Those who continue to tout the positive role of the state in technological innovation (“the gov’t made the Internet!”) should read this chilling tale of what happened to the inventor of FM radio, Edwin Armstrong. In short, the FCC and established big businessmen (naming names: David Sarnoff of RCA) kept FM buried for decades and devastated its inventor. Monstrous!
An excellent article (pdf) by B.K. Marcus in the current JLS contains a thorough account of the origins of radio regulation in the U.S. and how Rothbardian property theory solves the problems of allocating spectrum… With no need for the fascist FCC.
[Thanks Digg]
{ 47 comments }
I think it is a big mistake to treat spectrum like a property right. Sure the FCC is an even bigger mistake, but treating it like property is not wise. Spectrum rights are nothing at all like water rights.
To see my point, imagine for a minute that people communicated by putting colored light bulbs on top of their house and blinking them on and off, and then the government came along and said Joe can only own the color red in a 3 mile radius, Jane can only own the color blue. It would be easy to see how this could lead to regulatory disaster in peoples personal lives, even a police state.
Well, this is exactly, and I mean EXACTLY what would happen with spectrum ownership. Because spectrum (physics wise) is nothing more than colors of light that we can’t see. The fact that some receptors would get confused by multiple light-bulbs of the same color is a limited technology problem, not a limited resource/property problem.
With light, it doesn’t seem like a problem to us because our eyeballs can seperate out the locations of millions of different light bulbs of the same color at the same time. With spectrum, it does seem like a problem to us because most receptors are dumb, and have no directional sense at all, they can’t tell a source on their right from their left. And the best way in the universe to make sure the receptors remain dumb and stuck with old technology is to try and treat spectrum colors like property slices.
Consider the unregulated 802.11b spectrum. Sure there has been lots of spectrum interference, but also break-neck innovation in that space. Are people suffering in agony, going without as 802.11b anarchy causes a tragedy of the commons – nope. In fact just the opposite happened.
Spectrum interference wastes energy, and causes costs and communication problems for BOTH parties that interfere, not just one. It is mostly not possible to have situations where one side gains at the others loss. There is plenty of natural incentive to minimize interference and cooperate even with total spectrum anarchy.
There is no natural limit on the supply and demand of photons be they light photons or radio photons. IMHO, to controll how people are allowed to occilate their frequencies and send them out their window for the most part is immoral and way outside the bounds of government.
One more thing. I hope it’s not bad form to reply twice, but my first response was before getting to the last few pages of the pdf about radio spectrum.
If you take a flash light and point it toward your west bedroom wall, and then you take another one and point it toward your east bedroom wall. You will find that even though the light beams cross, they have no effect on each other at all. Not even if they are trillion watt laser beams. The interference that we experience in radio, is once again, not from the transmitters, but from the receivers limitations – which would be an awfull property measure because they are always changing, and the transmitters have no control over the receiving systems, and also the reciving and the transmitting systems are often in motion. Having a property system around them is just begging for government to oversteap it’s bounds. (hmmm, look at what happaned)
In this paper he argues about a saturation
“scarsity” point that would be reached in spectrum “anarchy”, but the point is that there is none. (well technically, there is some at close angles at the quantum level, but we would all be fried toasted marshmellows before ever reaching that level, and even at that level the technology for photon spin could still bypass interference problems).
Just like with light, everyone can go into a stadium and see everyone else at the same time and not reach a saturation point that is limited by anything other than their own line of sight and their own vision, because spectrum IS light in colors that we can’t see. In fact, if the stadium turned on the flood lights, then it would improve visibility in the stadium, not decrease it – and indeed I have read of technologies that can use interference as an advantage.
It should also be noted that Rothbardian has the same problem with copyright properties – for the same reason. His logic about non scarse property is flawed. No property should ever be used an excuse to own control over other people. In fact physical property rights exist to deny that kind of control, not to stabilize it (as seems to be implied)
David C.,
Having briefly looked at your argument, it seems to me that it may be that you’re looking at scarcity from an absolute, objective, point of view, not an economic point of view. By that pov, there’s no scarcity in diamonds, since a white dwarf has been found with a solid diamond core, weighing 2.27 thousand trillion trillion tonnes (yes, I realize there’s heavy State-intervention in diamond market, but none-the-less, diamonds are scarce here on Earth). The point is that absolute scarcity doesn’t matter; economic scarcity — scarcity from the pov of acting man — does.
David J,
If there is a shortage of skilled plumbers, the solution isn’t to create an artificial scarcity in the allocation of pipes – the solution is to let the market adjust demand for plumbing skills as needed. The same is true with reveivers. Inherent limits in recievers should be dealt with by market forces that push innovation, not regulatory forces that control how people use spectrum.
From an economic point of view, there isn’t a natural scarsity in spectrum, and then the government comes in and creates an artificial one to deal with the limits of receivers. It doesn’t sound like a property right to me, but rather regulatory protection of certain technology sectors from obsolesence.
Clearly two radio stations could broadcast on the same frequency, in the same area, and it would create a lot of interference for receivers that couldn’t differentiate. But clearly in a low tech environment nobody would do that, because it wastes a lot of energy with no benefit to the 2nd transmitter. (maybe there might be a case for nusiance laws to deal with jerks) And in a high tech environment it is a piece of cake to differentiate the signals. So where is the real economic scarcity? The point is that from an economic point of view the scarcity centers arround the receiving technology and not the spectrum, so that’s what the market should center around as well.
David C
I think property rights for spectrum space then would evolve and change as recieving technology evolves and changes then. Certainly as techonolgy improves, specrum space would become less and less scarce. But given a current place of technology of the average person in a given area — you’d probably still need property rights to differenciate what scarcity does exist.
I read Marcus’ PDF file a few days ago.
I dugg it here.
http://digg.com/business_finance/No_need_for_Fascist_FCC
Tracy
David C., actually coherent lasers DO cause interference with each other when they cross, but they do have to be at the same frequency.
As Heinrich points out, your objections are technical rather than economic, and trying to address a “technical” problem with a “political” solution (such as the FCC) doesn’t work either.
The “problem” is one of trespass. Interference with my established signal is exactly the same thing as trespassing, and treating it legally as such is what the property rights solution is doing.
If through technology, such as spread spectrum, the same frequency bands can be utilized by more than one transmitter at a time without interference, then the trespassing objection goes away. Exactly the way someone using a semaphore to communicate in no way interferes with my radio signal, even if both messages pass through the same physical space.
The real failure of the FCC was by being imposed at all. Without allowing the property-rights application to flesh itself out fully, it seems now that property rights cannot fulfill the needs of the medium.
It’s exactly like arguing against arbitrary speed limits or gun control. Someone will always jump up and declare how awful the chaos will be without those important government controls.
‘The “problem” is one of trespass. Interference with my established signal is exactly the same thing as trespassing, and treating it legally as such is what the property rights solution is doing.’-quote
I am no physics major, but Is this the same as two people speaking in the same room at the same time? Is that considered trespassing? Isn’t transmitting radio signals the same thing as talking except at different frequency than human communicationo? I think the point that was made earlier was that radios exist that can decifer between two signals like someone can pick out someone’s voice in a crowd?
I don’t think it makes sense to justify property rights based on the technology of a receiver. For something to be property it has to at least have a very concrete definition (this is my land, car, etc). I pretty much agree with David C.
“I am no physics major, but Is this the same as two people speaking in the same room at the same time?”
I would think it would be more like someone bursting into a lecture hall and interrupting the speaker. Or the students talking loudly during the lecture. The victims of tresspass would be the lecturer and the other students.
Gentlemen,
The point of BK’s paper is that private enterprise was on the verge of settling the interference question – and in fact HAD settled it, when the federal government stepped in. The pre-empted solution was a property – rights – based solution. It would have equal applicability in an 802.11 world as well, if it could (I have set up communications systems using 802.11, it is pretty cheap and easy).
It is essentially a homestead rule – first user has a property right that can subsequently be sold or traded. This is to the benefit of the homesteader, because it principally gives him an advantage should he have to go to civil court, but really has no impact whatsoever on the receivers. And current technology would allow for like a 10 to 100-fold increase in the number of broadcasters without interference anyway, so why do we still have the FCC again?
I do not agree on the issue of “trespass”, because a room, a lecture hall, or the inside of a house are someone’s property, not like open air.
I would call trespasser he who projects any wavelength into my area of property whithout my consent. For example an extremely potent light into my bedroom, or a very loud noise into my living room. So, I tacitly consent regular noises from my neighbour.
With all wavelenghts, as long as I do not notice them, AND they are not harmful, I do consent them also. That is not the case if I discover that my neighbour was blasting my home with X-rays, or any other harmful radiation.
Edwardo, you make my point again. Trespass is when there is _interference_ with a previously established property right. A bright light shining in your window, your neighbor emitting X-rays or other harmful radiation into your homes space.
Yet you have no objection “With all wavelenghts, as long as I do not notice them, AND they are not harmful”. That is exactly what I said about both spread spectrum and the non-interference of optical and radio wavelengths through the same space.
So what is your objection to the idea that property rights can solve the problem? It seems only that you object to the concept of property in specific frequencies.
But why not? My use of 105MHz at 1,000 Watts doesn’t interfere with your use of 107MHz at 1,000 Watts. The only problems are technical, maintaining frequencies stable so that they do not bleed over into others signals and utilizing the same frequencies far enough apart physically so that they again don’t interfere.
Shall I give an example? In an environment of property rights in spectrum, if I want to increase from 10,000 Watts to 100,000 Watts for my radio station, and there is another established station at the same frequency that is close enough that doing so would interfere with them, then I may not do so. Exactly like your neighbor putting up an argon arc lamp in their back yard that would shine into your window.
I can, of course, compromise with the other user of that spectrum, paying them to move to a more convenient frequency, or who knows what other possible technical solution there may be.
What I object to in the strongest way is to impose a _political_ non-answer on what is and will always be a _technical_ problem.
Oh, and what happens if my signal turns out to be hazardous? Well, if the FCC gave me the license you’re SOL. In a private property situation, however, if notified of the hazard and I do nothing, you can prosecute me for TRESPASS with hazardous radiation. Do you really want people to have the arbitrary monopoly grants that government enforces, even against you?
I’m with David in that radio and light spectra are generally not a property issue. What’s important, though, is that we recognize the market can sort out how the radio spectrum will be used, and the FCC is absolutely unnecessary.
Curt,
I do not have any objection to a property rights solution. I am against government intervention, government granted monopolies, imposed regulations, etc. I do believe in the market providing the best solution available. As you stated, the spectrum problem is a technical one in which the state has no place.
My difference with you is in the belief that someone owns the frequency/wavelenght emitted. I think that you own the emitter, but what it produces is not your property. You are responsible (in case of trespassing) for the emissions but you do not own them, you can´t even control them; once they are out, others can block, interfere, use or ignore them as they like. Is, like Banker said, the same as with our voice, the body (the emitter) is property, not like the voice emitted.
Therefore interference between wavelenghts is only a technical problem to be addressed by those involved, and no one should be prevented from emitting in any frequency, because nobody should be allowed to own any part of the spectrum. And I repeat, the parties involved/market will take care for the problem of interference.
Please excuse me for my bad english. I certainly would like to express myself in a more proper way, more clearly.
If we do not allow property rights in the spectrum itself, then a malicious person or group of persons could conceivably block/jam all transmissions worldwide with impunity. I don’t think this would be acceptable to most of us.
As the BK Marcus paper says (quoting Rothbard), “property” refers to a claim on the USE of something, and not to the thing itself. So it is not clear to me why the spectrum can not or should not be owned/ownable.
I don’t have an answer to this yet, but I think these things are worth considering.
Note that spectrum property rights are not in the same category as intellectual property (although both are intangible). IP is an erroneous attempt to protect the VALUE of something, whereas spectrum property rights are an attempt to protect the USE of a technology.
Fred Mann: claiming the right to a radio wave frequency infringes on MY RIGHT to MY PHYSICAL PROPERTY to broadcast on that range. It is in that sense identical to intellectual property rights. I own this transmitter (in full, free and clear), but somehow I don’t have the right to manipulate it a certain way? I thought I owned it!!! (You don’t support IP now … do you?)
Person,
Intellectual “property” is not scarce. Nor does my use of your IP deprive you from using it. (If you want to resubmit your arguments to the contrary, or variations thereof, go ahead). In contrast, the spectrum IS scarce, and my use of a particular frequency CAN/DOES deprive someone else of the use of that frequency. Huge differences.
And when you say, “I don’t have the right to manipulate [my transmitter] a certain way? I thought I owned it!!!”, you appear to making an unwarranted assumption about property. Property rights are not absolute/unlimited. They are limited by the property rights of others. For example, if you buy a tractor, that does not give you the right to use it to farm my land. If you buy a tractor, but don’t have/can’t afford any land to farm, the tractor purchase will have been a waste. In this example, the land is obviously analagous to the spectrum. So, in the same way, you must purchase a transmitter AND homestead/purchase spectrum in order to broadcast.
The spectrum does appear to have the qualities necessary for it to be considered property. It is scarce (given our current level of technological development), and can be homesteaded.
In contrast, the spectrum IS scarce, and my use of a particular frequency CAN/DOES deprive someone else of the use of that frequency.
WRONG! It does not deprive them of using that frequency. They are still physically capable of broadcasting on any frequency on which I broadcast. No conflict.
OHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! You wanted a clear signal! You wanted to be able to actually hear what they’re saying! You don’t like overlapping signals! *pff* So you’re just a utilitarian, i.e. socialist.
Hey Fred: my RIGHTS are not based on a utility test. So what if you don’t “like” overlapping signals. “not liking” does not not imply you have a right to stop it. REMEMBER????? I don’t care if you can’t make a PROFIT on your radio station with all the overlapping signals. That’s just too damn bad, UTILITARIAN. I’d like to make money selling submarine screen doors. That doesn’t mean I have a right to it. Don’t endorse the labor theory of value.
“Fred Mann: claiming the right to a radio wave frequency infringes on MY RIGHT to MY PHYSICAL PROPERTY to broadcast on that range. It is in that sense identical to intellectual property rights. I own this transmitter (in full, free and clear), but somehow I don’t have the right to manipulate it a certain way? I thought I owned it!!! (You don’t support IP now … do you?)”
Person, you’ve trapped yourself into a corner by applying the IP analogy. What you are really saying that you don’t just ‘own’ a non-disruptive channel, but you also get to decide what your listeners can do with the ‘knowledge’ they obtain from your broadcast.
You certainly have the right to manipulate your broadcast ( I acknowledge the spectrum property right), but you can not prevent your listeners from doing anything (as long as your broadcast is not interfered with).
” somehow I don’t have the right to manipulate it a certain way?”
The only way you can achieve that is to manipulate people.
quincunx:You certainly have the right to manipulate your broadcast ( I acknowledge the spectrum property right), but you can not prevent your listeners from doing anything (as long as your broadcast is not interfered with).
Why? Why are others not allowed to broadcast at the same frequency? They’re not interfering with anyone else’s physical property rights in doing so, right?
Person,
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.
You can prevent people from interfering with your broadcast, what you can’t do is further manipulate the people who received your broadcast.
The property you get is not the manipulation of other people, but the ability to communicate to them on a clear channel.
Your IP analogy is an attempt to further control people, not communication.
quincunx:You can prevent people from interfering with your broadcast, what you can’t do is further manipulate the people who received your broadcast.
The property you get is not the manipulation of other people, but the ability to communicate to them on a clear channel.
Seems you’re the one with the reading comprehension problem. What I’m saying is that you can’t consistently advocate these. In both IP and in spectrum rights, you’re asserting CONTROL over OTHER PEOPLES’ physical PROPERTY even though they’re aren’t physically interfering with your physical property. The only way you can justify a “right” to a clear signal is on utilitarian grounds.
Read it and weep.
(I do, nevertheless, want to thank you in advance for not parsing my posts into meaninglessness like someone else who shall remain nameless.)
Person,
Knowing your hostility to the concept of scarcity, I’ll stick to your terminology: “Physical”.
Wavelengths are a physical resource in exactly the same sense that “air”space rights over real estate are. It’s beyond this board, but a little research into electromagnetic spectrum and Schroedinger will demonstrate that my use of a wavelength to transmit data is analogous to my use of my real estate to build a road to move my goods. Just like you are unable to use my road without my permission, you are unable to send particles along my wavelength without my permission. By implication, my ownership of the road limits the rights you have with your car; similarly, my rights to the wavelength limit the rights you have with your transmitter.
Not so with ideas – they are not in any meaningful sense a physical phenomenon. By thinking of an idea, you have homesteaded no physical aspect of the universe. By utilizing a frequency to transmit particles, you have.
quasibill:Knowing your hostility to the concept of scarcity,
What does that even mean? How can one be “hostile to scarcity”? Please use language that’s at least precise enough for a politician to use in a rally speech.
Wavelengths are a physical resource in exactly the same sense that “air”space rights over real estate are.
False. See below.
It’s beyond this board, but a little research into electromagnetic spectrum and Schroedinger will demonstrate that my use of a wavelength to transmit data is analogous to my use of my real estate to build a road to move my goods.
OH! It’s “beyond this board”. Your attempt to intimidate me with what little knowledge you have is duly noted.
Just like you are unable to use my road without my permission, you are unable to send particles along my wavelength without my permission. By implication, my ownership of the road limits the rights you have with your car;
What are you talking about? Of course I can (i.e., am physically able to) use a road without its owner’s permission. If you mean that it is literally impossible for me to occupy the same physical space as someone else, I agree. But:
similarly, my rights to the wavelength limit the rights you have with your transmitter.
It is physically possible to broadcast along the same frequency as someone else. No scarcity, no basis for rights.
Person,
Why do we have property rights?
Fred_Mann: We assign property rights so that people can know in advance what actions are permissible and what will result in violent resistance, and thereby allow them to form plans and coordinate with others to a desirable level of specificity or generality.
Auf schlechtes Deutsch: Man gibt Eigentumschaftrechte aus, damit Personen bevor Aktion wissen koennen, welche Aktionen erlaubt sind, und welche Aktionen zum gewaltige Widerstand fuehren werden, und dadurch ihnen zu erlauben, Plaene mit genueger Besonderheit oder Unbestimmtheit zu bilden.
I would generally agree, but I think your definition is not specific enough. Your definition also applies to laws/guidelines for use of other’s property i.e. speed limits on roads. I think you need to include a reference to scarce resources when talking of property rights.
In my own words: We advocate private property because it minimizes conflict over scarce resources.
Agree, disagree?
I think you need to include a reference to scarce resources when talking of property rights.
…We advocate private property because it minimizes conflict over scarce resources.
Agree, disagree?
That’s redundant. To the extent that there is conflict, there is scarcity.
I like blue pants. You don’t. There’s conflict. Where’s the scarcity?
Person, “I own this transmitter (in full, free and clear), but somehow I don’t have the right to manipulate it a certain way? I thought I owned it!!!”
You also own your car, free and clear. However, your attempt to insert your car into the same physical volume of space-time my car is already inhabiting is a crime.
Gee, and here you thought you owned your car.
This is exactly what I meant above by referring to the existence of the FCC causing an environment of fear and ignorance around the practical application of trespass in spectrum. By eliminating the enforcement of the same rules you live your life by day in and day out in this one area, you have become convinced that those rules do not and cannot apply.
“To the extent that there is conflict, there is scarcity.”
Exactly. Scarcity also means property ownership. Two people cannot use the same frequency in the same way at the same time. The most efficient manor of allocating such scarce resources is private property rights.
Person, “Fred Mann: claiming the right to a radio wave frequency infringes on MY RIGHT to MY PHYSICAL PROPERTY to broadcast on that range. It is in that sense identical to intellectual property rights. I own this transmitter (in full, free and clear), but somehow I don’t have the right to manipulate it a certain way? I thought I owned it!!! (You don’t support IP now … do you?)”
The argument against IP does not imply that you have the right to manipulate your own property however you want. It recognizes you cannot use your property as part of the means of invading others’ property. Otherwise, you can do what you want with it.
The property you are manipulating is a scarce (rivalrous) resource, and the other property of others that you are prohibited from using your property to invade the borders of is also their rivalrous resources. IP is not rivalrous. The spectrum is. An infinite number of people can use the same IP. That is not the same for land, cars, lawnmowers, wives, or the EM spectrum.
Person,
Skipping the juvenile ad hominems you have established a reputation for, my response is:
You have done nothing to refute the analogy. Two cars can travel over the same road as well. The question, again, in your terms, is whether it is a physical phenomena. I have clearly shown you that a wavelength is, while ideas are not. Furthermore, we were clearly discussing property rights, not physics, so your cute attempt at cleverness was too clever by half. Therefore, as usual, your whole argument is nothing but wasted electrons. Finally, I’m still waiting for the “False, see below” that never came.
I fully expect you to continue dodging, weaving, and avoiding the question, accusing me and others of parsing and misquoting you, so unless you actually offer something of substance in a reply, I’ll see no need to respond to your reply.
Fred Mann:I like blue pants. You don’t. There’s conflict.
No, that’s not conflict. From what you have stated there, nothing implies that our desires cannot simultaneously be satisfied. It would only be conflict if, e.g. I wanted to wear blue pants while you didn’t want *me* to wear blue pants, or I wanted to see other people in blue pants, while you didn’t want to see anyone wearing blue pants, etc.
Curt Howland:
You also own your car, free and clear. However, your attempt to insert your car into the same physical volume of space-time my car is already inhabiting is a crime. … Two people cannot use the same frequency in the same way at the same time.
But in using the same frequency as you, I am not occupying the same volume as you. While it is not physically possible for two cars to physically be in the same place at the same time, it *is* physically possible for you and me to broadcast at the same time. If you mean broadcast “clearly”, so what? That’s a utilitarian (socialist) concern.
Scarcity also means property ownership.
I think you mean to say scarcity *justifies* assignment of private property titles.
The most efficient manor of allocating such scarce resources is private property rights.
Actually, the most efficient manor of allocating scarce resources is Scrooge’s estate, because of his accounting acumen. The most efficient manner of allocating scarce resources is private property rights.
Stephan Kinsella: An infinite number of people can use the same IP. That is not the same for land, cars, lawnmowers, wives, or the EM spectrum.
Here the basis for your argument breaks down. An infinite number of people *can* use the same frequency of the EM spectrum at the same time. It just means a garbled signal. So what? They’re still using it. Are you saying the (lack of) UTILITY in all these people using the same frequency justifies restricting what people can do with their own property?
quasibill:You have done nothing to refute the analogy. Two cars can travel over the same road as well. The question, again, in your terms, is whether it is a physical phenomena. I have clearly shown you that a wavelength is, while ideas are not.
The question is actually whether there is physical scarcity (impossibility of coincident use) of the EM spectrum. I have shown there is not. An infinite number of people can use the same spectrum. That just reduced the utility of it. It still is physically possible. To justify assinging rights to a spectrum, you have to appeal to the notion that conflicting desires, irrespective of physical possibilities, can justify a particular rights-assignment. But then that opens you up to an artist’s desire not to be copied having standing!
Finally, I’m still waiting for the “False, see below” that never came.
You missed it. In what I was responding to, you said, if you can recall that far back without relying on me to tell you what you already said: “Wavelengths are a physical resource in exactly the same sense that airspace rights over real estate are. ” I refuted that in that post when I said “It is physically possible to broadcast along the same frequency as someone else.”, which demonstrated that they are not a physical resource “in exactly the same sense” — the sense that one can be simultaneously used by more than one entity, while the other can’t. But I appreciate the accusation of lying, I really do.
Person, “But in using the same frequency as you, I am not occupying the same volume as you.”
By trying to drink from the same cup as me, you are also not occupying the same volume as I am.
Your inability to grasp that there are limitations on your utilization of your own property every day, in every interaction with others, astounds me. Do you walk a straight line on the sidewalk, heedless of everyone else, merely because at any given instant no one is occupying the same volume of space-time that you are? No. You move aside, you yield right of way, you go around obstacles. You do NOT have absolute unlimited right to utilize your private property, even your own body, as you see fit 100% of the time.
So don’t act wounded that that also applies to your gnarly neato radio transmitter too.
Curt Howland:By trying to drink from the same cup as me, you are also not occupying the same volume as I am.
Well, I would be trying to access the same matter, taking up the same volume, as you are, which according to you suffices to say it’s a violation of your rights (if you are the just owner of the cup and water). Please see next before responding:
Your inability to grasp that there are limitations on your utilization of your own property every day, in every interaction with others, astounds me. Do you walk a straight line on the sidewalk,
Dude, get a clue. I’m doing a reductio ad absurdum (reduction to absurdity) on your position. Obviously, I don’t believe all the garbage that follows from your position. I’m here to show you why garbage follows from your position to show you why it is in error. Get it?
“Get it?”
Indeed I do. You refuse to answer any direct questions which demonstrate the error of your position. Instead, you insult. That is a predictable pattern that has occurred each time you have been backed into a corner.
“I would be trying to access the same matter, taking up the same volume, as you are”
Indeed. Or transmitting on the same frequency. Just another form of trespass.
Indeed. Or transmitting on the same frequency. Just another form of trespass.
(4th time) It’s not trespass because it’s physically possible to accomodate both transmitters. You can’t appeal to physical scarcity as your justification anymore. I’m ignoring your other rambling.
Curt>> Indeed. Or transmitting on the same frequency. Just another form of trespass.
Person> (4th time) It’s not trespass because it’s physically possible to accomodate both transmitters. You can’t appeal to physical scarcity as your justification anymore. I’m ignoring your other rambling.
Repetition (“4th time”) doesn’t make something *unqualifiably* true. Jamming margins for DSSS or FHSS are not infinite.
Thanks, Greg, Radio Communications Engineer
Greg RCE, that’s irrelevant. It’s still physically possible for multiple people in proximity to each other to *transmit* signals; they will just be garbled due to crossover. You can’t object to that from a purely “libertarians only believe in property rights in scarce objects, and the ownership must be all or nothing” framework.
And the reason I mentioned the repetition was because others like Curt are ignoring my points and I’m reminding them I’ve said this before.
Another example of Libertarians not understanding the concept of social contract. Since KDKA went on the air almost 100 years ago there has been no noticable public objection to theory or practice of the govt allocating frequencies. As money is the measure of all things, what better way to allocate frequencies than by auction? Would a lottery be more to your liking?
Would it be “libertarian” for me to be permitted to build a 50 KW spark transmitter and block hundreds of frequencies?
‘what better way to allocate frequencies than by auction?’
An auction assumes that the auctioning party owns the property or sells on behalf of a real property owner.
Since ownership is the question, auction is not a solution.
‘Would it be “libertarian” for me to be permitted to build a 50 KW spark transmitter and block hundreds of frequencies?’
If you interfere with anyone else’s frequency then you clearly aggressing. This has already been discussed.
If you are not interfering, then yes you can homestead a pointless transmission.
Person> Greg RCE, that’s irrelevant. It’s still physically possible for multiple people in proximity to each other to *transmit* signals; they will just be garbled due to crossover. You can’t object to that from a purely “libertarians only believe in property rights in scarce objects, and the ownership must be all or nothing” framework.
Well it isn’t irrelevent to the users of the unlicensed bands who get squeezed into tiny slivers of spectrum. {laughs} There is scarcity in relatively clear “channels” and it is caused by government, which hogs most the spectrum for itself, and doles the most of the rest of it out as if it owned it. It is relevent if it is garbled. The is no point of transmitting if the intelligibility can’t be recovered.
Incidentally, I am unconvinced of the idea of broadcasters somehow “owning” by “homesteading” chunks of spectrum. Why just broadcasters? What about the “spectrum property rights” of persons receiving? What right does some broadcaster have to spray his/her photons onto my property if I should choose to receive some other broadcasters photons on my property?
Person,
Auf besseres Deutsch: Wer is dieser Man der gibt Eigentumschaftrechte aus? Hat er einem name?
Der Kaiser wird die Eigentumsrechte ausgeben.
I’ve beome skeptical of the idea of “homesteading” the spectrum or air-routes for planes. If I build a road, there’s something there that wasn’t there before. I’ve mixed my labor with it. If I walk from A to B, I don’t own the route. It hasn’t changed.
If you walk from A to B once, no; if you habitually use a particular route, you have homesteaded the right to continue to use that route – an easement.
Peter: “If you walk from A to B once, no; if you habitually use a particular route, you have homesteaded the right to continue to use that route – an easement.”
There’s always a common-law bias in libertarian circles. Civilians would call it a servitude.
Comments on this entry are closed.