- Joined
- Nov 8, 2008
- Messages
- 8,468
- Reaction score
- 1,575
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
This argument can be applied to any form of property. Needless to say, the land I live on now must be respected regardless of the Iroquois who lived on it hundreds of years ago. A free market allocation of such frequencies is the most efficient and fair method available. Utopian ideals of "non-ownership" need not apply.
Actually it can't be applied to all property simply natural things that are scacre or made artificially scarce and into property and it can be resolved in many ways for instance the Georgist land value tax on ground rent is an excellent ways to resolve the issues of private ownership of land, maintain social justice, end land speculation and monopoly and remove or greatly reduce taxes on the labour and capital of individuals.
One is not talking of free market allocation because it is the state allocating them.
I have your solution people: all of you can write to your congress people and tell them how angry you are that THIER regulations are interfering with your 1st amendment rights to see and listen to smut.
:rofl
Be more specific. You can't just say "the state allocated them" and expect to be taken seriously.
Wow, that came out of left field. How in the heck do they have a monopoly? That would require the control of an entire industry, not just a frequency.These people broadcasting on these frequencies have a monopoly because of the state, I thought that was pretty well known and obvious.
So?In general they are not the people who first used that frequency, particularly when talking on any scale.
There was little doubt that this was going to come surface once a Democratic majority was in place in Congress.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who dissented Tuesday along with the other three liberal justices, similarly raised constitutional concerns. Ginsburg said that in a case that turns on government restriction of spoken words, "there is no way to hide the long shadow the First Amendment casts over what the commission has done."
.They have a monopoly of the frequency.Wow, that came out of left field. How in the heck do they have a monopoly? That would require the control of an entire industry, not just a frequency
Well Lockeans, which I assume Ethereal is in some sense, believe in the labour-mixing idea of original appropriation so if these people weren't the people who first used it or bought it off those who did etc then it poses a problem. If they are simply given it by the state then as Murray Rothbard suggested such property can be legitimately homesteaded, i.e. treated morally unowned even by the most rightwing of Lockean libertarians.
Savings Private Ryan is "Smut?"
:rofl
I'll be sure to remind you of the same every time you whine about Obama, democrats, and liberals. :fueltofir
If you don't like that your hypocrisy and double standards are pointed out then perhaps you should avoid making it public.The notion that you don't troll and bait is fascinating. I would expect that from you.
Carry on. :2wave:
These people broadcasting on these frequencies have a monopoly because of the state, I thought that was pretty well known and obvious.
In general they are not the people who first used that frequency, particularly when talking on any scale.
If you don't like that your hypocrisy and double standards are pointed out then perhaps you should avoid making it public.
Savings Private Ryan is "Smut?"
:rofl
And you tend to be slow.I don't understand how this applies to anything I've said. I was articulating how these frequencies should be allocated, so I don't see how their current status pertains to my proposition. You tend to confuse me.
Well private property means many things. In land there are many different rights. I would say you have the right to residency but being a Georgist I'd say you owe the community the ground rent and site rent which come from nature and society.My family weren't the first people to use the land on which our home was built; does this mean our residence is illegitimate?
I had no idea you were a self appointed hypocrisy cop!! So tell me, what parts of any of my posts were hypocritical?
Be honest Scourge, this has nothing to do with your self appointed attempts to point out hypocrisy, you just wanted to bait and troll.
Let me help you with the term because based on your “selective” outrage, it is obvious you have no comprehension of it:
Main Entry: hypocrite
Pronunciation: \ ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit \
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritēs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai
Date: 13th century
Results
1. a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2. a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
I look forward to you starting a thread that desperately attempts to prove I am a hypocrite, but making that claim here is merely an attempt at baiting and trolling.
It is very ironic and sad that you can’t even be honest when you get called on your trolling and have to derail a thread just because you don’t like someone.
:2wave:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?