Slashdot Mirror
FCC Chairman Tries For More Media Consolidation
An anonymous reader writes "FCC chairman Kevin Martin wants to relax rules on how many media outlets one company can own in one market. Democratic commissioner Copps wants to rally the public to stop media consolidation. He says he's 'blowing a loud trumpet' for a 'call to battle' to stop the FCC from giving big media a generous Christmas present."
Let's remember that Jesus loves large media conglomerates. Jesus despises a multiplicity of media providers in any given market. Jesus loathes a functioning marketplace, preferring monopolies that will supply money, trips, golf club membership and hookers to Senators and Representatives in exchange for screwing the average American. Jesus despises the average American. Jesus is all about the money, and that shows in His favorite country, the United States of America.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
That's why we're not on Digg.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Perhaps it's Sneaky Time to do this on Holiday Break (for Congress, anyway) so that he won't catch too much hell.
It would make a nice present for Murdoch, and the other media gluttons.
Where I live, we have a newspaper monopoly brought to you by Gannett and the quality of the newspaper plainly stinks, now that they've put all of the competition out of business.
That pesky competition stuff seems all too familiar at the FCC these days. It makes one wonder what might happen if the FCC had the interests of the American consumer in mind, rather than that of the media and telco mega-corps.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
that was supposed to be: "free" country.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
A strong, independent media (meaning: lots of independent sources for news and commentary) is essential to the health of a democracy. (Or even a republic.) Many points of view allows the (cliché inbound!) market of ideas to determine what's best. When there's only a handful of humongous players in that market, they all tend to have an identical set of interests and will likely end up as an oligopoly, much to our detriment.
Media consolidation is, overall, a Bad Thing.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
These media monopolies present our entire society through their filter of corporate priorities:
And of course that "info monoculture" dictates politics that can be rigged most easily by a single political party, so long as it is thoroughly corporatist. Which is why the US government is getting rid of the rules that protect a free market of consumers and diverse startups, in favor of corporate anarchy.
--
make install -not war
Reddit is starting to turn for the worst also. This new breed of internet people are like locust, they go from one site to another, like locust, consuming all natural resources, and then they move on again, and their coming for us soon. Just like those aliens from Independence Day.
Funny that a few stories down we should have an example of one of Kevin Martin's ventures in the other direction. Then of course is one of my favorite quotes of his, "The public interest is not what any company wants." Not particularly eloquent, but succinct and true enough. I like to think the man's heart is pointing in the right direction. Anyone care to comment?
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
While you might not care for Murdoch's brand of politics or his business style, it is difficult to argue that he has done anything but increase diversity in the media marketplace. Before he launched Fox, there were 3 networks. He created a new one, with a distinctly different politic perspective.
He's been attacked mercilessly for this Dow Jones merger, owning "2 of the 5 biggest newspapers". Except of one those is the Post, which operates at a loss. Murdoch is subsidizing an unsuccessful conservative paper to keep in it production. More diversity, not less.
Consolidation has allowed Murdoch (and presumably others) to keep open additional channels and voices, even unprofitable ones, with the money made by successful ventures. It's a good thing, not bad.
I just finished reading The Wisdom of Crowds. Great book, highly recommended. Anyway in the context of group decisions the book postulates that one of the fundamental requirements to make good group decisions is diversity. Without it you end up in the "me too" situation where opinions cascade through the group simply because there are less building blocks to improve on. With less diversity there is less granularity to approaching a problem leading to situations where a groups decision doesn't fit the original problem as well as it could have.
Right now the book is just a proposal - it will take much more time to empirically test the ideas put forth in it.
Shh.
Let the babies have their bottles. I dare any of the uber-corporations to erect a media outlet that does not suck donkey balls. If Ropert Morduck wants to own every station in my market, let him! I won't be listening to any of that garbage. I have iPods, CDs and superior satellite radio. What do I need with a Ropert Murduck? Sounds like a skin condition. Throw another media outlet on the barbie, douche!
This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
Creating monopolies? They are also stopping them. The article is about them wanting to change that, so to answer your question, yes. The FCC currently prevents large media conglomerates from getting larger. Without the FCC, there would likely be only one media conglomerate in America, owning all publishing, television, radio, and movies.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Okay, I got my keyboard, I'm ready to fight.
Where do I go to fight this? Write my representatives/senators? Or what?
Is it opposite day already? I thought the FCC was supposed to regulate such things.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Digg is horrible. If you go against groupthink, even if you have a well researched, verifiable point, you will get "dugg" down.
People tend to flock to where the group-think is. Very few people want to be challenged about what they believe on a daily basis- it takes a lot of work, especially if you're willing to admit the possibility you might be wrong. Slashdot tends to have a variety of (highly nerd-centric) views, so it's easy to find a bunch of people who passionately agree with you on issues that most people don't care about: File sharing, the best Star Trek Captain, Emacs vs. Vi, etc. There will be the heretics who disagree with you, but you can always mod up those you agree with and ignore the rest.
That being said, Slashdot would be horrible as my only news source. It's got a huge number of opinions, but most of them are the idealistic ravings of an intelligent but dysfunctional individual with minimal real-world experience. (Something like 80% of non-troll posts are in this category, including most of my own). Then you've got the corporate shills, the grammar Nazis, and the occasional individual who knows what he's talking about. Plus, there are all these rambling posts that are almost on topic, but don't really address the issue at hand- not to mention the article.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
That sounds a lot like, "It's a good thing that we have given the executive so much power, because our president is doing a great job keeping Americans safe from the Iraqi terrorists." It's ok for George's people to listen to your phone calls. But what do you do, once Hillary is elected? Suddenly you're paying for everyone's manditory healthcare insurance, farmed out to some no-bid-contract provider, and she is listening to your phone calls.
What do you do, when you justify centralization of authority, and then after that, the central authority becomes your enemy?
Principles, not examples. Safeguards, not circumstances.
What I mean is, some day, a leftwing commie hippie is going to own 66% of the media. That block will be diverse, too. One channel will be full of ads for marijuana, another full of ads for sex chat lines, and that's not counting The Satan Channel (even though it operates at a loss, subsidized by the sex chat lines).
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
In the ideal world, there would be no government regulation. However, because radio waves are a government regulated commodity, Joe Schmoe can't hijack, for example, FOX's airwaves and broadcast his own competing opinion. Sure, it starts a "signal strength" battle, but energy is a limited commodity itself. Eventuall Joe Schmoe can win, only a smaller area. Many Joe Schmoes can pool their resources and win a bunch of smaller areas. To an extent, the Internet has given Joe Schmoe and Media Conglomerates a level playing field. For the first time, their voices can be heard equally. That is, until Net Neutrality gets bashed in the face. However, this is merely a leveled playing field. For every website/blog started by Joe Schmoe, the Media Conglomerates can start one. The Media Conglomerates still have the airwaves... which are protected from Joe Schmoe by the Government, thereby creating it's own necessity to regulate the Media Conglomerates.
And of course that "info monoculture" dictates politics that can be rigged most easily by a single political party, so long as it is thoroughly corporatist. Which is why the US government is getting rid of the rules that protect a free market of consumers and diverse startups, in favor of corporate anarchy.
In the East they have official state news sources like Pravda or Xinhua, while in the West we have a vast network of ostensibly separate and independent news sources which are ultimately through various obscured financial ties effectively the same thing! Go capitalism!
Oh wait I'm sorry I'm being cynical. After all, the NYT did sincerely apologize for being credulous parrots of anything the government wanted them to say. I'm sure that's all in the past now. I must have gotten my scandalous anti-American ideas from the liberal media.
The enemies of Democracy are
Jesus also loves you, but everyone else thinks your an asshole.
I am a registered libertarian, and I have to say that even here, I prefer the FCC to not allow this. The reason is that the gov. already created the monopolies, but granting exclusive owning of the airwaves. As such, I think that if they are going to give monopolies, then it should be regulated. Of course, if they would create a space where anybody could compete (i.e. think of the open regions), then it should be winner take all assuming that you limit the power of the radio.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You can find the contact e-mail addresses of all five FCC commissioners here.
Kerry Packer and Rupert Murdoch were players in the Australian media market place, they each staked their claim but from different parts of the market - Murdoch from News Papers and Packer from Television stations, both were conservatives. They both expanded until they were eyeing each other off, Murdoch looking over some local television stations and Packer eyeing off some print news assets, there was only one thing stopping them, Cross media ownership laws. Now they had a common cause.
In Australia they lobbied tirelessly to have cross media ownership laws broken down until finally our previous conservative government gave in and relaxed the laws, the buying frenzy began even before the laws were passed, and as we regress to what is happening in Canada something happened that gave us a glimpse of post-media-mogul media.
Murdoch finally realised that the Australian market was just too small for him to play in anymore, and expanded into America, grooming his son for taking over the growing media empire.
Packer expanded into Internet gambling assets, bought into Fox and kept an iron fist on the control of the Nine network in Australia. When he was passing the media empire over to his son, you could see the glint of pride in his eyes. Then he died, James sold the nine network to concentrate on greener pastures (I guess he wasn't interested in his fathers passion), leaving nine as a shell of what it once was pwned by some faceless investment con-glomerate.
The legacy of both these men are the media cross ownership laws as a template for the world. The moral of the story is once the man with the passion dies you are left with the banal framework of the control he established and you might not like who/what takes over that control - that is what happened here.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
No, in truth the FCC acts as a public opinion damper. Without their protector agencies of the government, large conglomerates would get burned off the face of the Earth by large mobs of angry people they've screwed over. This would be the so called "frontier justice" (i.e. the kind that works for the little guy better than it does for the big guy.)
Government never helps the little guy, never has. Even Yahweh in the Old Testament (this is for you Christians and Jews) tells the people of Israel who asked for a King from God, that he will send them one, who will take their sons as soldiers, their daughters as maids, and tax them 10% and in Yahweh's own words... "and then they shall be slaves."
Interestingly the same can be said for Jesus, but this implies actually READING THE DAMN TEXTS... (my own understanding of them grows daily, and I wouldn't consider me a religious man by any measure of the word, I dare say I have a beef with hierarchical religion and systems of control in general. Leadership is fine in my book, rulership is not, especially coerced rulership.)
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
Let's be honest about the situation: no matter WHAT rules are eventually enacted, they will be challenged in court. Once it is in court, there is a significant chance that the entire newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule will simply be invalidated. Why? Because a very similar rule, the cable-broadcast cross-ownership rule, was tossed out in 2002 by the DC Circuit Court because it was arbitrary and capricious.
Personally, I could care less if a local newspaper owns a radio or TV station; I care more about media concentration than formats. Which is more troubling, ClearChannel owning half the local radio stations (and another billion across the country), or a local newspaper owning a single "oldies" FM radio station? In my opinion, they should assign different weights to the different kinds of media, and then say that you can own whatever you like up to the weight cap.
I don't really mind seeing ads to read Salon content, but the site is no longer allowing client machines that block ad.doubleclick.net to view anything. Tolerating ads is one thing, but I'll be damned if I'll allow doubleclick to track me all over the freakin' web just to see Salon's stuff.
I have it on good authority that He looks poorly on the use of "your" where "you're" was intended. And don't even try to use an apostrophe when making plurals.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Strange, I went back and changed it before hitting "Submit".
It's actually a peeve of my own. "CD's" instead of CDs.
*Shrug* Oh well...
The only difference between Slashdot and, say, Digg is that when your view doesn't agree with the masses on Slashdot, you go to -1 instead of -842.
I was surprised that the crowd didn't rip Martin to pieces.
Maybe if citizens were allowed to rip misguided public officials to pieces when they err, there'd be a lot less erring on the part of said officials.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Don't pretend that this is about Joe Business Owner selling the company he built at a healthy profit, this is about five or fewer corporations controlling the vast majority of media in the entire United States who want to make it four or fewer (preferably one). History has shown that the rules need to change for oligpolies and monopolies or very bad things happen. These "very bad things" take on the general form of low quality goods and/or high prices.
In the case of multimedia, are you going to seriously pretend that that you don't see how having an oligopoly controlling the media is a bad thing? Here's an outline: First, a story threatens to upset the Status Quo and/or expose wrongdoing by the rich and powerful. Word of it percolates up, and in one conference call between the good 'ole boys club they make sure your story never gets any real press.
What media consolidation threatens is not freedom of expression, it's variety of expression, and you're going to be hard-pressed to convince anyone that it's good for a democratic society to reduce the number of different viewpoints that are available. Since an unfettered media market will always tend toward consolidation, and media consolidation harms society by reducing the exchange of ideas, it's in society's interest to regulate the market to prevent consolidation.
Yes, it's also good for society when people can do business as they see fit, within reason. Talking about the "freedom of business-owners to sell their businesses to whomever they want to" as if it's as important as freedom of speech is silly; there have been quite a number of precedents establishing that business "freedoms" can be restricted far more thoroughly and easily than personal freedoms. Markets work best when unfettered, but they serve society best when they're regulated by the will of the people. History and studies have shown that different kinds of markets serve us best when regulated in different ways; certain markets can go almost completely unregulated without harming society; others need to be heavily regulated in order to best serve us.
Don't get caught in the trap of thinking that all markets should be completely (or even equally) unfettered. The electricity market, for example, behaves radically differently than the computer hardware market.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
and their coming for us soon. Just like those aliens from Independence Day.
I have mod points, bring em on!
That pesky competition stuff seems all too familiar at the FCC these days. It makes one wonder what might happen if the FCC had the interests of the American consumer in mind, rather than that of the media and telco mega-corps.
If the FCC really wanted competition on the airwaves they'd allow Pirate and Micropower broadcasters. But instead the FCC does what it can to shutdown them.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The FCC is the Federal Buggy Whip Commission. They are regulating a bunch of dead, dying, or at the very least rapidly-changing businesses. The FCC getting in the action will help neither the businesses nor their consumers. If the radio/tv biz was made 100% unregulated, they'd still have less than even odds of surviving. The web will consume them. You're going to watch TV by browsing to www.desperatehousewifes.com. With the exception of real live stuff, podcasts will eat radio, and even the live will get done somehow or another. Heh, maybe all that free wifi will eventually work.
My fear of allowing the FCC to get up off the mat, is that they'll proclaim they're needed to regulate the Web. They're going to try to stick their nose in the tent.
-- Rabid.
this is about five or fewer corporations controlling the vast majority of media in the entire United States who want to make it four or fewer (preferably one).
So? The owners of big companies are people too, and have the same rights as everyone else.
History has shown that the rules need to change for oligpolies and monopolies or very bad things happen.
This justifies government violating individual rights how?
These "very bad things" take on the general form of low quality goods and/or high prices.
It's not government's job to do anything about that.
In the case of multimedia, are you going to seriously pretend that that you don't see how having an oligopoly controlling the media is a bad thing?
I don't see how it's worse than the violation of individual rights that is being proposed to prevent it.
When formulating policy, individual liberty is the ONLY relevant concern. Nothing else matters.
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/68295/
And be making as much noise.
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
As one example, what if we found a way to make the radio spectrum freely available to all without mutual interference, so that as many people who wanted to broadcast, could? If it weren't for the scarcity of usable frequencies imposed by past-generation technology, would we need or want the FCC to be telling corporations how many stations they can own in an area. And would the FCC be able to impose censorship or (currently at bay) a "fairness doctrine" using the excuse that it can impose any restrictions it wants on a limited public resource? We may actually be seeing this unlimited-resource situation in the Net;
It's good to see someone who supports pirate and micropower broadcasters. With today's technology there can be a lot more radio and TV stations that won't interfere with each other in given locations so there is really no need for expensive licenses to broadcast, and the license is the major cost of broadcasting.
FalconShould there be a Law?
it's in society's interest to regulate the market to prevent consolidation.
It is not government's job to act in "society's interest." Government's job is to protect individual rights. This proposed action would do the exact opposite.
Yes, it's also good for society when people can do business as they see fit, within reason.
The interests of society are irrelevant; only individual liberty matters.
Talking about the "freedom of business-owners to sell their businesses to whomever they want to" as if it's as important as freedom of speech is silly;
No, it's not. All liberty is equally sacred and equally important AS AN END IN ITSELF.
there have been quite a number of precedents establishing that business "freedoms" can be restricted far more thoroughly and easily than personal freedoms
Those precedents are wrong.
Markets work best when unfettered, but they serve society best when they're regulated by the will of the people.
That is not a relevant concern when deciding on government policy.
The thing is, you incorrectly view liberty as only a means to an end. It's not. The individual, and therefore his liberty, is an end in itself, and trumps all other concerns.
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
The only difference between a leftwing commie hippie and who owns the media now is that I think the pinko commie would have a little more respect for multiple viewpoints, whether or not he or she agrees with them. Not that I am for monopolization in any way, but it shouldn't matter whether or not you trust or believe the ruling power. The checks are there for a reason, to make sure that power doesn't go unchecked. There used to be a time when presidents filled their cabinets with dissenting opinions to get a broader scope of influence to make better informed decisions, rather that some buddies you went to school with who would rather kiss your ass than give informed advice. But you do make a good point: Principles, not examples. Safeguards, not circumstances.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
So, I don't think the comparison between "taming the rampant corporations" and "stopping the British from burning our city" is fair.
No less than Thomas Jefferson saw the risk of the Corporate Aristocracy. Specifically Jefferson said "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
FalconShould there be a Law?
There is a substantial body of evidence saying that mergers hurt : employees, customers, and stock holders. Only the executives normally benefit. because they become executives of a larger corporation.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Where exactly does "Joe Business Owner" stop being such?
I would grant you, that one is too few, but I see no reason, why anything other than the usual anti-trust/anti-monopoly rules should apply. Five, four, and even three is still perfectly healthy, and even two may be Ok. When FTC blocked the Office Depot/Staples merger, it was a questionable move.
But five reducing themselves to four is perfectly fine...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
It is devastatingly bad for a free society to dictate to people, when and how they can sell their property. If you value the "variety of expression", go ahead and publish your own. And if you can not or would not, keep away from what somebody else owns — it is not yours.
Even if the various blogs and Internet-accessible foreign private and state-owned sources of expression were not available, that is...
Yes, unfortunately, there have been. Their number, however, is simply an illustration of how powerless the businessmen are in a society, where everyone has an equal vote. The State is supposed to uphold individual's rights, however unpopular, but politicians are influenced by the majority of the voters (which is why businesses have to resort to the infamous lobbying). A Democracy, it is said, is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. See also "Atlas Shrugged".
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Strange, though, that if it's so undesirable, people are patronizing big businesses and allow them to be big on virtue of the fact that they are choosing them. What we need is customer education, not more training wheels for the masses. The truth is, I think, is that you have your own biases and opinions you don't see echoed in the mass media; you think the best way to serve your agenda is by tearing down the big guy. Maybe that works; I feel the same way, but at the end of the day it's simply the selfish desire to control. You talk about the "will of the people", but there is no "will of the people". Hell, when someone says "will of the people" my ears perk up because almost always I sure as hell aren't agreeing with whatever they're trying to sell with that rhetoric. Slavery was once the will of the people, as was the subjugation of women; in some parts of the world, that's still true. If you want enlightenment and freedom, taking away certain freedoms from others, as if you were some sort of mastermind tinkering with knobs and levers to make the "best possible society" (a value-laden personal opinion on how the world should work) neither works nor is often fair. Businesses are there to serve us insofar that we agree to whatever we're selling, and we serve businesses by patronizing them and giving the owners wealth. Even if you, technically, could get a better deal through wild machinations, in the end you're doing what big business often does with government--manipulating the rules to benefit you over another entity, or at least widen a perceived gap. This may come as a shock, but businesses are not established "for the public good". Despite what most relatively-wealthy individuals cozy in their first-world homes might think or wish, people in general do prefer to look out for themselves before looking out for someone they don't even know, and might not even like. And many of us aren't keen on putting others lives ahead of the hordes' based on some principle that is very open towards crushing some to benefit "the greater good".
You're timeline's a bit out of whack - Murdoch gave up on the Wide Brown Land for the Land of Hope and Glory years before the cross-media laws were changed, and Packer's TV interests have been on the downward slide for years (propped up by their other media interests e.g. magazines, and gambling) - but otherwise, you're spot-on.
;-)
Really, I just dropped into this thread to watch people's heads explode from the "Big Media is Evil!" / "FCC is evil!" dichotomy
Funnily enough, Australia started to avoid the worst stupidity of the American situation - where the FCC is both a technical and content standards regulator - with the divesting of roles between the ACMA / ACCC / ABA at various times during both the late Hawke and early Howard governments. Unfortunately, a lot of that good was undone in the later Howard years, to the point that nobody - not even the relevant organisations - really knows who's responsible for exactly what, except that even more of the content regulation role is now in the hands of the broadcasters themselves.
Still, we live in a land where televisual boobies aren't taboo, and free-to-air TV can broadcast the word "shit" at prime-time and "fuck" after 9:30pm...
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
Splitting up media companies or preventing them from getting bigger isn't going to change anything. The other companies will, probably, be much the same, following the same time-proven formula used by the current media giants.
Ignoring the possibility of government machinations aside (I cannot think of any), big media became big media because People Paid Attention. And they still do. Maybe they're doing so less, with the advent of the internet, but we still have the big 5 or whatever the number is.
The "Big Media" from outside the world is outside of our control, yet we can still access it and if, we so cared, can get information from it and the government can't do a damn thing to stop it, no matter how big it gets.
What if a media company based itself outside of the USA, but operated on a global level, reporting the minute details of U.S. news much like CNN or MSNBC or other media conglomerates do? Should we block citizens from accessing their website or TV station, if they had one?
Turning knobs and hitting levers to try to make some sort of utopia where we play with other peoples' stuff to get what we want is never good or "fair" and often has unintended consequences. If people continue to watch CNN or FOX, it's their human failing.
I have news for you, people that talk about needing "diversity of opinion" to maintain a "healthy democracy" (whenever you lack a coherent, strong argument, always appeal to the fuzzy notion of a "healthy democracy"--apparently a buzzword for the person's own private little perfect world). Personally, I'd prefer an "unhealthy democracy" insofar that the giant massive will of Leviathan doesn't impose on me. Some of us would like to make deals and bargains on our own terms, even though this notion is disappearing in a time of "social responsibility".
I'd rather the world not be one big chain gang but instead composed of people more intent on using their wits and relying on their own brains rather than be given a state-subsidized set of training wheels to go about through life on. To do that, you need real education, motivation (and remember, you can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink--how many people have YOU tried to get into politics but refuse to care, instead deciding that America Idol is a far more interesting and relevant thing to spend their neural resources on?) and unfortunately, quite possibly an innate intelligence above that which is median.
If the government should never regulate business, why is the period of American history from 1870 to 1910 not regarded as a golden age of wonders? Ya see, if we're going to live together in societies of hundreds of millions of people, we're going to have to make some compromises to prevent the assholes from causing too much misery.
I should be able to shoot you if I feel like it; The government saying otherwise is restricting my liberty to do as I want.
Quick question, who does the government kill? The competition. Always.
Who was the government in Judea? Herod father and later Herod the son. Who was the imperial government there? Rome.
Who tried to kill Jesus? Herod the father when he was young (the flight to Egypt story). Who later tried to entrap Jesus into being nabbed as a rebel or Caesar denier/tax resister? Herod and the Pharisees. Who later conspired to kill and who actually killed Jesus? Bingo, Rome... mostly at the behest of the local government, that being the man's own people. Sort of like the county or state governments escalating his case up to the Supreme Court (or at least a Federal court) and then having the man executed for pissing on some statute or other and really upsetting the status quo (namely the rich Jews were pissed off that the rabble rouser was going to start a revolt, that would lead to an actual revolution instead of the usual revenue inducing bloodshed they were used to... so they had the man removed... resurrection or not, the historic part is likely to have happened in some form or other, betrayals of this type have always occurred when the people were promised a few breadcrumbs from the master's table in exchange for the life of a man who said "work for it and its yours, but YOU have to do it." Seems self starting impulses are about as common in history as they are today.
Hope you enjoyed the paraphrase, I'm not really that hard and set about digging up verse. I got the gist of it, I'm not a rabbi or a priest, so I don't make a habit of rote memorization, no more than any American kid makes a habit of memorizing our own Constitution or even the Declaration of Independence, despite swearing loyalty to said documents upon taking any form of government job or tax/wealth redistribution handout job. But at least your life or health isn't endangered or threatened by my lack of memorization, while it most certainly is by those who take an oath and never deliver on their word.
http://anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html A very nice view of the Bible, one I hadn't looked into since I walked away from the Church. That being said, this fellow seems quite positive that Jesus was intended as a liberator, not as a ham fisted patriarch for a corrupt church (one of which he faced in his day and age) and a totally irreparable construct (government) of which there were equal amounts of samples in his day also.
That link should help you out a bit, if it hasn't been changed, it posts a very good view on what I mentioned... he seems far more apt to quote bible verses which you should enjoy.
I've read the Bible in several different languages and have found incongruencies in all the translations, so if the translations are THIS piss poor with professional and highly paid translators in today's day and age when language is largely standardized (as are the translation tables for most of the mainstream languages) one has to wonder how piss poor the translations were from SPOKEN Aramaic/Hebrew to WRITTEN Greek, and later Written Latin, and yet again Written French/Spanish/Portuguese and finally Written German and English (and no, I don't speak them all, nor read them all). Nevermind those nasty little things like shifting "newspeak" meanings of all the languages in question, which immediately casts the light of doubt on any kind of job translators would've done.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
"FCC Chairman Tries for More Media Consolidation" Or "FCC Commissioner Stumps for More Media Diversity" So is Kevin Martin a chairman or a commissioner? More seriously, which Slashdot article should I disregard, and which should I take with a small grain of salt?
healthcare/insurance corps have produced a "libertarian" hoax that is precisely wrong.
Neither healthcare nor health insurance were created by Libertarians in the US. The current health insurance industry was created by a Democrat, FDR. During WWII, because of wage and price control laws, employers couldn't pay employees more so to entice people to work in factories and other establishments the government allowed employers to pay for health insurance for the employees. And still today employer have an incentive to offer insurance instead of just paying employees more. If the laws favoring employer provided health insurance, they pay no tax on it, were gotten rid of and employers were able to pay employees more so they could buy health insurance on their own healthcare would be cheaper and more people would be more keen to hold costs down. And by allowing people to buy and pay for their own healthcare they will be able to decide what sort of coverage they want, if they only want catastrophic coverage they can pay less for it versus another person who wants everything covered. Then with more people paying more out of pocket they will be more willing to shop for lower prices. That's called competition, you know, what many blame on driving workers pay down? Let competition drive cost down.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I'd say that many aspects of a media oligopoly are essentially impossible to police; Given a very small number of CEOs, they'll very likely reach an agreement (implicitly or explicitly) to protect mutual interests and the status quo (think of how all the news channels seem to have determined that Hillary is the winner). By keeping the number up, the probability of a majority or supermajority working together is decreased and real competition is maintained.
We used to have hundreds of news and media corporations in the US.
You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won't have it! Is that clear?
What?
five reducing themselves to four is perfectly fine...
It's fine as long as you don't want freedom to choice what you listen to. I'd rather have 100, 1000, even 100,000 options instead of 4.
FalconShould there be a Law?
think of how all the news channels seem to have determined that Hillary is the winner
What I've heard most recently is Obama is ahead of Hillary in some polls.
Falcon
If you love freedom vote for Ron Paul
Should there be a Law?
This may come as a shock, but businesses are not established "for the public good"
No but this may shock you, corporations are granted charters to serve the public, or common, good. The very first company to be granted a corporate charter, the Dutch East India Company, was granted the charter for that very reason.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I don't really mind seeing ads to read Salon content, but the site is no longer allowing client machines that block ad.doubleclick.net to view anything.
I block ad.doubleclick.net yet I have the Salon page open in a tab. Of course right at the top of the page there's
"Unable to connect"
"Firefox can't establish a connection to the server at ad.doubleclick.net."
TFA on the page shows though. Are you using a Hosts file?
FalconShould there be a Law?
Without the FCC, there would likely be only one media conglomerate in America, owning all publishing, television, radio, and movies.
Not likely, without requiring licenses anyone could start their own media company and have a radio or TV station.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Because we want to be sure more than one person has a press.
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
Your argument relies mostly on the fallacy that the law is morality (I'm not talking about what the law states)... I'm not speaking within the context of what the government simply says is and should be so. It is at least hypothetically possible that a sole proprietorship could be as large as any corporation (I can't think of any)--they wouldn't, and shouldn't, have to deal with some nebulous concept of "public good"--you'd think providing something that people want, and pay for, is a public good unto itself, but sometimes people just feel entitled to more... If the masses seek to dissolve a company because it has become too profitable, and its produce too desirable, then the masses must be stopped from their own barbarism. The real problem is big business in bed with the government--and, simply, people are too stupid to vote for anything other than corrupt politicians. Do you want people who can easily fall for and continually elect the sleezebags to have a more democratic say in ANYTHING?
True, I should've given a timeframe. As usual, Jon Stewart had the best explanation; Half a dozen clips of talking heads saying "Hillary is inevitable" just before the... second? most recent debate.
Oh, and Ron Paul FTW. Ever notice how Fox/CNN/ABC/NBC are trying so hard to ignore him? And how after Kucinich said the I word at that debate, they made sure to shut him up? This is the kind of crap that I was talking about in terms of oligopolies being bad: They've all decided who's in their/the status quo's best interest, and it's not in ours.
I am not a fan of media consolidation. For that matter, I actively work promoting alternative media.
That said, what is going on in the technology is a blurring of lines between different media. FCC rules that assume some sort of clear and magical distinction between newspaper, TV and radio are faced with a market where newspapers have a need to stream audio and video content to the public. TV shows need to be making print copies of their programs available and radio are compelled to push out more print and video material.
There are now 500+ channels on cable, on demand shows and the Internet.
Tossing out old regulations based on some sort of idea of completely separate media channels is more likely to generate more competition as different concerns struggle to make a multimedia presence.
Then it comes down to who can afford umpteen gigawatts of broadcast power. Pretty hard for the common person to compete.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Are these different sets of people or something?
(IANAL)
Your argument relies mostly on the fallacy that the law is morality
No, my point was that unlike what you said corporations were in fact granted charters when they served the public good, and that when they no longer did the charter could be revoked. Just because charters are no longer revoked doesn't make this untrue. Just as Thomas Jefferson warned about them, I am wary of corporations, and would like it for states to start revoking charters.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Even Yahweh in the Old Testament (this is for you Christians and Jews) tells the people of Israel who asked for a King from God, that he will send them one, who will take their sons as soldiers, their daughters as maids, and tax them 10% and in Yahweh's own words... "and then they shall be slaves."
A few verses before that, in 1 Samuel 8:6-9 (from an online NIV):
6 But when they said, "Give us a king to lead us," this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do."
Reminds me of issues within my own family: I am the only technical person in the house. Three of my siblings share one computer, and I administer it occasionally. When I was recently re-installing Windows over Ubuntu at their request, they insisted that they be given administrator privileges (they had them in Ubuntu, but they only used them to disable each other's admin privileges, not actually administer). Since using an admin account for ordinary activities is a Bad Idea, and they insisted anyways, I asked for permission from my parents to do nothing. Installing was not done and I proposed to my parents that when it finished, the siblings would be left with the task of setting it up and maintaining it. They would have to set up passwords, connect to the WiFi, run Microsoft Update, install drivers, a firewall, antivirus (I have set up Clamwin on all Windows systems, so no Norton disk lying around), etc. My siblings were smart and stopped protesting very quickly. That was yesterday. Today the vocal one was demanding admin privileges again, so that he could install a game. The Hebrews did much the same thing, except that they didn't relent when the great Admin in the sky threatened to withdraw support, but rather after their box ground to a halt.
Back on the subject of governments and the Bible's supposed opposition to them. Romans 13:1-7:
1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
And from 1 Peter 2:13-17:
13Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. 16Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. 17Show proper respec
Oh, and Ron Paul FTW. Ever notice how Fox/CNN/ABC/NBC are trying so hard to ignore him?
Yeap, the mass media does downplay Ron Paul. CNN did have a small spot of him that I thought was good though. What will be even worse is the media attention the Libertarian Party will get. Back in the 2004 campaign Michael Badnarik, the LP's candidate, was arrested when he tried to attend one of the presidential debates and Nader was barred. Yet there was hardly a peep out of the press. The press is supposed give voice to the people, instead they drown it. I did like how CNN teamed up with YouTube to sponsor the debates recently but I wonder how the questions were picked. I liked the response from one of the questions for Ron Paul. After he spoke it seemed like the whole auditorium stood up and applauded him. I know there's not enough tyme to answer all the questions but I'd like to see the candidates answer the unasked questions online after the debate. Perhaps a bunch of similar questions can be combined and answered at one tyme.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If Ropert Morduck wants to own every station in my market, let him! I won't be listening to any of that garbage. I have iPods, CDs and superior satellite radio. What do I need with a Ropert Murduck? Sounds like a skin condition. Throw another media outlet on the barbie, douche!
And what if Ropert Murdock also owned the satellite?
FalconShould there be a Law?
they are against a merger between XM and Sirius because it might become too big a player, but they want more consolidation for terrestrial radio? How does one correspond with the other? Or am I mistaken somehow?
80 CC D8 AF AE D3 AB 54 B7 2E CE 67 C7
And in other news, a bear has been spotted defecating in a heavily wooded area, and the Pope has confirmed that, in fact, he remains a practicing Catholic.
Back on topic - regarding this FCC decision, who would a man write to? The FCC themselves? And what would he, the man writing, say? "I heard about this consolidation plan and don't like it one bit, no sir" has a nice ring to it, but I'm surprised this thread hasn't had more "open letters" posted to it.
Then it comes down to who can afford umpteen gigawatts of broadcast power. Pretty hard for the common person to compete.
Have you ever heard two different people trying to talk on radios using the same frequency? I have and it was sometimes hard to make out what was being said by either party. Now if they both had been selling ads and I was a potential advertiser I never would have advertised on either one. Playing music would have been even worse. Two, as was done before the FRC, Federal Radio Commission, renamed the FCC in 1934, the courts were recognizing a right against interference. "During the 1920s, the courts were working out precisely such a system of homesteaded private property rights in airwave frequencies. It is because such a private property structure was evolving that Secretary of Commerce Hoover pushed through the Radio Act of 1927, nationalizing ownership of the airwaves."
FalconShould there be a Law?
Yes, I prefer a variety too, but these companies are not mine to control. They are not yours either, but, mysteriously, you feel comfortable telling them, what they can and can not do.
Blocking mergers in the name of preventing monopolization (such as the recent block of Staples' merger with Office Depot) is bad enough, but I'm willing to accept it as necessary evil needed to maintain competition. But there is no reason to impose additional limitations on media companies' mergers.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
"I secretly worked with the world's most powerful media companies to get you to believe what "they" want you to believe. The media is the most efficient weapon of tyranny and oppression ever created. No need to physically control populations anymore when you can do it mentally - program it in, internalize the rules."
[...]
"4. Get people into the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) who will smash the current media ownership rules. The concentration of media ownership is the foundation of the covert power structure. Without that, the whole thing is a house of cards. That's why the FCC is currently trying to ram through rules that will further consolidate media ownership before the Bush administration leaves office. As part of this, it is pivotal that we protect the open architecture of the Internet. The media belongs to the people, as does the government, in theory anyway, but we need an information system that actually serves the public interest."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7525
I've seen the few public sessions he's attended on this and it is just so clear that he is a total douchebag running his own personal agenda(supervised by big business of course). The democrats on committee are against it, the public is clearly against it and yet there he goes in a total rush to force more consolidation. It's very sad and frustrating to see someone so who has been paid off(either now or in the very near future from big media) sit there and lie to our faces. You can watch a summary and a great piece of video here http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/11162007/profile2.html
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Anyone could start one, but competing with a large monopoly like that is impossible. They would use every trick in the book to destroy competition. Undercut them until they went under, pay off suppliers to raise prices, buy up anything they could. I understand that libertarians believe that without government, there would be perfect competition, but I don't see the evidence for that.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Coerced rulership is not okay, but in an anarchist society, people would more than likely freely create an entity like the FCC to mediate the issues of public use of the airwaves, as airwaves are a rather strange type of property that doesn't work like real property. Although the airwaves may be amenable to certain free market solutions to the problems of externalities, I still think people would create a body to arbitrate disputes.
Anarchism means no coercive rulership, it does not mean lawlessness and disorder. People under anarchism can still create governments and elect leaders. They just won't use force for anything but defense.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
It's not dichotomy when they're in bed together, it's "get your dichotomy ass!!!"
to plug Media Matters hosted by Bob Mcchesney. A weekly radio show that has some really great guests, and all the content is always available online.
http://www.will.uiuc.edu/am/mediamatters/
Mods, feel free to ignore my post as usual.
Not Catholic, thankfully, but have family members of all denominations, I've sampled 'the fruit' of the tree and found it deeply lacking.
I.E. by their fruits I knew them, and I didn't like what I found out.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
Arbitration is fine, but arbitration requires a voluntary group and a third that merely weighs the things in question and renders a decision that both agree to be bound by. Government makes its decision regardless and will sequester or kill anyone who disagrees (after robbing them blind, of course, I believe they call that "confiscation".)
As for your second comment, I'm also in agreement, but remember "rulership" is different than "leadership"... a leader actually serves the group inasmuch as they serve him (they all get to a goal together, they've agreed upon it, and have selected the one most fit to lead that particular task/goal/mission to do so), but a ruler, may or may not exhibit leadership, may or may not be elected, but he is certainly benefiting mostly himself and the group gets the scraps, regardless of the agreement, if even that much. He doesn't have to show this to the group, and in fact most modern ruling groups hide the fact that they RULE rather than lead.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
are hardly aware that he exists.
Next best is a leader who is loved.
Next, one who is feared.
The worst is one who is despised.
If you don't trust the people,
you make them untrustworthy.
The Master doesn't talk, he acts.
When his work is done,
the people say, "Amazing:
we did it, all by ourselves!" and: The best athlete
wants his opponent at his best.
The best general
enters the mind of his enemy.
The best businessman
serves the communal good.
The best leader
follows the will of the people.
All of the embody
the virtue of non-competition.
Not that they don't love to compete,
but they do it in the spirit of play.
In this they are like children
and in harmony with the Tao. And my favorite, one of the most succinct statements on the theory of anarchism I've ever read: If you want to be a great leader,
you must learn to follow the Tao.
Stop trying to control.
Let go of fixed plans and concepts,
and the world will govern itself.
The more prohibitions you have,
the less virtuous people will be.
The more weapons you have,
the less secure people will be.
The more subsidies you have,
the less self-reliant people will be.
Therefore the Master says:
I let go of the law,
and people become honest.
I let go of economics,
and people become prosperous.
I let go of religion,
and people become serene.
I let go of all desire for the common good,
and the good becomes common as grass.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
One. If owner of large transmitter plays their cards right they can cancel out your low powered transmission. eg adding the inverse of your signal to their signal.
Two. So you're saying instead of competing about who can afford the biggest transmitters it will be who can afford the best lawyers over the longest term? Either way it seems large corporation has the advantage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Gosh, I think this just about sums up your grasp of logic right here.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
That was an interesting statement. We're even more in agreement now. (You were correct in your request, I did not write you off, I write few people off, but I do "let go" and I find that it gives me peace of mind. Change occurs internally, none can be effected externally through force.)
I didn't know you were an adherent (or rather "student") of the Tao. I am not certain the "Tao Te Ching" was "written" by Lao Tzu, but I would think it was certainly paraphrased from what writings he may well have left behind, before taking off on his famous water buffalo journey into the wastes.
His actions and teachings were similar to other prophets of the past who taught similar things, and yet the populace, lacking insight, followed the rulers (*) instead of understanding that the path is something one travels on one's own or with a few others, but rarely en masse.
*note: the rulers rarely wasted time in subverting the teachings of each subsequent prophet after Lao Tzu, once force proved an inadequate means of subjugating those who were on their path to enlightenment. A prime example of this is the council of Nicaea. Another is the council of Laodicea. The prime example in modern day is Confucianism as practiced by the Chinese authorities. What boggles the mind is WHY, and HOW is it that the students of the Tao did not succumb to statism and authoritarianism. Every other system of thought did, but those who adhere to the Tao, did not. Very curious.
I agree with what you say this time. Technically this is what I was advocating, though my approach is mostly one of lack of caring (this is why I sometimes come off as a heartless bastard, especially as of late). I tried agitating, but it simply doesn't work, as I'm sure you'd know, having a far longer history with it than I did (by the sound of it). So I figured that since I already know that liberty isn't exactly a cause that fighting will help, and try simply rubbing it in, by "it", I refer to the massive amount of stupidity or just gullibility required of people to believe that those who rule have their best interests at heart or mind.
That being said, the rulers are not entirely to blame, nor ever have they been. People, in general, don't want any form of liberty, for themselves and even less so for others. Rulers merely capitalize on this very "mass man" desire to be "better off" than others by seeing others downtrodden through the often quoted statement of "pay your fair share" rather than uplift oneself and those around one's presence. Rulers very readily jump in and provide EXACTLY this means of crushing fellow serfs, by giving the "mass man" all the means the mass men as a group will need to keep themselves enslaved, in perpetuity, without any real need to do more than routinely provide them with a few shocks to keep them in line.
Freedom, as a way of life, however, is natural, but also a difficult path (technically the Tao refers to it in several occasions) and requires a certain type of individual to enjoy it and live it fully. To work as a form of common governance, liberty/freedom requires responsibility and the ability to examine one's own actions in the light of reason, which often is an unkind light to one's own more preferable "feel good" light.
That being said, neither Liberty nor Reason nor the Tao Te Ching are things that are going to change the world. The world will have to change itself, or fail, but we're not the ones who can do that. All we can fix or mess up is our own lives.
And after having said all that, let me say that arguing certainly can be a fun, though it was far more enjoyable actually finding a common ground with a few folks out here, you included. I'm slightly surprised, but pleasantly surprised at that. Glad we could come to such an interesting meeting of minds.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
Also of Buddhism, another philosophical system that has been very corruption resistant. Which reminds me of a joke. A Buddhist monk goes to a hot dog vendor and says, "Make me one with everything." The vendor says, "That'll be two fifty," so the monk hands him a five. The vendor gives him his dog, but no change. The monk says, "Where's my change?" And the vendor replies, "Change comes from within."
You seem to have a rather low opinion of human nature. I'm just guessing, but would you say that some of your political beliefs stem from being hurt? I won't blame you or think less of you if it's true. Recent economic research seems to show that you are wrong. Take a look at the concept of Inequity Aversion. Most people are averse to inequity, and will incur financial harm to ensure it does not happen to others. Most people resort to selfishness when the system they are in rewards it and does not provide mechanisms for punishing non-cooperation. I say "most" because there are the sociopaths out there who have no aversion to inequity and no sense of empathy.
You may want to take a gander at James Demeo's Saharasia , a book that purports to show the true origins of human violence. The web site has a very good overview of the theory, so you don't need to buy the book. It was recommended to my by Robert Anton Wilson. James was a student of Wilhelm Reich. Conspiracy theory goldmine, right there.
True seekers need to be able to look at themselves without judgment. It sounds like you agree. I've found The Four Agreements to be a helpful. I've met Miguel and he comes across as sincere, even if some of his publicity comes across as, "Buy my book! Buy, buy buy!" Basically the four agreements are:
1. Be impeccable with your word. Don't misrepresent, and don't use your words to hurt yourself or others.
2. Don't take anything personally. Nothing is about you. People act the way they do for internal reasons.
3. Never make assumptions. Don't be afraid to ask for help, but be okay with, "No." Don't assume you know what others think or feel.
4. Always do your best. Rather, know that you are always doing your best, but 'best' will vary from moment to moment.
Anyway, I've got a SUSE install going for our new Sybase-on-Linux testbed, and it's bleating for attention. I think that's enough of a brain dump for one post anyhow.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Yes, I prefer a variety too, but these companies are not mine to control. They are not yours either, but, mysteriously, you feel comfortable telling them, what they can and can not do.
No I don't "feel comfortable" telling them what to do. Neither do I like the government telling me what to do. I shouldn't need a license to broadcast, whether it cost millions of dollars as broadcasting licenses do today, or if the license is free. The regulations in place today for broadcasting go back to 1934. Back then when the FCC was created from the Federal Radio Commission, itself creared in 1927, the technology available then did not allow broadcasters to use frequencies that are close. Transmissions would interfere with each other, however with the tech available today broadcasters could use frequencies that are much closer. Instead of the dozen or so broadcasters a city may have today, technology can allow dozens more. Besides allowing the use of closer frequencies, micropower radio makes it able to broadcast in a small area.
Quite simply if I wanted to start a radio station specializing in talking about model railroads without needing a license I should be able to do so. The radio spectrum is no longer the limited resource it was in 1934, heck just 20 years ago.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Anyone could start one, but competing with a large monopoly like that is impossible. They would use every trick in the book to destroy competition.
Oh really? The big media companies of today are different companies from 20 years ago. Check this out, "Does Rupert Murdoch control the media? Does anyone?". If there are problems with what TFA says then point them out, don't just trash it because who wrote or published it.
FalconShould there be a Law?
necessarily opposites. In reality it all comes down to the nature of the regulation and what intended mission of the regulation is. If your regulation is to limit anti-competitive behaviour, ensure the prevention of dilution of free-speech and ensure that companies operate within the social structure of the country, then I can only see it as a good thing. If your regulation ensures all the opposite, then I can see why you wouldn't want it.
True, however a lot of regulations today in the US do limit competition. As with regulations from the FCC.
FalconShould there be a Law?