PDA

View Full Version : Free Market Capitalism and The Media, Why has the media gotten so bad?




ClayTrainor
08-23-2008, 01:02 PM
Like the rest of us here, im a huge advocate of free market capitalism, however i am fairly new in acquiring my knowledge of exactly how it functions.

Whenever i debate socialists they always play the argument that the reason the media has gotten so bad is because of the capitalist system. This actually kind of makes sense to me. The wealthy are able to buy up the press companies and own the majority of major news networks.

What i dont understand is, how exactly should free market capitalism work. It seems to me that the media is sort of a blotch on the record of free market capitalism. No matter what, the extremely wealthy could potentially have the means to own the mainstream media, and manipulate it.

I hate how much sense this is making to me, it does sound like a flaw in a capitalist society but,

Could someone please set me in the right direction? i need to understand why the media is as corrupt as it is today and why it isnt the fault of captialism.

Thanks

Kade
08-23-2008, 01:11 PM
Like the rest of us here, im a huge advocate of free market capitalism, however i am fairly new in acquiring my knowledge of exactly how it functions.

Whenever i debate socialists they always play the argument that the reason the media has gotten so bad is because of the capitalist system. This actually kind of makes sense to me. The wealthy are able to buy up the press companies and own the majority of major news networks.

What i dont understand is, how exactly should free market capitalism work. It seems to me that the media is sort of a blotch on the record of free market capitalism. No matter what, the extremely wealthy could potentially have the means to own the mainstream media, and manipulate it.

I hate how much sense this is making to me, it does sound like a flaw in a capitalist society but,

Could someone please set me in the right direction? i need to understand why the media is as corrupt as it is today and why it isnt the fault of captialism.

Thanks

Before the fruitbats come in here, know that you are probably not talking to a "socialist".

There are few real socialists left, and most of the liberals in this country are not socialists.... they fear authority as much as anyone, and they also fear the corporatist structure that is often promoted with concepts such as "free market".

Your friend was exactly correct about the dangers of the media, and your friends here will tell you that it did not come about in a free market nature, which is also a blatant lie.

The free market will always lend itself to the powers that be... the richest will buy the power, and twist legislation to favor the already powerful. That is the end result of a purist free market.

Pure socialism and it's ugly children, are equally retarded economic policies.

the best bet so far, albeit not perfect, is a informed citizenry with some power over these corporations AND the government.

We have the ability to be the watchdogs of these groups, because the government is ours... (something conservatives will lie to you about).

Vote, get mad, write to congressman, or run yourself. Things can change. We can have these two systems competing, and the competition is good for us, the consumer and citizen.

A free market, with limits Versus A regulated market, with limits. The purist side of socialism is dead in this country. This is obvious. There is no centrally planned market here. The purist on the other side are growing larger and larger, and under the banner of "economic freedom" will enact a corporate fascist regime here.

Andrew-Austin
08-23-2008, 01:27 PM
I'm gradually becoming familiar with free market action myself, but let me start by saying that no other system besides the free market would have even the slightest chance at working when it comes to the news media. Lets say hypothetically (because I'm not sure this is the case, skeptical that I just need more info) that capitalism has resulted in the monopolization of the news media. As we can see the news media has become largely an obnoxious mouthpiece for government propaganda.

So, what kind of government intervention in the news media would result in the news being more critical and watchful of our government? .......... Any form of government intervention would result in the news being more biased towards the government.

I'd need to research this subject more, but its most likely the case that telecom companies lobbied Congress into nudging them them towards monopolization.





The free market will always lend itself to the powers that be... the richest will buy the power, and twist legislation to favor the already powerful. That is the end result of a purist free market.

If the government passes legislation which nudges favored companies towards monopolization, how is that a free market? Why don't you do the OP a favor and outline how the free market has gotten the news media where it is today, instead of just bashing it.



We have the ability to be the watchdogs of these groups, because the government is ours... (something conservatives will lie to you about).

Vote, get mad, write to congressman, or run yourself. Things can change. We can have these two systems competing, and the competition is good for us, the consumer and citizen.

Because Congress has favored the voice of average citizens over lobbyists so far.

Paulitician
08-23-2008, 03:09 PM
We definitely have a capitalist system. It's questionable whether we have a free market system. What I want to know is, how socialism would be a cure for bad media reporting. I don't see how bad media can be said to belong to one particular economic system. But anyway, the question is, why has the market seemed to have failed? Goods are produced in the market because there is a demand for those goods, and entrepreneurs find a way of profiting by meeting such demands ("profit" that doesn't only include monetary profit, BTW). But there is a problem because media can only be transmitted through certain technologies which makes it somewhat restricted (these technologies include newspapers, radio, television, the Internet etc.). With natural and unnatural restrictions (we operate under both), it makes it makes it harder (not necessarily hard, though possibly) to enter into the market. This can be one reason: restriction (moreso with televesion & radio, almost not at all with the internet).

But whatever, let's just assume that up to now, people demanded what they got from the media, and got what they wanted under a free market system (horrible assumptions). Now, however, citizens are disgusted with the media's crappy reporting. They demand better and more truthful reporting, less gossip etc. The smart thing to do would be switch to other goods which meet your demand. However, this is impossible if the citizens don't know there are alternatives to the goods they're currently offered. That's a second reason.

Why can't citizens just lobby the media for better reporting? There are little feedback issues, so it wouldn't be hard to find out that most citizens want better reporting. The big problem I see here is the corruption of government and advertising. Because if you do reporting that disatisfies your advertisers and is very harmful to government, you'll lose the support they had for you, and they'll potentially try to take you down. This is easily known stuff in the journalist profession. This is another reason, which probably overrides people's disatisfaction of reporting.

The market of internet media is still developing, so we can't say the end result of it is what we see now. But my thinking is, a "free market" is not a solution to all problems in and of itself. I think it is the best system to work by because it tends to be the most efficient and most suited to satisfy and deliver peoples' wants, but the real solution has always been human ingenuity.

AutoDas
08-23-2008, 09:09 PM
Sorry Kade but no free market.

There would not be any copyrights to protect these people.

user
08-23-2008, 09:27 PM
So many ways to address this...I'll just get started with this post.

The influence of the government on the market is hard to overestimate. It's not just their direct interference with media companies, but also their other policies such as inflation, which encourage media consolidation.

One of the reasons media reporting is so bad is because that's what's been getting them viewers. In other words, a lot of people appear to enjoy hearing about Britney Spears's latest shenanigans as frequently as possible. Why? Maybe a lot of people are just like that. Maybe government schooling has helped make them like that. It's probably at least a little bit of both.

Another reason is, again, because the government has so much power. There's an incentive to influence people to vote a certain way on far too many issues. If the government didn't even have the ability to wage unnecessary wars, would Fox News spend so much time "convincing" people to support them? (Heh, would Fox News even exist?)

Kade doesn't really understand capitalism; you can tell because he assumes there must be legislation in a "purist free market".

A freer market provides more options. People who expect a higher level of reporting will be able to get it.

Kraig
08-23-2008, 10:20 PM
Like the rest of us here, im a huge advocate of free market capitalism, however i am fairly new in acquiring my knowledge of exactly how it functions.

Whenever i debate socialists they always play the argument that the reason the media has gotten so bad is because of the capitalist system. This actually kind of makes sense to me. The wealthy are able to buy up the press companies and own the majority of major news networks.

What i dont understand is, how exactly should free market capitalism work. It seems to me that the media is sort of a blotch on the record of free market capitalism. No matter what, the extremely wealthy could potentially have the means to own the mainstream media, and manipulate it.

I hate how much sense this is making to me, it does sound like a flaw in a capitalist society but,

Could someone please set me in the right direction? i need to understand why the media is as corrupt as it is today and why it isnt the fault of captialism.

Thanks

You know I was thinking about this and really don't think you can say much bad about the "free market" media here in the United States. Sure the mainstream media is full of shit, but thanks to what we have left of a free market, there is plenty of alternative media that people like us, people who want to stay informed, can easily use to stay up to date. The only difference between mainstream media and infowars.com (just an example, I don't even like that site) is the number of people following them, but thanks to a free market we have access to all. Typically in a socialized country you would still have all the mainstream bullshit, only someone would have to risk their life to bring you the fringe media, and you might even be risking your life just by seeking it out. Of course we are continuing to approach a level of government power where that could be a risk to us, thanks to our continued loss of civil liberties.

The real problem is the mass of people choosing to be ignorant and lazy so that they can continue to let government do all their thinking for them. I blame this more on public schools than anything else, as well has our other social programs and punishing taxes. The problem starts with the people and it's a problem of a lack of education not only in knowledge but in a lack of critical thought, these people make the media we have today possible.

Live_Free_Or_Die
08-24-2008, 12:58 AM
nt

Kraig
08-24-2008, 01:51 AM
We do not have a free market system, nor is that the reason media is so monopolized. Government created the monopolies by licensing the airwaves. Cities contract with cable operators. There is no free market at work in media. Closest thing to it is the internet.

On the internet you can find all kind of alternative sources for information.
In a true free market you would be able to start your own tv station or cable company with the same ease you could start a web site. Your only hurdle being $$$.

Yeah and the internet still qualifies as media and so far it's almost completely free. It's not "the closest thing" it IS a completely legitimate form of media. The problem is the masses of people choosing the poison, and what lead to us having masses willing to choose the poison. The information is out there and it's not even hard to find, you just have to be willing to look for it, so far it seems like most people aren't.

Kade
08-25-2008, 08:28 AM
"Kade" understands a free market better than most of these trogs, and can probably better explain about their cherished authors, having actually read them, then they could.

Do not make the mistake of assuming that a person does not understand something because they refuse to define it in terms of it's working....

"Kade that's not an example of a free market, because blah blah blah. "

That is the distinction. Assumptions. People feel the free market will work, without a doubt, and use this assumption to define it. If something didn't work, then the free market was not in play... that is the gist of the fallacy. Just ask yourself, what are the major tenets of the free market, and take the assumptions with a grain of salt.

orafi
08-25-2008, 08:30 AM
wasn't there some kind of government law that regulated the amount of media outlets that were allowed and/or just stifled competition?

Conza88
08-25-2008, 08:58 AM
We definitely have a capitalist system.

http://img152.imageshack.us/my.php?image=fruckfk0.jpg
Wowwwww, a society that has a Central Bank (5th plank of the Communist Manifesto), which is run on debt - NOT savings or CAPITAL... which has a fiat currency.. is capitalistic? :rolleyes: Ohhhhh a free market system! Yesssssss, a system where no bank will be permitted to FAIL! Saved by the state and the taxpayers..... sooo Free market & capitalistic... :rolleyes:!

What I want to know is, how socialism would be a cure for bad media reporting.
Essentially OP, Kade doesn't know wtf he's talking about, aswell as others... anyway, what we have now is FASCISM. You know - Collectivism. It is a joining of the state and big business.... or as Mussolini (who coined the term "fascism" later said) it would have been more correct to call it CORPORATISM.

That is what the US is now. The US media is a propaganda outlet, or the 4th estate.

Now, as Kade and any other fools will try to contend, I'm equally ignorant or some crap & I know nothing, I have no credibility etc.. :rolleyes: - err right? Fine - so let's go see what Rothbard has to say on the issue... :cool:

"For a New Liberty - Personal Liberty" (http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/audiobooks/rothbard/foranewliberty/6.mp3) - By Murry Rothbard [11min exactly +]

Conza88
08-25-2008, 09:06 AM
Freedom of Radio and Television


There is one important area of American life where no effective free*dom of speech or the press does or can exist under the present system. That is the entire field of radio and television. In this area, the federal government, in the crucially important Radio Act of 1927, nationalized the airwaves. In effect, the federal government took title to ownership of all radio and television channels. It then presumed to grant licenses, at its will or pleasure, for use of the channels to various privately owned stations. On the one hand, the stations, since they receive the licenses gratis, do not have to pay for the use of the scarce airwaves, as they would on the free market. And so these stations receive a huge subsidy, which they are eager to maintain. But on the other hand, the federal government, as the licensor of the airwaves, asserts the right and the power to regulate the stations minutely and continuously. Thus, over the head of each station is the club of the threat of nonrenewal, or even suspension, of its license. In consequence, the idea of freedom of speech in radio and television is no more than a mockery. Every station is grievously restricted, and forced to fashion its programming to the dictates of the Federal Communications Commission. So every station must have "balanced" programming, broadcast a certain amount of "pub*lic service" announcements, grant equal time to every political candidate for the same office and to expressions of political opinion, censor "contro*versial" lyrics in the records it plays, etc. For many years, no station was allowed to broadcast any editorial opinion at all; now, every opinion must be balanced by "responsible" editorial rebuttals.

Because every station and every broadcaster must always look over its shoulder at the FCC, free expression in broadcasting is a sham. Is it any wonder that television opinion, when it is expressed at all on controversial issues, tends to be blandly in favor of the "Establishment"?

The public has only put up with this situation because it has existed since the beginning of large-scale commercial radio. But what would we think, for example, if all newspapers were licensed, the licenses to be renewable by a Federal Press Commission, and with newspapers losing their licenses if they dare express an "unfair" editorial opinion, or if they don't give full weight to public service announcements? Would not this be an intolerable, not to say unconstitutional, destruction of the right to a free press? Or consider if all book publishers had to be licensed, and their licenses were not renewable if their book lists failed to suit a Federal Book Commission? Yet what we would all consider intolerable and totalitarian for the press and the book publishers is taken for granted in a medium which is now the most popular vehicle for expression and education: radio and television. Yet the principles in both cases are exactly the same.

Here we see, too, one of the fatal flaws in the idea of "democratic socialism," i.e., the idea that the government should own all resources and means of production yet preserve and maintain freedom of speech and the press for all its citizens. An abstract constitution guaranteeing "freedom of the press" is meaningless in a socialist society. The point is that where the government owns all the newsprint, the paper, the presses, etc., the government?as owner?must decide how to allocate the newsprint and the paper, and what to print on them. Just as the government as street owner must make a decision how the street will be used, so a socialist government will have to decide how to allocate newsprint and all other resources involved in the areas of speech and press: assembly halls, machines, trucks, etc. Any government may profess its devotion to freedom of the press, yet allocate all of its newsprint only to its defenders and supporters. A free press is again a mockery; furthermore, why should a socialist government allocate any considerable amount of its scarce resources to antisocialists? The problem of genuine freedom of the press then becomes insoluble.

The solution for radio and television? Simple: Treat these media pre*cisely the same way the press and book publishers are treated. For both the libertarian and the believer in the American Constitution the govern*ment should withdraw completely from any role or interference in all media of expression. In short, the federal government should denational*ize the airwaves and give or sell the individual channels to private owner*ship. When private stations genuinely own their channels, they will be truly free and independent; they will be able to put on any programs they wish to produce, or that they feel their listeners want to hear; and they will be able to express themselves in whichever way they wish without fear of government retaliation. They will also be able to sell or rent the airwaves to whomever they wish, and in that way the users of the channels will no longer be artificially subsidized.

Furthermore, if TV channels become free, privately owned, and inde*pendent, the big networks will no longer be able to put pressure upon the FCC to outlaw the effective competition of pay-television. It is only because the FCC has outlawed pay-TV that it has not been able to gain a foothold. "Free TV" is, of course, not truly "free"; the programs are paid for by the advertisers, and the consumer pays by covering the advertising costs in the price of the product he buys. One might ask what difference it makes to the consumer whether he pays the adver*tising costs indirectly or pays directly for each program he buys. The difference is that these are not the same consumers for the same products. The television advertiser, for example, is always interested in (a) gaining the widest possible viewing market; and (b) in gaining those particular viewers who will be most susceptible to his message. Hence, the pro*grams will all be geared to the lowest common denominator in the audience, and particularly to those viewers most susceptible to the mes*sage; that is, those viewers who do not read newspapers or magazines, so that the message will not duplicate the ads he sees there. As a result, free-TV programs tend to be unimaginative, bland, and uniform. Pay-TV would mean that each program would search for its own market, and many specialized markets for specialized audiences would develop?just as highly lucrative specialized markets have developed in the maga*zine and book publishing fields. The quality of programs would be higher and the offerings far more diverse. In fact, the menace of potential pay-TV competition must be great for the networks to lobby for years to keep it suppressed. But, of course, in a truly free market, both forms of television, as well as cable-TV and other forms we cannot yet envision, could and would enter the competition.

One common argument against private ownership of TV channels is that these channels are "scarce," and therefore have to be owned and parcelled out by the government. To an economist, this is a silly argument; all resources are scarce, in fact anything that has a price on the market commands that price precisely because it is scarce. We have to pay a certain amount for a loaf of bread, for shoes, for dresses because they are all scarce. If they were not scarce but superabundant like air, they would be free, and no one would have to worry about their pro*duction or allocation. In the press area, newsprint is scarce, paper is scarce, printing machinery and trucks are scarce, etc. The more scarce they are the higher the price they will command, and vice versa. Further*more, and again pragmatically, there are far more television channels available than are now in use. The FCC's early decision to force stations into the VHF instead of the UHF zone created far more of a scarcity of channels than there needed to be.

Another common objection to private property in the broadcast media is that private stations would interfere with each other's broadcasts, and that such widespread interference would virtually prevent any pro*grams from being heard or seen. But this is as absurd an argument for nationalizing the airwaves as claiming that since people can drive their cars over other people's land this means that all cars?or land? must be nationalized. The problem, in either case, is for the courts to demarcate property titles carefully enough so that any invasion of anoth*er s property will be clear-cut and subject to prosecution. In the case of land titles, this process is clear enough. But the point is that the courts can apply a similar process of staking out property rights in other areas?whether it be in airwaves, in water, or in oil pools. In the case of airwaves, the task is to find the technological unit?i.e., the place of transmission, the distance of the wave, and the technological width of a clear channel?and then to allocate property rights to this particular technological unit. If radio station WXYZ, for example, is assigned a property right in broadcasting on 1500 kilocycles, plus or minus a certain width of kilocycles, for 200 miles around Detroit, then any station which subsequently beams a program into the Detroit area on this wavelength would be subject to prosecution for interference with property rights. If the courts pursue their task of demarking and defending property rights, then there is no more reason to expect contin*ual invasions of such rights in this area than anywhere else.

Most people believe that this is precisely the reason the airwaves were nationalized; that before the Radio Act of 1927, stations interfered with each other's signals and chaos ensued, and the federal government was finally forced to step in to bring order and make a radio industry feasible at last. But this is historical legend, not fact. The actual history is precisely the opposite. For when interference on the same channel began to occur, the injured party took the airwave aggressors into court, and the courts were beginning to bring order out of the chaos by very successfully applying the common law theory of property rights?in very many ways similar to the libertarian theory?to this new technological area. In short, the courts were beginning to assign property rights in the airwaves to their "homesteading" users. It was after the federal govern*ment saw the likelihood of this new extension of private property that it rushed in to nationalize the airwaves, using alleged chaos as the excuse.

To describe the picture a bit more fully, radio in the first years of the century was almost wholly a means of communication for ships?either ship-to-ship or ship-to-shore messages. The Navy Department was interested in regulating radio as a means of ensuring safety at sea, and the initial federal regulation, a 1912 act, merely provided that any radio station had to have a license issued by the Secretary of Commerce. No powers to regulate or to decide not to renew licenses were written into the law, however, and when public broadcasting began in the early 1920s, Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover attempted to regulate the stations. Court decisions in 1923 and 1926, however, struck down the governments power to regulate licenses, to fail to renew them, or even to decide on which wavelengths the stations should operate.2 At about the same time, the courts were working out the concept of "home*stead" private property rights in the airwaves, notably in the case of Tribune Co. v. Oak Leaves Broadcasting Station (Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois, 1926). In this case the court held that the operator of an existing station had a property right, acquired by prior use, sufficient to enjoin a new station from using a radio frequency in any way so as to cause interference with the signals of the prior station.3 And so order was being brought out of the chaos by means of the assignment of property rights. But it was precisely this development that the government rushed in to forestall.

The 1926 Zenith decision striking down the government's power to regulate or to fail to renew licenses, and forcing the Department of Commerce to issue licenses to any station that applied, produced a great boom in the broadcasting industry. Over two hundred new stations were created in the nine months after the decision. As a result, Congress rushed through a stopgap measure in July 1926 to prevent any property rights in radio frequencies, and resolved that all licenses should be lim*ited to ninety days. By February 1927 the Congress passed the law estab*lishing the Federal Radio Commission, which nationalized the airwaves and established powers similar to those of the current FCC. That the aim of the knowledgeable politicians was not to prevent chaos but to prevent private property in the airwaves as the solution to chaos is demonstrated by the legal historian H. P. Warner. Warner states that "grave fears were expressed by legislators, and those generally charged with the administration of communications? that government regula*tion of an effective sort might be permanently prevented through the accrual of property rights in licenses or means of access, and that thus franchises of the value of millions of dollars might be established for all time."4 The net result, however, was to establish equally valuable franchises anyway, but in a monopolistic fashion through the largesse of the Federal Radio Commission and later FCC rather than through competitive homesteading.

Among the numerous direct invasions of freedom of speech exercised by the licensing power of the FRC and FCC, two cases will suffice. One was in 1931, when the FRC denied renewal of license to a Mr. Baker, who operated a radio station in Iowa. In denying renewal, the Commission said:

This Commission holds no brief for the Medical Associations and other parties whom Mr. Baker does not like. Their alleged sins may be at times of public importance, to be called to the attention of the public over the air in the right way. But this record discloses that Mr. Baker does not do so in any high-minded way. It shows that he continually and erratically over the air rides a personal hobby, his cancer cure ideas and his likes and dislikes of certain persons and things. Surely his infliction of all this on the listeners is not the proper use of a broadcasting license. Many of his utterances are vulgar, if not indeed indecent. Assuredly they are not uplifting or entertaining.5

Can we imagine the outcry if the federal government were to put a newspaper or a book publisher out of business on similar grounds?

A recent act of the FCC was to threaten nonrenewal of license of radio station KTRG in Honolulu, a major radio station in Hawaii. KTRG had been broadcasting libertarian programs for several hours a day for approximately two years. Finally, in late 1970, the FCC decided to open lengthy hearings moving toward nonrenewal of license, the threatened cost of which forced the owners to shut down the station permanently.

Government intervention... caused / set up the monopolies... Who'd have thought... :rolleyes:

Furthermore; you want Free Market media? What are you using right now..... INTERNET. :D

The mainstream media is loosing record numbers in viewership, in both television & newspaper sales. "Freedom is popular."

People are making the choice, they are sick of the bullshit crap braindead nonsense they are being fed daily on the idiot box. They're flocking to the net. Hence the new efforts to shut it all down ;)

AutoDas
08-25-2008, 08:31 PM
"Kade" understands a free market better than most of these trogs, and can probably better explain about their cherished authors, having actually read them, then they could.

Do not make the mistake of assuming that a person does not understand something because they refuse to define it in terms of it's working....

"Kade that's not an example of a free market, because blah blah blah. "

That is the distinction. Assumptions. People feel the free market will work, without a doubt, and use this assumption to define it. If something didn't work, then the free market was not in play... that is the gist of the fallacy. Just ask yourself, what are the major tenets of the free market, and take the assumptions with a grain of salt.

A free market is free of government intervention so why are you talking about legislatures being bought by companies in a "Free Market"?

According to you, every Government policy that fails is a result of a "free market" so you need more government when the market is only showing symptoms of what's causing things like speculation.

Conza88
02-16-2009, 08:30 PM
Rothbard pwned everyone. :D

Kade, you were saying? *COUGH*

LibForestPaul
02-16-2009, 09:16 PM
The media. Define media.
There are different channels for media.
Print and internet media has property rights.
Radio and broadcast do not. Both are leased from the government.

Also, segmentation play a role.
Broadcast is geared toward older generation..

Kade
02-16-2009, 11:07 PM
Rothbard pwned everyone. :D

Kade, you were saying? *COUGH*

Rereading this thread reminds me how out of control some of you are.

My point is as salient as ever. The Free Market works when you define "works" to whatever principle the current social zeigeist allows.

This is why the Oil/Steel monopolies "worked" until they didn't.

Conza88
02-16-2009, 11:25 PM
Rereading this thread reminds me how out of control stupid some of you are.

My point is as salient as ever. The Free Market works when you define "works" to whatever principle the current social zeigeist allows.

This is why the Oil/Steel monopolies "worked" until they didn't.

Absolutely blind to reality.

What part of...

The federal government, in the crucially important Radio Act of 1927, nationalized the airwaves. In effect, the federal government took title to ownership of all radio and television channels.

Don't you understand? :confused:

No Austrian ever said the monopolies in those industries ever worked. Are you delusional? Sure seems like it.

Try again Kade, nice straw man, but it ain't working.

No school of thought is actually truly free market, besides the Austrian School.

Better luck next time champ. ;)

Btw, your advocated 'Middle of the Road policy' - leads to socialism. (http://mises.org/midroad.asp) No wonder you support it. :)

Kade
02-16-2009, 11:28 PM
Absolutely blind to reality.

What part of...

The federal government, in the crucially important Radio Act of 1927, nationalized the airwaves. In effect, the federal government took title to ownership of all radio and television channels.

Don't you understand? :confused:

No Austrian ever said the monopolies in those industries ever worked. Are you delusional? Sure seems like it.

Try again Kade, nice straw man, but it ain't working.

No school of thought is actually truly free market, besides the Austrian School.

Better luck next time champ. ;)

That has nothing to do with what I'm saying... in fact, you are talking out of your ass again Gonzo.

I don't believe in the reality of the current definition "free market" regardless of whatever metaphorical literature is used to describe one. Reality is what it is, and since numbers matter, I'll stick with those.

Zuras
02-16-2009, 11:32 PM
Was someone under the impression that Pravda and the Beijing Times were paragons of quality media sources? The media is always going to be biased, which is why it's best, as any good statistician will tell you, to get as many varied sources as possible.

Kade
02-16-2009, 11:34 PM
Was someone under the impression that Pravda and the Beijing Times were paragons of quality media sources? The media is always going to be biased, which is why it's best, as any good statistician will tell you, to get as many varied sources as possible.

This ^

Conza88
02-16-2009, 11:34 PM
That has nothing to do with what I'm saying... in fact, you are talking out of your ass again Gonzo.

I don't believe in the reality of the current definition "free market" regardless of whatever metaphorical literature is used to describe one. Reality is what it is, and since numbers matter, I'll stick with those.

Since when did the definition of a Free Market (free from government intervention) EVER change? :rolleyes:

Thanks again for not addressing anything of substance.

What is your definition then? lmao. What is this 'reality'? Describe it to me. What the fck are you talking about? "Numbers matter"? :rolleyes:

Numbers matter to SOCIALISTS, you know the Problem of Economic Calculation (http://mises.org/econcalc.asp). STATISTICS are vitally important to the central planners. Everything depends on them. :)

Kade
02-16-2009, 11:39 PM
Since when did the definition of a Free Market (free from government intervention) EVER change? :rolleyes:

Thanks again for not addressing anything of substance.

What is your definition then? lmao. What is this 'reality'? Describe it to me. What the fck are you talking about? "Numbers matter"? :rolleyes:

Numbers matter to SOCIALISTS, you know the Problem of Economic Calculation (http://mises.org/econcalc.asp). STATISTICS are vitally important to the central planners. Everything depends on them. :)

At least you are willing to admit you don't use reality.

I believe the current manifestation of "Free Market" now allows for minimal intervention to protect intellectual property as well as physical property, and some forms of the legal system.... That is relatively new, but I don't expect you to know that.

Conza88
02-16-2009, 11:54 PM
At least you are willing to admit you don't use reality.

I believe the current manifestation of "Free Market" now allows for minimal intervention to protect intellectual property as well as physical property, and some forms of the legal system.... That is relatively new, but I don't expect you to know that.

You fail again. Nothing new here though... All I do is use reality, you're the one who is living in the land of fog. :)

IP is mercantilistic. It is a MONOPOLY on Intellectual "property". Government / state imposed.

Again, stop with the strawmen.

Anything that is not the Austrian School of Economics, ain't purely free market.

You think the Chicago school represents the free market? 5th plank of the Communist Manifesto is it's poster child. Get a grip. THEY masquerade as free market, but they're just as interventionist as the Keynesian scum they pretend to oppose.

The State violates private property and the non aggression axiom.

But then I wouldn't expect you to know that.

Try again. ;)

Bman
02-17-2009, 12:09 AM
IP is mercantilistic. It is a MONOPOLY on Intellectual "property". Government / state imposed.


Not to get into the over all comment but

PP is mercantilistic. It is a MONOPOLY on Private "PROPERTY".
Government / state imposed.

Conza88
02-17-2009, 12:38 AM
Not to get into the over all comment but

PP is mercantilistic. It is a MONOPOLY on Private "PROPERTY".
Government / state imposed.

Had to burst your bubble bubba. But that's what the anarchists / traditional socialists think. That if you get rid of the State, you also get rid of private property. ;)

Ever held of self ownership? ;)

I suggest you watch and learn.

Philosophy of Liberty (http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf)

Bman
02-17-2009, 12:44 AM
Had to burst your bubble bubba. But that's what the anarchists / traditional socialists think. That if you get rid of the State, you also get rid of private property. ;)

Ever held of self ownership? ;)

I suggest you watch and learn.

Philosophy of Liberty (http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf)

HAHAHA!

I already have that video favorited.

See what I don't get is how you support one type of property and completely act like none of the concetps you link to the one property can be linked to the other. The argument is hypocritical it is funny.

I'm all for property rights. You are not. But more fundamental than that is what we each would call property. IMO to disregard the one would require to disregard the other since the arguments are interchangable.

heavenlyboy34
02-17-2009, 12:47 AM
Had to burst your bubble bubba. But that's what the anarchists / traditional socialists think. That if you get rid of the State, you also get rid of private property. ;)

Ever held of self ownership? ;)

I suggest you watch and learn.

Philosophy of Liberty (http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf)

I like Anarchism and I don't think that. Whom art thou referring to? :confused:

Conza88
02-17-2009, 01:05 AM
HAHAHA!

I already have that video favorited.

See what I don't get is how you support one type of property and completely act like none of the concetps you link to the one property can be linked to the other. The argument is hypocritical it is funny.

I'm all for property rights. You are not. But more fundamental than that is what we each would call property. IMO to disregard the one would require to disregard the other since the arguments are interchangable.

The arguments aren't interchangeable.

Stephan Kinsella: Rethinking IP Completely (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=280262988255234681)

Get some popcorn, it's a good one. It goes much more in detail, than the previous links I've given you. I've just come across it. BAR the books which are still spot on. :o This is more entertaining though. :D

If you get bored, skip to 15min + and it addressing your problem emphatically. Wish I found this sooner, lol. Watch the whole thing though. You'll see how insane patenting and IP really is. ;)


I like Anarchism and I don't think that. Whom art thou referring to? :confused:

You're not an anarchist. You're a non-archist. Or anarcho-capitalist :)

Are Libertarians 'Anarchists'? by Murray N. Rothbard (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard167.html)

Or you can try wage an esoteric war and take back a label that is thoroughly completely tarnished and was set up / started by socialists.

Danke
02-17-2009, 01:56 AM
Conza88,

I must say, you are a treasure trove of liberty information. I only wish I had the time to review all that you have provided us here on RPFs.

Thanks!

Danke

gilliganscorner
02-17-2009, 08:38 AM
Was someone under the impression that Pravda and the Beijing Times were paragons of quality media sources? The media is always going to be biased, which is why it's best, as any good statistician will tell you, to get as many varied sources as possible.

Agreed. In theory. However, when the low hanging fruit of mainstream media that has the lion's share of what is left of the public mind seems to be goosestepping in lockstep towards a COMMON bias, it gets disconcerting.

I can't tell you for example, just how interested I was when Ron Paul repeatedly made the claim that he would advocate for the abolition of the IRS and thus, personal income tax. I thought that would grab the lightning rod of EVERY single taxpaying American! What did MSM do? They repeatedly used the phrase, "Paul favours low taxes." - which is exactly the concision people are indoctrinated with to expect from a politician. The only time, at least as I scoured mainstream coverage of Paul, that it got close to public the abolition of income tax is on the Leno show something like (the exact quote escapes me at the moment), something like, "Yes, I favour low taxes. I.e. Zero."

Anyone recall that?

user
02-17-2009, 06:19 PM
Agreed. In theory. However, when the low hanging fruit of mainstream media that has the lion's share of what is left of the public mind seems to be goosestepping in lockstep towards a COMMON bias, it gets disconcerting.

I can't tell you for example, just how interested I was when Ron Paul repeatedly made the claim that he would advocate for the abolition of the IRS and thus, personal income tax. I thought that would grab the lightning rod of EVERY single taxpaying American! What did MSM do? They repeatedly used the phrase, "Paul favours low taxes." - which is exactly the concision people are indoctrinated with to expect from a politician. The only time, at least as I scoured mainstream coverage of Paul, that it got close to public the abolition of income tax is on the Leno show something like (the exact quote escapes me at the moment), something like, "Yes, I favour low taxes. I.e. Zero."

Anyone recall that?
I sure do. Leno wasn't used to the idea of no taxes, so he asked RP if he wanted a UK-style VAT, or a flat tax, and RP said something like, "Sure, I want a flat tax, but real flat like zero."

satchelmcqueen
02-17-2009, 07:58 PM
i cant say much about it right now as i need to wait until this weekend to see what pans out, but i think my local news paper might be trying to censor me. ill post this week end the letter i submitted if this is the case as it needs to be heard.