The Only Case for Government Involvement In Business
Submitted by MindUrBusiness on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 15:21It seems the US government loves to get involved in business where it has none. We have seen it time and time again from regulations to bailouts, and breaking up monopolies. As I see it, the only business that the Federal Government should be involved in would be breaking up the monopoly in the press. The Constitution gives the press special rights under the first amendment and therefore I believe they should take actions to break-up the ever consolidating media into the hands of the very few. This is the problem with the mainstream media, they are beholden to a few owners and the agendas that these owners want the world to see and read. As important as ending the Federal Reserve is to our economic freedom, ending the monopolies of the media is to the freedom of information. What do you fellow patriots think?
Actually, if one was to get
Actually, if one was to get rid of or loosen the regulations by the FCC, loosen labor laws and health-care regulations on businesses it would dramatically reduce the upfront and operating costs of having a TV channel, thereby making it a lot more accessible -for maybe a group of DP members- to start their own TV channel.
As of right now it is around $1mil just for a TV license, and then you got to add the FCC regulations on equipment, the workers one hires, health-care for said workers, and so on. It costs millions of dollars to maintain a TV channel; and this is why we have no real selection of good news sources available on TV. The same can be said for radio and newspapers.
If the government would loosen or abolish the regulations involved with TV, Radio, Newspapers, then the current News media would have to compete with many new TV channels, Radio Stations, and Newspapers and therefore the government wouldn't need to step in and breakup the MSM monopolies; they would breakup due to competition.
The internet is making this happen all by itself
The pseudo-monopolies that giant media companies have is crashing down around them. No expansion of state power is necessary to make sure it continues to happen. Unless they severely restrict what we are able to do on the internet (which is undoubtedly a large part of the motivation behind SOPA, PIPA, CISPA, etc.) then I would just keep doing what we're all already doing--consuming and generating alternative media--and watch as the previous gatekeepers die off.
And, obviously, vehemently reject any SOPA/PIPA/CISPA-esque encroachments.
A Personal Endorsement for Ron Paul 2012
Ron Paul Flowchart
I don't recall the press being mentioned in the 1st Amendment
so I'm not sure what special privileges they are granted from that the rest of us don't have.
As for the general concept of monopolies - government creates and perpetuates monopolies, so that's not the place to look for solutions.
A free market and competition only allow monopolies to exist until someone comes up with a more desirable (faster, cheaper, etc.) alternative.
Having said that, we certainly don't have a free market for some media, one example of that is the FCC. Eliminating the FCC would do more to foster competition and eliminate the concentration of media power that exists than any amount of government oversight or regulation.
And while we're at it, tell the government bozos to keep their hands off the Internet. If I want something "sanitized for my protection", I'll sit my bare, hairy ass on a hotel toilet.
freedom of speech for the press
is outlined in the first amendment as "infringing on the freedom of the press". The press is the only business that is afforded the freedom of speech in the Constitution. No other business can go out publicly and state whatever they want, in many cases they can be sued for libel and there are regulations that govern the speech of corporations as well. So since the press is the only business that is given the freedom of speech with the express purpose of informing the people it stands to reason that they should not be controlled by a handful of people. I don't however think they should be operated by the government either. I would think that a regulation or even an amendment to the Constitution stating that a single person or corporation may not own more than 1% stock of a media outlet would suffice.
The bold effort the present bank had made to control the government ... are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it-Andrew Jackson
The press has no more or less freedom of speech than any
individual. The press merely refers to mass communication, be it by newspaper, radio, television, or more recently, blogs. Nothing in the Constitution limits the press to being a business.
Here's a case where an individual was tried for violating an ordinance about distributing pamphlets (in this case religious tracts). She was convicted, and it was not until the Supreme Court reviewed the case that it was overturned on 1st amendment grounds.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/303/444/case.html
The press is subject to libel and defamation suits from damaged parties (no special dispensation here). 1st amendment protection just states that Congress can pass no law abridging the freedom of the press (be it from a business or an individual).
When you want the government to control or regulate, you must be prepared to say how much is enough, and how you will keep the powerful from buying influence to get exemptions from your regulations (as always happens).
As another poster mention, the Internet is leading to a great decentralization of control of information - which is why I am even more concerned about the recent and current attempts to regulate it.
I trust freedom more than government - others are free to disagree.
The dominance of the print
The dominance of the print and television media by a few entities was facilitated by the Federal Reserve and its member banks, who largely financed their takeover.
These banks hold the loans for the media conglomerates and impose policies on them as conditions of rolling over their debt obligations.
The government that you suggest to be used to break up the monopolies is already dominated by the banks, however. The bailouts are the latest and most obvious example of the degree to which the government is subordinate to the banks. Until the free-market and private property are restored, and the money power forced to compete in the market under private property rules, the entire notion of government serving the public is an illusion.
You have to end the practice of money-from-thin-air to buy off your politicians, before you can fix the problems with the media. Once you do that, the market will correct the problems itself.
We have to de-condition ourselves from the "shining knight come to save us" ideology - in this case an independent watchdog media finally reporting "the truth". Be your own savior. Be the media; the Internet gives the tools. Join local Ron Paul political groups to commandeer your local Republican Party toward liberty ideals. Even help local liberty-minded democrats to commandeer the direction of their party. We may disagree with the left on economics, but we generally do agree on whether we should have small groups of elites in control of the government, unequal protection of the law, a police state, secret military rendition, state-directed assassinations, state-control over our children, extraordinary high taxation, and so on.