opinion have a plethora of means at their disposal to gather those contrary opinions and you are left with, "Well, nobody."

I understand that you want to force Rush's listeners to hear your "side", but it isn't your place, nor the government's place, to ensure that they are forced to do that. In fact, that creates a direct victim and doesn't alleviate a problem, other than your personal issue that people can freely listen to what you don't want them to hear.

As a liberal, I totally agree with the philosophy you claim to represent:
1. As much liberty as possible without allowing others to intrude on the rights of an individual.
2. Only the absolute least amount of government intervention to guarantee those rights.

But there are so many big hole in your philosophy when put into practice. The Fairness Doctrine is based on the belief that public airwaves belong to the public; We the People. They are part of what is called the 'commons'. They are not the property of any individual or any corporation. The use of those airwaves is a privilege granted by We, the People. That privilege requires as trustees of a public resource, licensees accept certain public interest obligations in exchange for the exclusive use of limited public airwaves. One such obligation in the Fairness Doctrine was to ensure that a variety of views, beyond those of the licensees and those they favored, were heard on the airwaves.

The problem you face Damo is #2. Our founding fathers CREATED a government to ensure freedom and liberty for ALL citizens. Government intervention is not in direct opposition to how our founding fathers governed. It is exactly HOW they governed.

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.

 

[Bfgrn]

I think Bfgrn is finding out what makes this place so much fun.

While there is a lot of bullshit and petty name-calling, when an actual debate starts you better bring your A-game. Just repeating party propaganda won't get you far. Plenty of our people know their stuff.

Welcome to the grownup table.

When are you going to join the grownups? The peanut gallery is where cowards reside.

 

[WinterBorn]

When are you going to join the grownups? The peanut gallery is where cowards reside.

I'm here. I asked you a question several pages back and you didn't respond. (post#40)

 

[zappasguitar]

Clearly you're missing a brain lego.

What a shame that you've got the time to deride him by changing what he posted, but you don't seem to have enough time to be bothered to simply explain to someone you've outright called stupid.

How about next time you ACTUALLY TAKE THE TIME instead of just changing his post to make him sound uninformed?

Changing others posts in order to slather on a little extra embarrassment is what DY and DAMO like to do...

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

As a liberal, I totally agree with the philosophy you claim to represent:
1. As much liberty as possible without allowing others to intrude on the rights of an individual.
2. Only the absolute least amount of government intervention to guarantee those rights.

But there are so many big hole in your philosophy when put into practice. The Fairness Doctrine is based on the belief that public airwaves belong to the public; We the People. They are part of what is called the 'commons'. They are not the property of any individual or any corporation. The use of those airwaves is a privilege granted by We, the People. That privilege requires as trustees of a public resource, licensees accept certain public interest obligations in exchange for the exclusive use of limited public airwaves. One such obligation in the Fairness Doctrine was to ensure that a variety of views, beyond those of the licensees and those they favored, were heard on the airwaves.

The problem you face Damo is #2. Our founding fathers CREATED a government to ensure freedom and liberty for ALL citizens. Government intervention is not in direct opposition to how our founding fathers governed. It is exactly HOW they governed.

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.

There is a HUGE hole in your argument above. If the airwaves belong to 'we the people' then shouldn't we the people decide what is on them? Don't we dictate that by what we CHOOSE to listen to? Isn't that reflected by the ratings the stations get? By the advertisers willing to invest in them?

The Fairness doctrine FORCES views on the public. Thus it is no longer we the people deciding. It is the government dictating to us.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

What a shame that you've got the time to deride him by changing what he posted, but you don't seem to have enough time to be bothered to simply explain to someone you've outright called stupid.

How about next time you ACTUALLY TAKE THE TIME instead of just changing his post to make him sound uninformed?

Changing others posts in order to slather on a little extra embarrassment is what DY and DAMO like to do...

we have corrected his false views of what libertarians believe many times on this thread. He continues spouting complete nonsense that show he has no idea, yet he continues to proclaim that he knows what libertarians believe.

 

[Bfgrn]

Never in the history of mankind has more information been available to more people.

What do you think the Fairness Doctrine would accomplish?

The run up to the war in Iraq was a systemic failure of the 4th estate. The people who had the privilege to access to the president and our representatives failed to ask any critical questions. The narrative was controlled by the White House and based on blatant lies. The obligation of the 4th estate is to challenge those lies...they didn't.

The Fairness Doctrine could have prevented 5 corporations from sole ownership of our media, many of whom have vested interest in war.


Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

[zappasguitar]

There is a HUGE hole in your argument above. If the airwaves belong to 'we the people' then shouldn't we the people decide what is on them? Don't we dictate that by what we CHOOSE to listen to? Isn't that reflected by the ratings the stations get? By the advertisers willing to invest in them?

The Fairness doctrine FORCES views on the public. Thus it is no longer we the people deciding. It is the government dictating to us.

Really? The "Fairness Doctrine" forces views on the public?

Because last time I checked no one or nothing made you WATCH or LISTEN to anything on any channel...but I might be mistaken.

The Fairness Doctrine allowed for BOTH sides of an argument to be heard.

NOWHERE did it force anyone to listen to anything they didn't want to...the "off" button on your TV and radio always worked, even while the "Fairness Doctrine" was law.

 

[Bfgrn]

There is a HUGE hole in your argument above. If the airwaves belong to 'we the people' then shouldn't we the people decide what is on them? Don't we dictate that by what we CHOOSE to listen to? Isn't that reflected by the ratings the stations get? By the advertisers willing to invest in them?

The Fairness doctrine FORCES views on the public. Thus it is no longer we the people deciding. It is the government dictating to us.

We the people DON'T decide what is 'ON' them. The owner of the station does. As citizens, we the people have a right to hear all sides of issues that effect we, the people. Only then can we, the people make informed decisions.

What don't you understand about the Supreme Court ruling the Fairness Doctrine constitutional?

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.

 

[zappasguitar]

we have corrected his false views of what libertarians believe many times on this thread. He continues spouting complete nonsense that show he has no idea, yet he continues to proclaim that he knows what libertarians believe.

This is still America and he's allowed to have whatever views and opinions he likes.

Changing what he posts on order to belittle him only marginalizes whatever REAL points YDM was trying to make.

 

[WinterBorn]

The run up to the war in Iraq was a systemic failure of the 4th estate. The people who had the privilege to access to the president and our representatives failed to ask any critical questions. The narrative was controlled by the White House and based on blatant lies. The obligation of the 4th estate is to challenge those lies...they didn't.

The Fairness Doctrine could have prevented 5 corporations from sole ownership of our media, many of whom have vested interest in war.

Calling it the 4th Estate does not make it responsible for the failures of elected officials.

The Fairness Doctrine, in all likelihood, would not have changed anything because both sides of the political spectrum were in favor of the war at the beginning. Only the most extreme liberals were against it. Even those who opposed it, for the most part, only wanted UN support and did not completely oppose the war. Just because you have another voice in the shouting match does not mean there is any truth to be heard. (you can quote me there)



Now, as for the Fairness Doctrine itself, the news is big business. You may find that distasteful, but it is the truth. Now you want to force privately owned businesses to stop selling a product they are selling well, and sell a product you think needs to be sold. How many versions will we have to have? Conservative & Liberal? Republican & Democrat? Republican, Democrat, and Libertarian? What about the Green Party? What about all the fringe parties? Doesn't their version of it need to be told too? If you are going to use gov't force to regulate it so that all sides are aired, where do you stop?

And who pays for it? Rush Limbaugh makes millions upon millions of dollars doing his show. Air America lost money every day it was on the air. Our tax dollars should pay for AA's inability to compete? And if we pay for theirs, do we now pay Rush too?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Really? The "Fairness Doctrine" forces views on the public?

Because last time I checked no one or nothing made you WATCH or LISTEN to anything on any channel...but I might be mistaken.

The Fairness Doctrine allowed for BOTH sides of an argument to be heard.

NOWHERE did it force anyone to listen to anything they didn't want to...the "off" button on your TV and radio always worked, even while the "Fairness Doctrine" was law.

so no one in the studio has to listen?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

This is still America and I can whine all day.

ok

 

[Damocles]

I think it's kinda funny that you are talking about what the government can and cannot do in relation to the public airwaves from a libertarian perspective. After all, isn't the libertarian perspective that there are no public airwaves and the government should auction them off to the highest bidder and let that bidder do whatever the fuck he, she or it wants with them? I imagine even the regulatory scheme designed to ensure that broadcasters don't drown each other out are too restrictive as well from a libertarian perspective.

In the end, libertarianism is really all about regulation by litigation, as litigating discrete disputes between parties is pretty much always the least amount of regulation possible for any problem that you can think of.

This is also an oversimplification. But we can work with it. Allowing people to "plow all over" airwaves either purchased or leased by another would definitely fit within the first question of "Is there a victim?"

Yes, in that case there would be a victim. The next question would be, "Is there any way other than government force to ensure that this doesn't happen?"

If the answer is no, the most minimal regulation to allow people use of what they have purchased or leased would we be necessary, if the answer is yes you turn in that direction before you start seeking government force.