The only method of finding the public good I am aware of is discussion, i.e. the unfettered exchange of ideas via means of communication.
Well we are now having a discussion:)
There are two related activities. Discovering the truth and acting to achieve values. Discussion at best can lead you to the truth, but by itself will not cause the action needed to create value (aside from intelectual stimulation). I think discussion is an important element in arriving at consensus about the truth and is important to bring out the truth as well. But scietific studies are what is needed to provde the data that a discussion would need to be succesfull. I do not mean to imply that you disagree with this, just thought i would point it out.
Let me mention a second thougt. It is not neccessary to understand why something works or know the theory behind it in order to successfully act to achieve a given value. To take an example from David Friedmans "Hidden Order," a person can walk successfully without knowing the details about how to walk as difficulties in attempts to get robots to walk shows.
Because of this you would expect a suggestion about the best way to allocate the spectrum to be mostly concerned not with the efficiency of resource allocation but with the oppeness and comprehensiveness of the public discussion that will result. It seems to me that the quality of the news, for example, is more important to a democratic society than the efficient transition to HDTV. I don't know how the new proposal will affect the quality of the news. Given the present dismall state of affairs, the change might even be for the better. But it is instructive that the authors couldn't care less. For them the only question is efficiency and growth. THAT is the problem, not markets vs. planning.
My guess is that the authors don't know what would produce the best discussion either. This kind of thing would be extrodianaly difficuly to predict. Markets will produce what people will consume. If people want good discusions they are likely to get them. But very few people want them.
The very fact that most Americans are unaware of the complex machinations that drive the FCC's decisions, because it is a subject never covered in depth by the news ( or simply never covered), is proof that the discussion can be controlled.
I don't agree, the reason they are unaware is because they are uninterested. If c-span were to run a 4hour special on the issue how many people do you think would tune in to watch? I don't know what c-spans ratings are but i am not very hopeful. There is a bunch of litriture on the topic but I doubt the journals articles and books on the allocation of broadcst resources are read by many. I have only read a few essays and articles myself, I am relativly interested in the subject for being completly outside the industry. Further I would argue that people, based on thier own values and needs, should not be interested and should not watch a 4 hour c-span special on the issue. Because they do not care about it, and it has only a minor effect on them relative to all the other things they can think and learn about and finaly they have a very low likelyhood of being able to influence it. Probably it would be better to spend time thinking about education, or how to get more free time to spend with your children or ect ect....
For them the only question is efficiency and growth. THAT is the problem, not markets vs. planning.
But markets vs planning is what the government is going to decide to do. It is the area that these economists believe they are experts in. It seems natural that they would focus on this. Perhaps the sociologist and the anthropologists should write a letter about the impacts this will have on discussions of the public good. Although I am sceptical that they would have anything well grounded to say. I view market efficiency as a extremly important thing a life and death issue. The main thing that differentiates life in America from North Korea. ( I agree that I just got on a big tree limb there...but i think it is supported) Market efficieny is a means of getting people what they value with the least cost. So again if people really value discussion then the market will efficiently provide them with forums for discussion. If people don't value it, then forcing it on them is not likely to help. People rarely like things that are forced upon them, even if they would be otherwise enjoyable. The question of how valuable it is to discuss the pubic good and how to encourage people to participate in the discussion, does not seem like something one would write a letter about to the FCC. Perhaps writing a editorial for a news paper or something targeded at the public that is to have the discussion would be a good idea. But it is very vauge to me how this relates to weather or not the spectrum is owned by the government and licensed to private people or if it is owned by the private peole and is regulated and policed by the government as the economist advocate.
Why is it admissible to make recommendations about communication media, an issue which has fundamental relevance to democracy, without the word "citizen" mentionned? Indeed, you might read the whole letter and get the impression that communication has nothing to do with politics. Do you/they really believe that?
Im not sure I understand this... the letter was written to change government policy clearly the authors regard the topic as political! The question is weather the government ought own the radio spectrum. I believe no, and the economist seem to agree with me. The government does not own any major component of the printing industry which is another major media of comunications? Should we make all printing presses be leased from the government to ensure balanced coverage? Which has a better airing of minority views, the printed media or the broadcast media?
Now since you criticize my criticism of the letter written by the 37 as being exceesively uni-dimensional, could you please quote the place in the letter that shows that the authors are aware of those human dimensions that go beyond consumption, and craft their recommendations with this awareness in mind?
I will grant you that the authors used econ-speak, but the were clearly aware that there are political concers. So here is the letters econ-speak quote "While 'Market Failures' can move resouce allocation away from its socialy optimal point, attempts to fix such failures are neither free nor fail-proof..." (the quote is from the bottom of page 3) The paper then goes on to advocate the establishment of rights and resposobilities to hadle such problems. You may not think this will work but it is recomendation aimed at interests that are "beyond the market" This is the most clear example but not the only one...the allowance of regulation for anti-competitice behavior being another.
. From a democratic perspective, the public good is not given, and the road to the public good is difficult to find, and that is why we need a public square where we can meet and discuss the public good.
I fear that hear we would have to expand this discussion into the full field of philosopy... The central question is weather or not markets (ie people making voluntairy agreements) are a better way of finding the public good (some composition of individual goods) or weather a government (institution with a monopoly on the use of force) democraticaly choosen is best. And in particular which is a better mechanism for the broadcast spectrum. This is a huge topic which ultimatly must be decided (as far as truth is concerned) on the basis of empirical evidence. I believe the markets are clearly better and you do not. But the ability to discuss the public good is not at issue, what is at issue is the process for acting. The good has been discussed since before the radio spectrum was discovered, the discusion can not be controled by government or any private orginization.
There is no public interest in a society without a public composed of citizens. Consumers do not agregate into a public but into "demand".
Reading these two sentences one might be surprised to learn that "citizens" and "consumers" are in fact the same entity also called humans. Society is made up of people. People can play different rolls, they can buy things and they can vote for things both are among many ways that people can express their humanity. Voting is not a divine path to the "public good."
While corporate lobbyists influences the process, they are not the ones to primarly blame. The Congress passed these laws and the President signed them. The corporate lobbyists exist only because the government has the power and willingness to use it. If you want to limit the influece of corporate, or any other kind, of lobbyists then you need to limit the power of government. So long as the government spends trillions of dollars a year and can pass laws creating a wiping out industries you will have people trying to influce them. While one can look upon those lobbyists as being in bad taste, it is in the structure and power of the Government that is spoiled.
other quotes expressing the same misplaced venum:
"corporate lobbyists, panicked by file-sharing on the Net, succesfully manipulated Congress"
"It is precisely this principle that corporate lobbyists destroyed when they got Congress to pass new kinds of copyright laws "
Re:Dissappointed to hear it is biased.
on
Republic.Com
·
· Score: 1
<i>The "Nazi is short for National Socialist, therefore the Nazis weren't right-wing" blather is frankly offensive. Totalitarianism isn't unique to either the right wing or the left. </i>
<p>
It is however true that there is a great deal of overlap in the concepts of State Socialism (there are other kinds) and Totalitarianism. Socialism in it's traditional form saw the state as the orginizer of econominc life. Totalitarianism includes this position. </p>
<p> If you find the association of "Left" and NAZI offensive then think you have an overly emotional attachment to the word "Left" . The terms "Left and Right" stem from a discription of two sides in a french assebly. Left and Right do not stand for any particular philisophical position, and thier meaning varies greatly from place to place and over time. The use of the terms "Left and Right" are simply a vacuous substitute for having to deal witht the actual positions of a given person or group. The same is true of conservative and liberal.</p>
True. The only exception would be if there was a small finite amount and more could not be discovered, and it could not be lost. That way the supply would stay the same as would the money.
The exception to this is that you could learn to use your limited resource more efficiently. In other words the same amount of silicon and aluminum can produce a lot more computations with a better process technology.
But, that has a problem in a world of increasing population.
As Julian Simon observed the application of intelligence to the problem of meeting human needs can turn a finite amount of something into an infinite resource.
Without government setting up a detailed web of laws, rules, balances, and without government enforcement of those laws, rules, and balances, there would be no invisible hand or free market in which economic players, open source or otherwise could compete.
Some of the basic principles that underlay economics are: the division of labor, trade and that people pursue values. These three principles operate with or without a government. People have always pursued values. And there is ample archaeological evidence that trade occurred across vast distances long before governments (ie the state) existed. It is certainly true that government and markets have co-evolved and had great influences on each other. But that does not necessitate that one requires the other. I do agree that markets need rules, but those rules do not need to originate in government. (ie an organization with a local monopoly on the use of force) David Friedman has interesting insights into ways this might work, one such example is at http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Libertarian/Machinery_of _Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html
But intellectual curiosity aside, it is certainly true that governments do regulate markets and we have to deal with that.
Americans seem to love to hate law and government.
Ah but the irony, we seem to love to elect people that expand the government and the reach of it's laws.
Slashdot Mirror
Well we are now having a discussion :)
There are two related activities. Discovering the truth and acting to achieve values. Discussion at best can lead you to the truth, but by itself will not cause the action needed to create value (aside from intelectual stimulation). I think discussion is an important element in arriving at consensus about the truth and is important to bring out the truth as well. But scietific studies are what is needed to provde the data that a discussion would need to be succesfull. I do not mean to imply that you disagree with this, just thought i would point it out.
Let me mention a second thougt. It is not neccessary to understand why something works or know the theory behind it in order to successfully act to achieve a given value. To take an example from David Friedmans "Hidden Order," a person can walk successfully without knowing the details about how to walk as difficulties in attempts to get robots to walk shows.
Because of this you would expect a suggestion about the best way to allocate the spectrum to be mostly concerned not with the efficiency of resource allocation but with the oppeness and comprehensiveness of the public discussion that will result. It seems to me that the quality of the news, for example, is more important to a democratic society than the efficient transition to HDTV. I don't know how the new proposal will affect the quality of the news. Given the present dismall state of affairs, the change might even be for the better. But it is instructive that the authors couldn't care less. For them the only question is efficiency and growth. THAT is the problem, not markets vs. planning.
My guess is that the authors don't know what would produce the best discussion either. This kind of thing would be extrodianaly difficuly to predict. Markets will produce what people will consume. If people want good discusions they are likely to get them. But very few people want them.
The very fact that most Americans are unaware of the complex machinations that drive the FCC's decisions, because it is a subject never covered in depth by the news ( or simply never covered), is proof that the discussion can be controlled.
I don't agree, the reason they are unaware is because they are uninterested. If c-span were to run a 4hour special on the issue how many people do you think would tune in to watch? I don't know what c-spans ratings are but i am not very hopeful. There is a bunch of litriture on the topic but I doubt the journals articles and books on the allocation of broadcst resources are read by many. I have only read a few essays and articles myself, I am relativly interested in the subject for being completly outside the industry. Further I would argue that people, based on thier own values and needs, should not be interested and should not watch a 4 hour c-span special on the issue. Because they do not care about it, and it has only a minor effect on them relative to all the other things they can think and learn about and finaly they have a very low likelyhood of being able to influence it. Probably it would be better to spend time thinking about education, or how to get more free time to spend with your children or ect ect....
For them the only question is efficiency and growth. THAT is the problem, not markets vs. planning.
But markets vs planning is what the government is going to decide to do. It is the area that these economists believe they are experts in. It seems natural that they would focus on this. Perhaps the sociologist and the anthropologists should write a letter about the impacts this will have on discussions of the public good. Although I am sceptical that they would have anything well grounded to say. I view market efficiency as a extremly important thing a life and death issue. The main thing that differentiates life in America from North Korea. ( I agree that I just got on a big tree limb there...but i think it is supported) Market efficieny is a means of getting people what they value with the least cost. So again if people really value discussion then the market will efficiently provide them with forums for discussion. If people don't value it, then forcing it on them is not likely to help. People rarely like things that are forced upon them, even if they would be otherwise enjoyable. The question of how valuable it is to discuss the pubic good and how to encourage people to participate in the discussion, does not seem like something one would write a letter about to the FCC. Perhaps writing a editorial for a news paper or something targeded at the public that is to have the discussion would be a good idea. But it is very vauge to me how this relates to weather or not the spectrum is owned by the government and licensed to private people or if it is owned by the private peole and is regulated and policed by the government as the economist advocate.
Thank you for your reply
Rob Sperry
rws1st@yahoo.com
Im not sure I understand this... the letter was written to change government policy clearly the authors regard the topic as political! The question is weather the government ought own the radio spectrum. I believe no, and the economist seem to agree with me. The government does not own any major component of the printing industry which is another major media of comunications? Should we make all printing presses be leased from the government to ensure balanced coverage? Which has a better airing of minority views, the printed media or the broadcast media?
Now since you criticize my criticism of the letter written by the 37 as being exceesively uni-dimensional, could you please quote the place in the letter that shows that the authors are aware of those human dimensions that go beyond consumption, and craft their recommendations with this awareness in mind?
I will grant you that the authors used econ-speak, but the were clearly aware that there are political concers. So here is the letters econ-speak quote "While 'Market Failures' can move resouce allocation away from its socialy optimal point, attempts to fix such failures are neither free nor fail-proof..." (the quote is from the bottom of page 3) The paper then goes on to advocate the establishment of rights and resposobilities to hadle such problems. You may not think this will work but it is recomendation aimed at interests that are "beyond the market" This is the most clear example but not the only one...the allowance of regulation for anti-competitice behavior being another.
. From a democratic perspective, the public good is not given, and the road to the public good is difficult to find, and that is why we need a public square where we can meet and discuss the public good.
I fear that hear we would have to expand this discussion into the full field of philosopy... The central question is weather or not markets (ie people making voluntairy agreements) are a better way of finding the public good (some composition of individual goods) or weather a government (institution with a monopoly on the use of force) democraticaly choosen is best. And in particular which is a better mechanism for the broadcast spectrum. This is a huge topic which ultimatly must be decided (as far as truth is concerned) on the basis of empirical evidence. I believe the markets are clearly better and you do not. But the ability to discuss the public good is not at issue, what is at issue is the process for acting. The good has been discussed since before the radio spectrum was discovered, the discusion can not be controled by government or any private orginization.
Reading these two sentences one might be surprised to learn that "citizens" and "consumers" are in fact the same entity also called humans. Society is made up of people. People can play different rolls, they can buy things and they can vote for things both are among many ways that people can express their humanity. Voting is not a divine path to the "public good."
"Corporate lobbyists made it a federal crime..."
While corporate lobbyists influences the process, they are not the ones to primarly blame. The Congress passed these laws and the President signed them. The corporate lobbyists exist only because the government has the power and willingness to use it. If you want to limit the influece of corporate, or any other kind, of lobbyists then you need to limit the power of government. So long as the government spends trillions of dollars a year and can pass laws creating a wiping out industries you will have people trying to influce them. While one can look upon those lobbyists as being in bad taste, it is in the structure and power of the Government that is spoiled.
other quotes expressing the same misplaced venum:
"corporate lobbyists, panicked by file-sharing on the Net, succesfully manipulated Congress"
"It is precisely this principle that corporate lobbyists destroyed when they got Congress to pass new kinds of copyright laws "
<i>The "Nazi is short for National Socialist, therefore the Nazis weren't right-wing" blather is frankly offensive. Totalitarianism isn't unique to either the right wing or the left. </i>
<p>
It is however true that there is a great deal of overlap in the concepts of State Socialism (there are other kinds) and Totalitarianism. Socialism in it's traditional form saw the state as the orginizer of econominc life. Totalitarianism includes this position. </p>
<p> If you find the association of "Left" and NAZI offensive then think you have an overly emotional attachment to the word "Left" . The terms "Left and Right" stem from a discription of two sides in a french assebly. Left and Right do not stand for any particular philisophical position, and thier meaning varies greatly from place to place and over time. The use of the terms "Left and Right" are simply a vacuous substitute for having to deal witht the actual positions of a given person or group. The same is true of conservative and liberal.</p>
True. The only exception would be if there was a small finite amount and more could not be discovered, and it could not be lost. That way the supply would stay the same as would the money.
The exception to this is that you could learn to use your limited resource more efficiently. In other words the same amount of silicon and aluminum can produce a lot more computations with a better process technology.
But, that has a problem in a world of increasing population.
As Julian Simon observed the application of intelligence to the problem of meeting human needs can turn a finite amount of something into an infinite resource.
Without government setting up a detailed web of laws, rules, balances, and without government enforcement of those laws, rules, and balances, there would be no invisible hand or free market in which economic players, open source or otherwise could compete.
f _Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html
Some of the basic principles that underlay economics are: the division of labor, trade and that people pursue values. These three principles operate with or without a government. People have always pursued values. And there is ample archaeological evidence that trade occurred across vast distances long before governments (ie the state) existed. It is certainly true that government and markets have co-evolved and had great influences on each other. But that does not necessitate that one requires the other. I do agree that markets need rules, but those rules do not need to originate in government. (ie an organization with a local monopoly on the use of force) David Friedman has interesting insights into ways this might work, one such example is at http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Libertarian/Machinery_o
But intellectual curiosity aside, it is certainly true that governments do regulate markets and we have to deal with that.
Americans seem to love to hate law and government.
Ah but the irony, we seem to love to elect people that expand the government and the reach of it's laws.