Re: pirate stations:A Summary On The Issue
I would like to summarize this discussion. I understand your points about physics and interference and treaties. I will take your points into consideration. You are much deeper on the engineering aspects than I am.
For nearly every issue and perhaps every issue, there is a free market solution and a socialist solution. My bias is strongly in favor of the free market solution because it works better than the socialist solution. You may call it what you want, but government ownership of any asset is socialist.
I am not an expert in this but I know something about radio and a little about engineering. I think that there is a method where every available non-interfering frequency in every part of this country can be owned by private interests. I may not have the method formulated but I know that there is some method of private ownership of frequencies without one broadcaster interfering with another. I think of the example of private ownership of land for some solutions.
Your solution is to defer to government ownership of frequencies which does not take any creative thought because it is what we now have. You accept or tolerate that there will be inefficiencies in the use of the asset ie. radio frequencies. You also accept the lack of freedom to own a radio frequency by a private entity.
My policy is to always err in favor of freedom. I think a system of private frequencies can work. You do not think it will work.
I am not for pirates per se. I am in favor of legitimate owners of frequencies in competition in a free marketplace. Pirates are a protest to government ownership. It is kind of like the Boston Tea Party.
Every owner should police his frequency and use all legal methods such as police and courts to evict any trespasser from his broadcast frequency.
I accept that you do not think it will work and the US government should be the owner.
If I am mistaken in this summary, I stand corrected. I think you understand my position.
> > You assume that the government has some socialist right to
>
> > own a frequency. I do not make that assumption.
>
> When there are things that th epublic must share, the
> government regulates how this is done. For example, they
> regulate waterways to marine traffic, the air for aircraft
> and the radio spectrum for transmissions. Otherwise, there
> would be chaos and, in some cases, death and injury and a
> threat to the public.
>
> Government is necessary for people to live in anything other
> than anarchy together. We willingly submit to some
> regulation of our liberties and freedoms for the common good
> (which is the meaning of the term "commonwealth") so that
> the freedoms of one person do not impinge on those of
> another. Ben Franklin made a statement to the effect that,
> in a civilized society, one man's freedoms extend only to
> the tip of another man's nose.
>
> In fact, the government control of public resources is very
> much unlike socialism, where the people, through the
> government, own everything and there is no private ownership
> of anything. I am guessing you have never lived or worked in
> a socialist country; I have and it is nothing like you think
> it is.
>
> In America, the government is the public trustee for the
> interests of the citizens, but there is a clear right to
> private property (where freedom of speech does not apply)
> and private enterprise.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
I would like to summarize this discussion. I understand your points about physics and interference and treaties. I will take your points into consideration. You are much deeper on the engineering aspects than I am.
For nearly every issue and perhaps every issue, there is a free market solution and a socialist solution. My bias is strongly in favor of the free market solution because it works better than the socialist solution. You may call it what you want, but government ownership of any asset is socialist.
I am not an expert in this but I know something about radio and a little about engineering. I think that there is a method where every available non-interfering frequency in every part of this country can be owned by private interests. I may not have the method formulated but I know that there is some method of private ownership of frequencies without one broadcaster interfering with another. I think of the example of private ownership of land for some solutions.
Your solution is to defer to government ownership of frequencies which does not take any creative thought because it is what we now have. You accept or tolerate that there will be inefficiencies in the use of the asset ie. radio frequencies. You also accept the lack of freedom to own a radio frequency by a private entity.
My policy is to always err in favor of freedom. I think a system of private frequencies can work. You do not think it will work.
I am not for pirates per se. I am in favor of legitimate owners of frequencies in competition in a free marketplace. Pirates are a protest to government ownership. It is kind of like the Boston Tea Party.
Every owner should police his frequency and use all legal methods such as police and courts to evict any trespasser from his broadcast frequency.
I accept that you do not think it will work and the US government should be the owner.
If I am mistaken in this summary, I stand corrected. I think you understand my position.
> > You assume that the government has some socialist right to
>
> > own a frequency. I do not make that assumption.
>
> When there are things that th epublic must share, the
> government regulates how this is done. For example, they
> regulate waterways to marine traffic, the air for aircraft
> and the radio spectrum for transmissions. Otherwise, there
> would be chaos and, in some cases, death and injury and a
> threat to the public.
>
> Government is necessary for people to live in anything other
> than anarchy together. We willingly submit to some
> regulation of our liberties and freedoms for the common good
> (which is the meaning of the term "commonwealth") so that
> the freedoms of one person do not impinge on those of
> another. Ben Franklin made a statement to the effect that,
> in a civilized society, one man's freedoms extend only to
> the tip of another man's nose.
>
> In fact, the government control of public resources is very
> much unlike socialism, where the people, through the
> government, own everything and there is no private ownership
> of anything. I am guessing you have never lived or worked in
> a socialist country; I have and it is nothing like you think
> it is.
>
> In America, the government is the public trustee for the
> interests of the citizens, but there is a clear right to
> private property (where freedom of speech does not apply)
> and private enterprise.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
