Speaking of Anti-1st amendment dren

[Amianthus]

Sure. Atlas Shrugged and Thus Spoke Zarathustra are the only two I can think of off the top of my head at the moment, but I'm sure there are others.

By that standard, then I guess Farmer's Riverworld and Vonnegut's The Sirens of Titan also qualify.

And also point out that XO is wrong.

[Michael Tee]

Prince wanted to know why the government should promote diversity in the marketplace of opinions.  I say it's because opinons broadcast by means of government-issued monopolies need to justify the discretionary use of the monopoly.  Since it's governmental discretion that requires justification, the justification should relate to public benefit.  The highest justification I can think of is that freedom of speech and the exchange of ideas that comes with it are best secured by diversity in the marketplace of opinions and they are ill-served by uniformity of publicly expressed ideas, whether that uniformity is imposed by law or by commerce.

Prince had a very trenchant question regarding the efficacy of anti-trust legislation in securing competitive markets.  All I can say on that, not being an economist, is that it works in theory, and if it doesn't work in practice, the idea is not invalidated, but the practice just needs some tweaking.

[Universe Prince]

By that standard, then I guess Farmer's Riverworld and Vonnegut's The Sirens of Titan also qualify.

Yeah, probably so. And now that I think about it, The Lord of the Rings is supposedly full of Tolkien's philosophical ideas about good and evil and the nature of human beings.

And also point out that XO is wrong.

Well, yes. Of course.

[Universe Prince]

Prince wanted to know why the government should promote diversity in the marketplace of opinions.  I say it's because opinons broadcast by means of government-issued monopolies need to justify the discretionary use of the monopoly.

The next obvious question, imo, is then, why do we need the government to decide this for us? Is that really the best solution? I don't think so, but I wonder why you do.

Since it's governmental discretion that requires justification, the justification should relate to public benefit.  The highest justification I can think of is that freedom of speech and the exchange of ideas that comes with it are best secured by diversity in the marketplace of opinions and they are ill-served by uniformity of publicly expressed ideas, whether that uniformity is imposed by law or by commerce.

My main problem with that is that telling people they must broadcast this side's opinions of they broadcast that side's opinion is not freedom of either speech or exchange of ideas. It's essentially a fetter that denies freedom of expression to those who, for whatever reason, do not have the capability to always give both sides airtime. And it essentially is a government mandate that all sides must be treated as equal, regardless of the situation or the opinions of the people involved. Which leads me to my other problem with it. Some opinions do not deserve equal time. To discuss the Holocaust, do we really need to give equal time to Holocaust deniers? To discuss race issues, do we really need to give equal time to the so-called Church of Jesus Christ?Christian? If the topic is gay rights issues, do we need to invite someone from Westboro Baptist Church to talk? I think we do not. And I don't see how we can claim we're somehow defending the exchange of ideas by saying these opinions need to always be given equal time, but not those. Frankly, I just do not believe that the "Fairness Doctrine" serves the ends for which it was supposedly created. So I cannot support it.

[Michael Tee]

<<The next obvious question, imo, is then, why do we need the government to decide this for us? Is that really the best solution? I don't think so, but I wonder why you do.>>

I'm not clear whether you are asking why we need the government to assign broadcast frequencies for us or why we need the government to promote diversity of broadcast opinions.  We need government to assign broadcast frequencies to avoid anarchy and ten guys broadcasting at once on the same frequency.  If the government didn't have to assign frequencies, in effect granting little monopolies, then they would be under no obligation to promote diversity in broadcasting opinions.  But if they ARE assigning broadcast frequencies, then they need to recognize that the power they have cannot be exercised arbitrarily, and if exercised should be exercised in a manner that promotes the common good because it's the government.

<<My main problem with that is that telling people they must broadcast this side's opinions of they broadcast that side's opinion is not freedom of either speech or exchange of ideas. >>

You're tilting at windmills.  No one suggested the government tell anyone to balance A against Z.  The study concluded that diversity of broadcast opinion would be the natural result IF diversity of ownership (one man one station) was adopted.   Each owner could still broadcast whatever the hell he liked.  Subject to whatever limits affect broadcast radio already in the sex, drugs and terrorism departments.

[Universe Prince]

We need government to assign broadcast frequencies to avoid anarchy and ten guys broadcasting at once on the same frequency.

Why? We don't have anarchy of ten guys all claiming every plot of land. We don't have anarchy of ten guys (or groups of guys) all claiming they own the McDonald's logo. Is government selling frequency privileges really the only way to solve this problem? I don't think so.

If the government didn't have to assign frequencies, in effect granting little monopolies, then they would be under no obligation to promote diversity in broadcasting opinions.

Looks like a damn good reason to make them stop.

But if they ARE assigning broadcast frequencies, then they need to recognize that the power they have cannot be exercised arbitrarily, and if exercised should be exercised in a manner that promotes the common good because it's the government.

The common good according to whom? Dr. Dobson? Howard Stern? Michael Savage?

You're tilting at windmills.  No one suggested the government tell anyone to balance A against Z.

No one? Didn't this thread start with a discussion about the "Fairness Doctrine"?

The study concluded that diversity of broadcast opinion would be the natural result IF diversity of ownership (one man one station) was adopted.   Each owner could still broadcast whatever the hell he liked.  Subject to whatever limits affect broadcast radio already in the sex, drugs and terrorism departments.

Okay, that is what you were talking about, and my criticism of the "Fairness Doctrine" did not address that. Fair enough.

That said, many radio stations do broadcast what they want. Not every broadcast decision for every station is handed down from the owners. If broadcast radio ownership worked like the federal government, maybe the study would have a point, but it doesn't and they don't. One of the local talk radio stations is owned by, I think, Clear Channel. They, the station, choose to broadcast local talk shows in the morning, afternoon, evenings and weekends. I'm pretty sure Clear Channel isn't telling the local station to air that boring local home repair show. And speaking of Clear Channel, they were one of the first broadcast companies to open up radio stations to Air America. Why? Because Clear Channel hoped Air America would make them some money.

In any case, the solution to the problem is not that we need more regulation of the radio industry. If anything, we need less. What keeps competition out of the market place more than anything else are the regulations and fees that government has in place. They make entering the radio market needlessly more expensive than it has to be and make operating in the radio market risky (someone remind me again what the FCC charges per station for obscene language offenses). If you want to see more competition in the radio market, support less regulation, not more.

[Michael Tee]

<<We don't have anarchy of ten guys all claiming every plot of land.>>

For the very simple reason that the evil, unnecessary, wasteful government maintains a registry of deeds for every county, with a full staff of Registrar, Deputy Registrar, file clerks and counter-workers to record each and every deed of land, mortgage, lien, etc. and an entire system of courts, judges, bailiffs, clerks, police and janitors to regulate land disputes.  Same thing for the McDonald's logo - - never heard of copyright law, copyright lawyers, copyright lawsuits?  The Big Bad Government has to regulate that too, or people would steal ideas like they would steal land.

When I say that the government licensing power has to be used in a way that promotes the common good, I did not of course mean the common good according to Dr. Dobson or anyone else.  Those are each partisan objectives and the government has to be non-partisan.  While we can't all agree on whether Dr. Dobson or Howard Stern has the better idea of the common good, most of us DO agree that diversity of opinion in government-licensed broadcasting is a lot healthier for society than uniformity of opinion.

<< . . . many radio stations do broadcast what they want. Not every broadcast decision for every station is handed down from the owners. If broadcast radio ownership worked like the federal government, maybe the study would have a point, but it doesn't and they don't. One of the local talk radio stations is owned by, I think, Clear Channel. They, the station, choose to broadcast local talk shows in the morning, afternoon, evenings and weekends. I'm pretty sure Clear Channel isn't telling the local station to air that boring local home repair show. And speaking of Clear Channel, they were one of the first broadcast companies to open up radio stations to Air America. Why? Because Clear Channel hoped Air America would make them some money.>>

Not impressed.  You're using anecdotal evidence at best to contradict the results of a detailed and factual study, not a very good idea.  The study did not deny that exceptions to its general conclusions could exist, therefore anecdotal evidence in no way contradicts the study.

<<In any case, the solution to the problem is not that we need more regulation of the radio industry. If anything, we need less. What keeps competition out of the market place more than anything else are the regulations and fees that government has in place. >>

That's absurd.  As a direct result of deregulation, the concentration of ownership has changed to the detriment of competition.  What you argue makes no sense - - the study proves that unregulated acquisitions diminish competition by concentrating ownership.  You have a direct and specific example right in front of you of deregulation diminishing competition,  so you ignore that example to speak instead about how unspecified regulations and unspecified fees "keep competition out of the marketplace."  Classic example of how ideology blinds one to the facts.

[Universe Prince]

For the very simple reason that the evil, unnecessary, wasteful government maintains a registry of deeds for every county, with a full staff of Registrar, Deputy Registrar, file clerks and counter-workers to record each and every deed of land, mortgage, lien, etc. and an entire system of courts, judges, bailiffs, clerks, police and janitors to regulate land disputes.  Same thing for the McDonald's logo - - never heard of copyright law, copyright lawyers, copyright lawsuits?  The Big Bad Government has to regulate that too, or people would steal ideas like they would steal land.

You're so funny. I did not say there could not be a role for government. I merely suggested there could be another way to deal with the situation. You speak of deeds and copyright law, but you're missing the obvious point here that in most cases people buy their land and property from one another, not a license from the government. And the McDonald's logo is covered by trademark law, not copyright. And again, McDonald's did not buy the logo or a license for it from the government. They paid the government to protect the trademark. So again I put forth the question: Is government selling frequency privileges really the only way to solve this problem? I think it is not so.

When I say that the government licensing power has to be used in a way that promotes the common good, I did not of course mean the common good according to Dr. Dobson or anyone else. Those are each partisan objectives and the government has to be non-partisan.  While we can't all agree on whether Dr. Dobson or Howard Stern has the better idea of the common good, most of us DO agree that diversity of opinion in government-licensed broadcasting is a lot healthier for society than uniformity of opinion.

I am sure you did not mean the common good according to Dr. Dobson, but I suspect you meant the common good according to you if no one else. My point being that the common good is not an objective concept. So when you say the government must exercise its power for the common good, the question is, according to whose opinion of what constitutes the common good? It's all well and good to assume that diversity of opinion is something most people agree upon, but even that is vague. What constitutes a diversity of opinion? And what constitutes a threat to society? You're the one who insists that Cuba is fully justified in abridging the right of free speech for Cuban citizens to protect "the Revolution." So obviously you're willing to see some diverse opinions silenced given certain situations. So am I supposed to trust you to determine the the common good? Or to determine when certain diverse opinions should not be given opportunity to be heard? I find myself reluctant to do so.

Not impressed.  You're using anecdotal evidence at best to contradict the results of a detailed and factual study, not a very good idea.  The study did not deny that exceptions to its general conclusions could exist, therefore anecdotal evidence in no way contradicts the study.

So we gloss over evidence to the contrary by acknowledging it exists and then dismissing it as irrelevant. Wow. Now it's my turn to be not impressed.

As a direct result of deregulation, the concentration of ownership has changed to the detriment of competition.  What you argue makes no sense - - the study proves that unregulated acquisitions diminish competition by concentrating ownership.  You have a direct and specific example right in front of you of deregulation diminishing competition,  so you ignore that example to speak instead about how unspecified regulations and unspecified fees "keep competition out of the marketplace."  Classic example of how ideology blinds one to the facts.

Go on. Pull the other one. The consolidation of radio ownership began as a result of FCC regulations to save radio from (supposedly) too many radio stations competing for ad dollars. Have you seen the FCC website? Here, take a look. You talk as if there are no regulations, and that simply is not the case. The FCC has cracked down on unlicensed radio stations, most them small, less than 100 watts. And pretty much all of those stations are unlicensed because the FCC won't issue licenses for stations at 100 watts or less. (Though this situation may change in the future.) Even some folks who want to establish larger stations cannot do so because the costs of navigating the bureaucracy to get a license is far too expensive for most people.  Have you ever looked into the total costs associated with starting up a broadcast radio station? To start station can cost upwards of $50,000 and to operate for just a year can cost in the neighborhood of $150,000, and that is for a relatively small station. And that doesn't even account for all the legal fees involved. And don't even try to start your own satellite radio company. You can't do it no matter how much money you have. The National Association of Broadcasters convinced the government to license only two companies, XM and Sirius. You want more competition there, you can't get it.

And you're talking to me about how this is all some example of deregulation diminishing competition? You must be joking. So long as groups like the NAB and the government are working together to regulate the industry, competition will be stifled. Ideology blinding one to the facts indeed.

[sirs]

You're using anecdotal evidence at best to contradict the results of a detailed and factual study, not a very good idea.  The study did not deny that exceptions to its general conclusions could exist, therefore anecdotal evidence in no way contradicts the study.

So we gloss over evidence to the contrary by acknowledging it exists and then dismissing it as irrelevant. Wow. Now it's my turn to be not impressed.

SOP for the likes of Tee, I'm afraid Prince     

[_JS]

There are philosophy novels?

Sure. Atlas Shrugged and Thus Spoke Zarathustra are the only two I can think of off the top of my head at the moment, but I'm sure there are others.

It is probably debatable as to whether either of those are philosophy or not. I believe both are more commonly classified as "political fiction." Though Rand's book is sometimes considered a dystopic novel along with more famous writers like Huxley and Orwell.

Most philosophers don't write novels, or at least don't write their philosophy in novel format. Think of it like a biologist writing a report about a new species of insect as a short story instead of in an academic journal.

The exceptions might be the existentialists like Sartre and Camus, but they are somewhat of the red-headed step children of the academic philosophy world!

[gipper]

Some may be poor, but there certainly are novels that are philosophic, or philosophic novels. To limit philosophic discourse to the rigidly reined treatisee or shorter professional essay artificially circumscribes the field. Can a novel deal effectively, either "completely" or partly, with a given philosophic topic: of course! It just may take a double dose of talent, philosophic and literary-artistic. The analogy I favor would be to say that Christ's or St. Paul's theology, revealed extensively in the lives they lived in addition to the words they uttered, shouldn't have to be packaged in a particular literary/professional genre to attain respectability. Going to the far extreme, for example, Patton's miliary philosophy, though he wrote little, if any, is richly portrayed in the unfolding of his life itself: the point being life, like art, can embody a discernible philosophy at times matching in seriousness and rigor the formal discipline of philosophy itself.

[Universe Prince]

It is probably debatable as to whether either [Atlas Shrugged or Thus Spoke Zarathustra] are philosophy or not.

Atlas Shrugged seems quite heavy on philosophy to me. If I recall correctly, Rand wrote it specifically to expand on the ideas of Objectivism that she had put forth in The Fountainhead. And I had the impression that Thus Spoke Zarathustra was essentially a philosophy book in a loosely constructed form of a fictional story.

But then I also think the film Conan the Barbarian is mostly about philosophy. So I may have a skewed perspective, though I don't believe I do.

[Plane]

In the National Geographic this month there is a good article about how flocks of birds , schools of fish and swarms of insects can coordinate sophisticated actions with unsophisticated rules.

If the rule is that a radio station is supposed to support itself by appealing to its target audience , won't this guarantee that the people are well served as unappealing programs and stations are eliminated evolutionarily?

[Michael Tee]

<<You speak of deeds and copyright law, but you're missing the obvious point here that in most cases people buy their land and property from one another, not a license from the government. >>

You obviously don't know much about how people buy real property.  In Canada, they pay a lawyer to conduct a search of title in the registry office and make sure that when their money is handed over when the deal closes, their own deed will be registered at the same time, same as all the other deeds were before them.  In the U.S.A. they buy through a title insurance company, whose own lawyers can certify the title to the property because they have already conducted the necessary searches in the registry of deeds.  In both cases, the government-maintained registry is the key to the entire transaction.

<<And the McDonald's logo is covered by trademark law, not copyright. >>

Big deal.  So I got the name of the law wrong.  The principle is the same - - the big evil government maintains the framework against which the right to the property is registered and through which any infringements are prosecuted.  If it's a trademark, my argument is even stronger, since the Big Bad Government has to maintain a searchable registry of trade marks and as a matter of fact I think it also maintains a copyright registry as well.

  <<And again, McDonald's did not buy the logo or a license for it from the government. They paid the government to protect the trademark.>>

So what?  That's like saying they built their own house and didn't buy it from the government.   Don't matter where they got it or how.  The logo they created wouldn't be worth shit if every Mom and Pop greasy spoon could put one on their roof.  The logo's value comes from its restricted use, and that depends on a whole governmental infrastructure of trade mark registry offices and judicial anti-infringement sanctions.

<<So again I put forth the question: Is government selling frequency privileges really the only way to solve this problem? I think it is not so.>>

NO, of course not.  A better solution would be anarchy of the airwaves.  Whoever has a transmitter, let him broadcast on whatever frequency he chooses, and may the guy with the strongest transmitter win.  For that matter, why paint lanes on highways, or even centre lines?  Fucking commies trying to restrict my right to drive wherever the fuck I wanna drive, and on the public highway no less!  Can't they just trust me and the other drivers to use our common sense and work it all out ourselves?   Well guess what?  NEWSFLASH, Prince!  That's the way it was in the beginning - - unregulated.  Land ownership was unregulated.  Roads were unregulated.  Broadcasting was unregulated.  And it just.  Didn't.   Work.  There was anarchy, land grabs, claim jumping, car crashes, people getting killed and some kind of order arose, had to be imposed.  By the only organization that could claim the undivided universal obedience of all the stakeholders and be held accountable for exercising its jurisdiction impartially.  The [evil wasteful oppressive . . . etc.] Government.

<<I am sure you did not mean the common good according to Dr. Dobson, but I suspect you meant the common good according to you if no one else. My point being that the common good is not an objective concept. So when you say the government must exercise its power for the common good, the question is, according to whose opinion of what constitutes the common good? It's all well and good to assume that diversity of opinion is something most people agree upon, but even that is vague. What constitutes a diversity of opinion? And what constitutes a threat to society? >>

Nice attempt to change the subject, Prince.  The subject is broadcasting, and how the concentration of ownership narrows the range of opinions broadcast.  Specifically, in the context of a seeming preponderance of extreme right-wing opinion on talk-show radio.  The common good came up in the narrow context of:  it is consistent or inconsistent with the common good that the range of opinion expressed through radio broadcasting on publicly-licensed airwaves be a wide range of opinions from left to right, or a narrow range of opinions, either left wing or right-wing?  In setting broadcast licensing policy, should the government stick to a policy which the study shows has tended to narrow down the range of opinions expressed, or should it revert to a policy which had led to a broader range of opinions expressed. 

You wanted to turn the discussion into a more general one of who should be allowed to determine the common good but that's a fool's game because it would involve us in an across-the-board free-for-all, dragging in foreign policy, abortion rights, freedom of expression, racial equality, etc., etc., etc.    For the record, and just so that you'll know, I happen to be the person who should be allowed, in general, to determine the common good, simply because I know best, but for the purposes of this discussion, I think all that we have to determine is whether or not it's in the common interest for the range of radio broadcast opinion to be a wide range from left to right or a narrow range of right-wing opinion.

<<You're the one who insists that Cuba is fully justified in abridging the right of free speech for Cuban citizens to protect "the Revolution." So obviously you're willing to see some diverse opinions silenced given certain situations. >>

True. 

<<So am I supposed to trust you to determine the the common good? Or to determine when certain diverse opinions should not be given opportunity to be heard?>>   

Of course not.  This is, after all, a debating forum.  You already know what I think about free speech here and in Cuba.  So the question is, what do YOU think?  Given that the government IS going to be licensing radio broadcast frequencies now and for  the foreseeable future, should that licensing power be exercised as it has been in the recent past, which the study shows has tended to concentrate ownership and narrow the ideological range of broadcast opinions - - or should it revert to the way in which it had previously exercised its discretion, which the study shows led to a diversity of ownership and a wider ideological range of broadcast opinions?


<<So we gloss over evidence to the contrary by acknowledging it exists and then dismissing it as irrelevant. Wow. Now it's my turn to be not impressed.>>

The contrary evidence that I "glossed over" was your anecdotal (and, IIRC, completely undocumented) "evidence" which always exists in any empirical study that shows less than 100% adherence to a rule.  It's exactly as if you commented on a study of the effectiveness of seat-belts by quoting stories of un-belted occupants who survived crashes which killed belted occupants.  You can't undermine the effectiveness of a professional, well-conducted study by citing individual examples falling outside the general conclusions of the study.  The study itself recognizes that its conclusions apply in most but not all cases.  You act as if the exceptions invalidate the rule.  That's nonsense.

<<The consolidation of radio ownership began as a result of FCC regulations to save radio from (supposedly) too many radio stations competing for ad dollars. >>

That's exactly what I said - - but you just chose to leave out that in their competition for ad dollars they were broadcasting on common frequencies and drowning one another out.

<<Have you seen the FCC website? Here, take a look. You talk as if there are no regulations, and that simply is not the case. >>

That's total bullshit.  I never denied that this was a heavily-regulated industry.  It is immaterial how many regulations there might be, or even that some of them might be unnecessary.   This subject began with sirs' complaint about the proposed reversal of licensing policies that had allegedly led to a concentration of ownership that in turn had allegedly led to a preponderance of right-wing ideas in talk radio shows.  It was not a generalized rant about over-regulation of the industry.  There was a very specific aspect of the regulation that was objected to.

<<The FCC has cracked down on unlicensed radio stations, most them small, less than 100 watts. And pretty much all of those stations are unlicensed because the FCC won't issue licenses for stations at 100 watts or less. (Though this situation may change in the future.)>>

So what?  This debate has nothing to do with licensing 100-watt-or-less  stations.  It's about an increasing uniformity of opinion in the stations that are licensed. 

<<Even some folks who want to establish larger stations cannot do so because the costs of navigating the bureaucracy to get a license is far too expensive for most people. >>

Then they shouldn't be in the fucking business.  Let them work in the industry for 20 years, save up a few bucks, get a good credit rating, make a few key allies and THEN try to start up a station.  Who told them it had to be handed to them on a silver platter?

<< Have you ever looked into the total costs associated with starting up a broadcast radio station? To start station can cost upwards of $50,000 and to operate for just a year can cost in the neighborhood of $150,000, and that is for a relatively small station. And that doesn't even account for all the legal fees involved. >>

Cry me a river.  If they're looking for a business they can start on a shoestring, they should try a roadside lemonade stand.

<<And don't even try to start your own satellite radio company. You can't do it no matter how much money you have. The National Association of Broadcasters convinced the government to license only two companies, XM and Sirius. You want more competition there, you can't get it.>>

Well, that's good for another thread - - satellite radio licensing.  Meantime back here on earth, the subject was the increasing dominance of right-wing opinion on talk radio shows (apparently there are still some of those left around, Sirius and XM not yet having grabbed off ALL of their listeners) and the issue was (remember?) whether licensing policy should be aimed at concentrating ownership and restricting range of opinions or broadening ownership and broadening range of opinions.

<<And you're talking to me about how this is all some example of deregulation diminishing competition? >>

No, I was talking to you about how concentrating ownership was diminishing competition.   In talk radio.  Remember.  YOU suddenly brought satellite radio into the picture and a whole different set of issues.

<<You must be joking. >>

I try.

<<So long as groups like the NAB and the government are working together to regulate the industry, competition will be stifled. >>

Yes, of course.  But if government can get the NAB off its back long enough to reconsider its policy on station ownership, should it or should it not decide to limit the number of stations one owner may have, in view of the study's conclusions?

<<Ideology blinding one to the facts indeed.>>

What I actually meant (and, I believe, actually said) was that YOUR ideology had blinded you to the fact that a deregulation of ownership restrictions had in fact decreased competition, as shown by the study's conclusions.  You have not managed to rebut that statement.

[sirs]

Nice attempt to change the subject, Prince.  The subject is broadcasting, and how the concentration of ownership narrows the range of opinions broadcast.  Specifically, in the context of a seeming preponderance of extreme right-wing opinion on talk-show radio.  

This is where Tee continues to keep getting tripped up, or more so, keeps digging that hole deeper.  He seems to believe this supposed ownership concentration is what's brought us to the "preponderance of extreme RW radio".  The part he keeps ignoring is that it's the ratings, the LISTENERS, that have brought about this percieved preponderance.  It's what the PEOPLE want to hear, NOT what the owners want people to hear.  Tee's real beef is with the listeners, which again is why he's such a proponent of the unfairness doctrine, as it mandates that people listen to LW opinion, or else they can't listen to RW opinion.  He also has this twisted notion of comparing the risk of motor vehicle accidents to that of not getting enough LW propoganda via the radio

Apparently the left is so devoid of substance, that they can't manage to get folks to listen to them based solely on their message.  As usual they advocate that the Government "take care of us" poor souls who don't know better, make us listen to what we need to listen to, and if the people chose not to, then they can't listen to what they do want to.