if you think NPR is biased, as many conservatives do, it just shows where YOU stand.
Of course it is biased. Just as with all communication, they choose what content to present, what angle to cover, which details to explore, which guests to bring on, etc.
The real question is, by what standard do they make these decisions. I don't have a good answer to this, but I suspect it lies somewhere in the Leftist philosophy stack (skepticism, altruism, collectivism).
that's exactly what corporations want you to believe, because public funding will be the only thing that frees journalists from the corporate teat. It will effectively shut down the corporate media oligarchy we have today.
If governments and corporations were not effectively organs of each other, there would be no advantage to lobbying for government favortism.
That's why we need a separation between state and economics, just as - and for the same reason as - the separation of church and state.
Governments hold a legal monopoly on the use of physical force. If a bureaucrat can hurt your business by withholding permits and licenses, and can help your competitors through special franchises and subsidies, then it is perfectly rational for corporations to try to influence the outcome.
Take away the government guns, and all a business can do is use persuasion and voluntary agreements.
Seems to me there are a lot more corporations that need watching than governments.
The difference is that the government has a legal monopoly on the use of physical force, whereas businesses (properly) only rely on voluntary relationships established through contracts
But when governments and corporations become organs of each other, that is the real danger. That is fascism, which is a form of statism. The answer is a separation of state and economics, just as, and for the same reason as, the separation of church and state.
Its sad that the 'small government' people are cozying up to dictators, warlords, and thugs because they envy success done with the large modern state which is almost always democratic, free market, and free speech.
I know quite a few Objectivists and libertarians, and I'm unaware of this "cozying". To the extent that there is admiration of countries like China, Hong Kong, and Australia, it is to the extent that these countries have been recently increasing their freedom.
Of course, none of these countries relegates government to its proper role of protecting the individual, but they are on a trend of increasing economic freedom, whereas the U.S. is trending toward decreasing economic freedom.
The economic controls in the U.S. have caused a steady exodus of wealth creation. I don't think we're at the tipping point, but at some point the stifling lack of freedom in the U.S. will push people to emigrate to countries that are more respectful of freedom.
I'm also not so optimistic about social freedoms in the U.S. The West made huge progress, as you indicated, but with the growth of things like "hate crimes" and "hate speech", and the tamp down on political speech - I fear it is also headed in the wrong direction.
if government is inevitable . . . if it doesn't work for the citizens, it will be controlled by the rich and powerful for their own benefit.
That is where the concept of individual rights comes in, which holds that the individual is free from coercion from other groups or individuals.
The proper role of government is to protect individual rights. But instead of protecting the individual, today's governments abrogate those rights by forcibly taking citizen's wealth and giving it to corporations, or the poor, or whatever pressure group screams the loudest.
The merging of large corporations and government is essentially Fascism, which, like Socialism, is a form of Statism - the doctrine that the government can legitimately violate an individual's rights, instead of protecting the individual.
In this view, the individual is merely a resource to be sucked up and used by central planners in their latest statist schemes.
I think the real reason behind slime-balls like Mandelson signing up to legislation that targets downloaders is to restrict freedom of speech on the internet.
That's a serious charge, and I don't see the evidence for it. It seems much more likely that it is about protecting intellectual property.
The process of life requires pollution. Not to be graphic, but life literally sustains itself by converting the environment (air, water, food) into pollution. On top of that, creating our comforts and pleasures require additional pollution.
The countries that pollute the least in the world are the countries with the shortest lifespans and the harshest living conditions.
The trick is not to eliminate pollution, but just remove it so it doesn't harm people. We are already quite effective at that. (And when we aren't it's usually due to a lack of property rights)
The longer and more comfortable a human life is, the more pollution is required.
The only way to eliminate pollution is to eliminate life itself.
The same set of allegations could be said for any random organization of people.
Random organizations of people aren't given special powers by the Wagner Act and other legislation.
Unions are government-backed and government favored. They are not free and voluntary relationships.
The Wagner Act gave unions the coercive negotiating power that railroaded the Big Three into their lavish, unprofitable wage and health plans.
Granted that's not the only reason for GM's failure, there is also the fact that CAFE fuel economy laws arbitrarily dictate what kind of cars GM must sell, forcing them to sell millions of small cars that have no chance of profitability given consumer preferences.
GMs money makers have always been trucks and larger vehicles.
I am writing on behalf of Julius Genachowski at the FCC. He is not
part of a government for sale, nor does he use his power to to influence
and control individuals to satisfy his vision of doing things The Government
Way. Julius often skips the fancy perks that come with being a
preeminent central planner - like passing along insider stock tips to friends,
engaging in mutual back-scratching, or joining boards of directors after his tenure
has expired. Julius is consistent - he doesn't desire great wealth or fancy
cars, he is completely satisfied with ruling. Even though Julius is perfectly
aware of the enormous power he wields - and it's relationship to the massive
centralization of power in the federal government, you can be sure that Julius
will remain discreet, say the right things, and ensure the preservation and
growth of power for rising ranks of power-lusters ready to fill his shoes.
Julius understands full well the intricacies of transforming individual liberty
into government control, and the intellectual knots required to keep people
desiring this transfer. Consequently, I duly recommend that Julius be
appointed appointed for life, and that this appointment should be
executed as soon as possible.
I agree. AT&T and Verizon should be forbidden from donating money or sending lobbyists into Congress
Not at all, that would be a violation of freedom of (political) speech.
Instead what you should be advocating for is a separation of state and economics, just as - and for the same reason - as the separation between church and state.
Government-backed unions coerce employers to negotiate with them, restrict non-union workers from being hired, mandate arbitrary make-work schemes and featherbedding practices--and, at times, have assaulted and even murdered workers independent enough to cross picket lines during strikes. - Andrew Bernstein
Just look at the failure and subsequent nationalization of General Motors for an example of union power.
I will agree that there has never been full individual freedom, but there definitely was a principled approach to place government as a servant of the individual, not the other way around as all other government's have been.
The primary reason that a large-scale pro-individual movement has not sprung up is because, even at the founding of the US, altruism had already taken root as an widely adopted ethical premise. Even Jefferson, with his Jesus-stripped version of the bible, was particularly keen of the self-sacrificial elements.
In that sense, there has been a 250 year contradiction: on the political hand, the individual should be free, but on the ethical hand, man must give up his life for others.
Only a handful of thinkers throughout history have ever challenged altruism, which is the cornerstone of anti-freedom, anti-man, and anti-YOU. The battle over self will the seminal issue of the modern world.
I merely think that it would be a good idea to spend the remaining stuff more wisely
If it's your stuff, you can decide. If it's not your stuff, it's not your right to dictate how it gets used.
If someone violates your freedom, you can stop them. But you cannot, yourself or through government, force other people to do things.
without intervention always collapse to some form of monopoly
Only the government has the power to force you to do things against your will. Any monopoly that ever existed did so backed by government sanction - through special franchises, subsidies, or even outright government takeover, such as with the Post Office and schools. These are real, coercive monopolies forced on us by the government.
And free market, as a whole, only takes into account short-term effects
In a free market, people are rewarded for long-range thinking, and penalized for short-sighted mistakes. It's only in a statist society, like our mixed-economy, in which bureaucrats take a range-of-the-moment view of issues, in which we have no time for long-range principles, only for pragmatism.
Oil prices do not include externalities
That is because we have, at best, a prematurely aborted concept of property rights. When all property is privately owned, polluters are liable for the damage they cause, if and when it can be proven.
It's why the working system on which pretty much all of the First World has settled in the end is quasi-free competitive market
Make no mistake about it - nothing has "settled". We are in a transition, and have been since the U.S. was created 250 years ago. At first, individuals were free - free from the government, free from the group, and free from eachother. With that freedom came self-responsibility. With self-responsibility came wealth, pride, benevolence, and optimism.
Since then, we have abrogated freedom, removed self-responsibility, hated wealth, condemned pride, replaced benevolence with stale duty, and substituted a shrugging indifference for optimism.
And with this change have come wars and economic disasters, all of which were due to those with power attempting to control those without.
I think you greatly underestimate the benefit of oil-based fuel, and its transformative effect on humans over the last 150 years.
If oil continues to be used as fuel, it is precisely because it is fuel is so valuable to us.
Prices are usually important signals in the market indicating things like supply, demand, and scarcity - and are important in indicating when it's time for a market change by driving people to satisfy the new market conditions (whether that is alternative energy or something else)
Unfortunately, prices today are often the fact of sever market dislocations caused by the government attempting to control and plan the economy, often creating bubbles and unpredictable market changes.
You are clearly ignorant of the key problem with the Google books settlement (as it currently stands), which is that Google and only Google will be given the right to reproduce orphaned works.
This should be up to whoever holds the legal rights to decide. Their rights, their decision. If the rights-holder will only allow Google to reproduce the works, then that is their decision to make.
I certainly disagree with you that public healthcare is better than private. There is a reason why America exports so much medicine and medical technology, and why people from other countries come to the U.S. for treatment - because our system is better.
Moreover, every aspect of health care has been increasingly regulated for 50 years, which is why the US has some problems today. All around us we see the failures of the regulatory state. Central planning doesn't work and it's failures are evident, everywhere
Here is one American viewpoint for you: my life and my property are not a means to other people's ends. Just because somebody, somewhere, needs something does not mean that I must be forced to provide it.
if you are somehow suggesting that by taking government out of economic decisions you will lesson corporate influence over those decisions
That is exactly what he is suggesting, and it is patently obvious. The government rewards special privileges, franchises, subsidies, and other government-coerced favors through law. The government influences winners and losers all the time through legal power and government fiat. The geyser of taxpayer cash is aimed roughly in the direction of "special interests" with the understanding that power and influence will splash back on them.
It is naive to believe that somehow "evil corporations" like Apple and Google are out to get us all with their "iPods" and "Search Engines", and we need to be saved by Washington bureaucrats.
All a business can do is offer you a product. They cannot force you to buy it.
The government, however, has a legal monopoly on the use of force in society. That power should be restricted to protecting individuals (as per the Constitution). The government should not be controlling and making decisions for us.
Historically, the US government was the first to subordinate government to the individual. For the first time in history, you, the individual, were given a sanction to live - free from others controlling you and forcing you against your will. Unfortunately, through a long road of altruist, anti-individual mentality, many Americans have been guilted into giving up their freedom at the expense of the growth of government power and bureaucratic control over all our lives.
Slashdot Mirror
if you think NPR is biased, as many conservatives do, it just shows where YOU stand.
Of course it is biased. Just as with all communication, they choose what content to present, what angle to cover, which details to explore, which guests to bring on, etc.
The real question is, by what standard do they make these decisions. I don't have a good answer to this, but I suspect it lies somewhere in the Leftist philosophy stack (skepticism, altruism, collectivism).
that's exactly what corporations want you to believe, because public funding will be the only thing that frees journalists from the corporate teat. It will effectively shut down the corporate media oligarchy we have today.
If governments and corporations were not effectively organs of each other, there would be no advantage to lobbying for government favortism.
That's why we need a separation between state and economics, just as - and for the same reason as - the separation of church and state.
Governments hold a legal monopoly on the use of physical force. If a bureaucrat can hurt your business by withholding permits and licenses, and can help your competitors through special franchises and subsidies, then it is perfectly rational for corporations to try to influence the outcome.
Take away the government guns, and all a business can do is use persuasion and voluntary agreements.
Seems to me there are a lot more corporations that need watching than governments.
The difference is that the government has a legal monopoly on the use of physical force, whereas businesses (properly) only rely on voluntary relationships established through contracts
But when governments and corporations become organs of each other, that is the real danger. That is fascism, which is a form of statism. The answer is a separation of state and economics, just as, and for the same reason as, the separation of church and state.
The political role of Norwegian media is very much an individual opinion, and opinions vary.
What is not in opinion is that, if the government can hurt your business and help your competitor, then you better not piss off the government.
What a fantastic way to ensure a free press: have them paid by the very institution they're supposed to be the watchdogs for
That's an excellent point.
The same idea applies to higher education - the U.S. is taking over all lending to higher ed.
Its sad that the 'small government' people are cozying up to dictators, warlords, and thugs because they envy success done with the large modern state which is almost always democratic, free market, and free speech.
I know quite a few Objectivists and libertarians, and I'm unaware of this "cozying". To the extent that there is admiration of countries like China, Hong Kong, and Australia, it is to the extent that these countries have been recently increasing their freedom.
Of course, none of these countries relegates government to its proper role of protecting the individual, but they are on a trend of increasing economic freedom, whereas the U.S. is trending toward decreasing economic freedom.
The economic controls in the U.S. have caused a steady exodus of wealth creation. I don't think we're at the tipping point, but at some point the stifling lack of freedom in the U.S. will push people to emigrate to countries that are more respectful of freedom.
I'm also not so optimistic about social freedoms in the U.S. The West made huge progress, as you indicated, but with the growth of things like "hate crimes" and "hate speech", and the tamp down on political speech - I fear it is also headed in the wrong direction.
if government is inevitable . . . if it doesn't work for the citizens, it will be controlled by the rich and powerful for their own benefit.
That is where the concept of individual rights comes in, which holds that the individual is free from coercion from other groups or individuals.
The proper role of government is to protect individual rights. But instead of protecting the individual, today's governments abrogate those rights by forcibly taking citizen's wealth and giving it to corporations, or the poor, or whatever pressure group screams the loudest.
The merging of large corporations and government is essentially Fascism, which, like Socialism, is a form of Statism - the doctrine that the government can legitimately violate an individual's rights, instead of protecting the individual.
In this view, the individual is merely a resource to be sucked up and used by central planners in their latest statist schemes.
Maybe if you'd let the doctors deal with drugs instead of insisting to have the police take care of it
If the government controls the doctors, then there isn't much difference.
I think the real reason behind slime-balls like Mandelson signing up to legislation that targets downloaders is to restrict freedom of speech on the internet.
That's a serious charge, and I don't see the evidence for it. It seems much more likely that it is about protecting intellectual property.
Alan Greenspan hasn't been a capitalist since the 60's, any more than Hillary Clinton is (who professed to be a deep fan of Atlas Shrugged).
The process of life requires pollution. Not to be graphic, but life literally sustains itself by converting the environment (air, water, food) into pollution. On top of that, creating our comforts and pleasures require additional pollution.
The countries that pollute the least in the world are the countries with the shortest lifespans and the harshest living conditions.
The trick is not to eliminate pollution, but just remove it so it doesn't harm people. We are already quite effective at that. (And when we aren't it's usually due to a lack of property rights)
The longer and more comfortable a human life is, the more pollution is required.
The only way to eliminate pollution is to eliminate life itself.
The same set of allegations could be said for any random organization of people.
Random organizations of people aren't given special powers by the Wagner Act and other legislation.
Unions are government-backed and government favored. They are not free and voluntary relationships.
The Wagner Act gave unions the coercive negotiating power that railroaded the Big Three into their lavish, unprofitable wage and health plans.
Granted that's not the only reason for GM's failure, there is also the fact that CAFE fuel economy laws arbitrarily dictate what kind of cars GM must sell, forcing them to sell millions of small cars that have no chance of profitability given consumer preferences.
GMs money makers have always been trucks and larger vehicles.
I am writing on behalf of Julius Genachowski at the FCC. He is not
part of a government for sale, nor does he use his power to to influence
and control individuals to satisfy his vision of doing things The Government
Way. Julius often skips the fancy perks that come with being a
preeminent central planner - like passing along insider stock tips to friends,
engaging in mutual back-scratching, or joining boards of directors after his tenure
has expired. Julius is consistent - he doesn't desire great wealth or fancy
cars, he is completely satisfied with ruling. Even though Julius is perfectly
aware of the enormous power he wields - and it's relationship to the massive
centralization of power in the federal government, you can be sure that Julius
will remain discreet, say the right things, and ensure the preservation and
growth of power for rising ranks of power-lusters ready to fill his shoes.
Julius understands full well the intricacies of transforming individual liberty
into government control, and the intellectual knots required to keep people
desiring this transfer. Consequently, I duly recommend that Julius be
appointed appointed for life, and that this appointment should be
executed as soon as possible.
I agree. AT&T and Verizon should be forbidden from donating money or sending lobbyists into Congress
Not at all, that would be a violation of freedom of (political) speech.
Instead what you should be advocating for is a separation of state and economics, just as - and for the same reason - as the separation between church and state.
Some of us would like to preserve the illusion that our government isn't totally at the beck and call of corporate interests.
That is why you need a separation of state and economics, just as - and for the same reason - as the separation between church and state.
Government-backed unions coerce employers to negotiate with them, restrict non-union workers from being hired, mandate arbitrary make-work schemes and featherbedding practices--and, at times, have assaulted and even murdered workers independent enough to cross picket lines during strikes. - Andrew Bernstein
Just look at the failure and subsequent nationalization of General Motors for an example of union power.
My point is simply that all a business can (legally) do is offer things. You can walk away any time.
All a business can do is offer you a product. They cannot force you to buy it.
Read up on the history of company towns.
Read up on how to move to another town
I will agree that there has never been full individual freedom, but there definitely was a principled approach to place government as a servant of the individual, not the other way around as all other government's have been.
The primary reason that a large-scale pro-individual movement has not sprung up is because, even at the founding of the US, altruism had already taken root as an widely adopted ethical premise. Even Jefferson, with his Jesus-stripped version of the bible, was particularly keen of the self-sacrificial elements.
In that sense, there has been a 250 year contradiction: on the political hand, the individual should be free, but on the ethical hand, man must give up his life for others.
Only a handful of thinkers throughout history have ever challenged altruism, which is the cornerstone of anti-freedom, anti-man, and anti-YOU. The battle over self will the seminal issue of the modern world.
I merely think that it would be a good idea to spend the remaining stuff more wisely
If it's your stuff, you can decide. If it's not your stuff, it's not your right to dictate how it gets used.
If someone violates your freedom, you can stop them. But you cannot, yourself or through government, force other people to do things.
without intervention always collapse to some form of monopoly
Only the government has the power to force you to do things against your will. Any monopoly that ever existed did so backed by government sanction - through special franchises, subsidies, or even outright government takeover, such as with the Post Office and schools. These are real, coercive monopolies forced on us by the government.
And free market, as a whole, only takes into account short-term effects
In a free market, people are rewarded for long-range thinking, and penalized for short-sighted mistakes. It's only in a statist society, like our mixed-economy, in which bureaucrats take a range-of-the-moment view of issues, in which we have no time for long-range principles, only for pragmatism.
Oil prices do not include externalities
That is because we have, at best, a prematurely aborted concept of property rights. When all property is privately owned, polluters are liable for the damage they cause, if and when it can be proven.
It's why the working system on which pretty much all of the First World has settled in the end is quasi-free competitive market
Make no mistake about it - nothing has "settled". We are in a transition, and have been since the U.S. was created 250 years ago. At first, individuals were free - free from the government, free from the group, and free from eachother. With that freedom came self-responsibility. With self-responsibility came wealth, pride, benevolence, and optimism.
Since then, we have abrogated freedom, removed self-responsibility, hated wealth, condemned pride, replaced benevolence with stale duty, and substituted a shrugging indifference for optimism.
And with this change have come wars and economic disasters, all of which were due to those with power attempting to control those without.
I think you greatly underestimate the benefit of oil-based fuel, and its transformative effect on humans over the last 150 years.
If oil continues to be used as fuel, it is precisely because it is fuel is so valuable to us.
Prices are usually important signals in the market indicating things like supply, demand, and scarcity - and are important in indicating when it's time for a market change by driving people to satisfy the new market conditions (whether that is alternative energy or something else)
Unfortunately, prices today are often the fact of sever market dislocations caused by the government attempting to control and plan the economy, often creating bubbles and unpredictable market changes.
You are clearly ignorant of the key problem with the Google books settlement (as it currently stands), which is that Google and only Google will be given the right to reproduce orphaned works.
This should be up to whoever holds the legal rights to decide. Their rights, their decision. If the rights-holder will only allow Google to reproduce the works, then that is their decision to make.
Well it's not broken - but it is true that 50+ years of government :"reform" have hurt the industry and the people who need it.
This is a failure of the regulatory state, which already regulates and controls a great deal of the health care industry.
I certainly disagree with you that public healthcare is better than private. There is a reason why America exports so much medicine and medical technology, and why people from other countries come to the U.S. for treatment - because our system is better.
Moreover, every aspect of health care has been increasingly regulated for 50 years, which is why the US has some problems today. All around us we see the failures of the regulatory state. Central planning doesn't work and it's failures are evident, everywhere
Here is one American viewpoint for you: my life and my property are not a means to other people's ends. Just because somebody, somewhere, needs something does not mean that I must be forced to provide it.
if you are somehow suggesting that by taking government out of economic decisions you will lesson corporate influence over those decisions
That is exactly what he is suggesting, and it is patently obvious. The government rewards special privileges, franchises, subsidies, and other government-coerced favors through law. The government influences winners and losers all the time through legal power and government fiat. The geyser of taxpayer cash is aimed roughly in the direction of "special interests" with the understanding that power and influence will splash back on them.
It is naive to believe that somehow "evil corporations" like Apple and Google are out to get us all with their "iPods" and "Search Engines", and we need to be saved by Washington bureaucrats.
All a business can do is offer you a product. They cannot force you to buy it.
The government, however, has a legal monopoly on the use of force in society. That power should be restricted to protecting individuals (as per the Constitution). The government should not be controlling and making decisions for us.
Historically, the US government was the first to subordinate government to the individual. For the first time in history, you, the individual, were given a sanction to live - free from others controlling you and forcing you against your will. Unfortunately, through a long road of altruist, anti-individual mentality, many Americans have been guilted into giving up their freedom at the expense of the growth of government power and bureaucratic control over all our lives.