Comments on: The Baptists Are The Bootleggers: FCC Edition

By: aaron

aaron — Sat, 03 Dec 2005 13:16:46 +0000

Well, I am a Baptist and let first say that a very small fraction of televangelists are Baptists.

However, this is just another attempt to use the system in place to try and exert monopolistic powers and market coercion.

The real issue is that the FCC, by its very existence, creates the problem that we as free-marketers try to correct by way of privatization and deregulation.

I just wish that everyone was free to choose and that the FCC did not exist in the first place to create these issues.

By: Jim Bradley

Jim Bradley — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 06:24:21 +0000

ANM — Free speech isn’t “choosing what you want to hear”. Clearly a judge handing down a sentence isn’t contrary to the free speech rights of the defendant.

Free speech is a private property right: i.e. you’ve the right to speak on your own property to people who come willingly to hear you. Public property is more complex case, and to the extent we can minimize public property the better. Public property creates many problems (e.g.: management by the state that you are forced to pay for irrespective of the quality of the product or the correct use of the property).

No one has a right to buy things the way they want, only to buy what is offered for sale. One cannot demand (i.e. use force against a seller) that a car be offered “in parts” if the seller does not desire to offer his property in that manner.

Cable companies should not be subject to any bundling or unbundling by force of government.

By: ANM

ANM — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 18:00:50 +0000

“free-speech advocates who are fearful that the unbundling of cable channels is being used by anti-indecency advocates as a tool against provocative shows.”
That’s false free speech because
A) Free speech includes choosing what you want to hear. Changing to the “ala carte” method promotes free speech, by allowing you greater freedom to tailor your choices (thereby you give funds only to those channels you deem worthy). Free speech does not mean shoving objectionable material in your face (not at all to advocate indeceny regulation).
B) Free speech cannot exist when (FCC) bureaucrats are breathing down your back in wait of some nebulous indecency violation.

The best short term solution is (short of abolishing the FCC) letting the companies do what they want. Perhaps they will continue to offer both ala carte and the status quo, albeit with modified prices.