Pro-liberty is Pro-media

[Kludge]

I wonder sometimes if people understand that Fox News and the like is a corporate entity. Unless I've misinterpreted Dr. Paul, that would mean that Fox News would receive even more rights to smear and report how/who/what/when they report under a Paul administration. We are always getting pissed about Fox News, and so we "shit list" their parent company's stocks. And this is a great example of how free market can work to the peoples' advantage.

This thread isn't about right and wrong, it's just that I sometimes wonder if we know that we're ultimately helping Fox news and the like report how they want. Sean Hannity and CFR will exist during and after Ron Paul's presidency. (I'm not trolling... I'm genuinely interested if people have wrapped their heads around free markets completely)

[Xonox]

Yes it's true... but it dosen't stop us from boycotting them. Honestly though, half the country already realizes their bullshit, pretty soon the other half will come around.

[greves]

Fraud (i.e. libel) is still not permitted. One thing you people need to understand about freedom is that, despite the fact that you're free to do as you please with your own self, you still don't have the "freedom" to punch me in the nose!

[newbitech]

old media will give way to the internet in the next 4 years.

[Abobo]

Give me a break! What we have now is not a free market.

Broadcast TV is licensed by the government and given exclusively to big companies. Cable TV is controlled by the cable companies, again controlled, licensed, and regulated by the government. Now tell me, what part of that system is "free"?

All TV, broadcast, cable, or satellite, is controlled, regulated, and manipulated by the government.

What we need is a truly free market, not the sham we have now. We need private ownership of the airwaves, we need to bring the homesteading principle back to broadcasting.

[murrayrothbard]

Fraud (i.e. libel) is still not permitted. One thing you people need to understand about freedom is that, despite the fact that you're free to do as you please with your own self, you still don't have the "freedom" to punch me in the nose!

Libel (publishing something not true about someone) is not a rights violation of the person being lied about. The only case you could make for fraud is that you purchased some publication and accurateness of the publication was part of the contract. If it turned out to be fabrication then you has the purchaser of the publication would have a claim against not the publisher. But, I think that is still sort of shaky. But how would this libel damage the rights of the person being libeled?

[greves]

Libel (publishing something not true about someone) is not a rights violation of the person being lied about. The only case you could make for fraud is that you purchased some publication and accurateness of the publication was part of the contract. If it turned out to be fabrication then you has the purchaser of the publication would have a claim against not the publisher. But, I think that is still sort of shaky. But how would this libel damage the rights of the person being libeled?

Here's 2 scenarios, using the same logic:

You have the rights over your own body and extensions of it, like your fist. Therefore, if you want to punch yourself in the face, it's fine. Unless you give someone else permission to punch you in the face, someone punching you in the face would be overstepping their bounds and not respecting your rights.

You have the rights over your own body and extensions of it, like your voice. Therefore, if you want to say something awful, it's fine. Unless you give someone else permission to say something awful in your voice, someone speaking for you would be overstepping their bounds and not respecting your rights.

In other words, if someone says "Ron Paul wants to kill all gays and blacks," and Ron Paul has not himself said that, it's a moral equivalent to punching Ron Paul in the face.

[murrayrothbard]

You have the rights over your own body and extensions of it, like your fist. Therefore, if you want to punch yourself in the face, it's fine. Unless you give someone else permission to punch you in the face, someone punching you in the face would be overstepping their bounds and not respecting your rights.

Yes, that would be battery.


You have the rights over your own body and extensions of it, like your voice. Therefore, if you want to say something awful, it's fine. Unless you give someone else permission to say something awful in your voice, someone speaking for you would be overstepping their bounds and not respecting your rights.

This scenario makes no sense. It is not physically possible for someone besides you to say something with your voice (your vocal cords). You can't own your "voice"; it's not a thing. Where is it? It doesn't exist.


In other words, if someone says "Ron Paul wants to kill all gays and blacks," and Ron Paul has not himself said that, it's a moral equivalent to punching Ron Paul in the face.

Huh? If some says something about Ron Paul no right of his has been violated. His "voice" has not been "stolen". The situations are categorically different. If someone punches Ron in the face his property has actually been damaged (his face). This is a rights violation.

[greves]

You misunderstand. "in your voice" means speaking as you. If someone says "Ron Paul wants to kill all gays and blacks," then they are implying that RP has stated or implied or written or whatever that RP wants to kill all gays and blacks. They are using his voice, which they cannot do without his express permission. It's exactly the same as not being able to use his face (ex. as a punching bag) without his express permission.

You seem to think that our rights only extend to our own physical body, but that is not the case. Our rights extend to our own physical body and things we create with it, such as our voice, something we make such as a painting, or something we buy such as a car.

[murrayrothbard]

You misunderstand. "in your voice" means speaking as you. If someone says "Ron Paul wants to kill all gays and blacks," then they are implying that RP has stated or implied or written or whatever that RP wants to kill all gays and blacks. They are using his voice, which they cannot do without his express permission. It's exactly the same as not being able to use his face (ex. as a punching bag) without his express permission.

You seem to think that our rights only extend to our own physical body, but that is not the case. Our rights extend to our own physical body and things we create with it, such as our voice, something we make such as a painting, or something we buy such as a car.

Of course we own things beyond our physical body but only actual things can be owned. Your voice is not a real physical thing. You own your vocal chords by virtue of the fact that they are part of your body. But if I say "Ron Paul said X" I haven't touched his "voice". I'm saying it with my property. All of his is left perfectly intact.

[greves]

Let me ask you about a bit more extreme scenario. If someone is walking down a dark alley at night, do you have the right to run up to them with a Jason mask and chainsaw running and start chasing them, so long as you don't actually hack them to bits? After all, you're leaving all of their property perfectly intact!

[murrayrothbard]

Let me ask you about a bit more extreme scenario. If someone is walking down a dark alley at night, do you have the right to run up to them with a Jason mask and chainsaw running and start chasing them, so long as you don't actually hack them to bits? After all, you're leaving all of their property perfectly intact!

No a direct and immediate threat of physical violence towards another's property is in fact an act of aggression. Just as it would be if someone showed up at your house and said they were going to kill you. They don't have to actually kill you in order for it to be an act of aggression.

[greves]

-Running after someone with a chainsaw without killing them.
-Saying you will kill someone.
-Saying someone else will kill someone.

So that short little chain gets us back to my original statement, which was that it is not allowable to say "Ron Paul wants to kill gays and blacks."

I guess then, we might need to say something like: it's OK for the media to lie and say something like "Ron Paul lives on the moon," whereas it's not OK for them to say "Ron Paul wants to raise taxes," because the former has no implied violent consequences, while the latter does (if you're on board with the whole taxes = violence idea).

[greves]

Another good point a friend just brought up (I asked him what he thought about this thread) is this: can a company/person make false claims about a product to get more sales? Obviously not, that is fraud. Can a person make false claims about another person (as a "product", or candidate, in this case) to get more sales (votes) (for someone else)? Obviously not, that is fraud.

[LBT]

In a free market we don't need to like all products, nor do we have to support all ideas. It is still a right to protest against ideas or products we find offensive.

But libertarians tend not to bother so much about telling other people how to run their lives, nor should they seek the power of the state to do so.

Lamestream media has been in bed with the state for a long time. Power tends to coalesce as it has synergies. Licensing, which grants mini-monopolies makes this worse.

Their is little doubt that Fox misrepresents itself as independent and objective. They are clearly an arm of the military industrial complex in their push to wars. We should protest them vigorously. We should demand greater transparency and accountability.

We can do all these things without infringing upon their property rights. e.g. Through investigative reports, through independent media, through boycotts of their advertisers and of course, by not using them as our news source.

[EvoPro]

I think one of the main reasons there is so much bias is because the cable companies pretty much have a monopoly over each area they "own." If there was a free market people would likely have the ability to choose which channels they receive, so therefore many people would cancel the news stations that are so biased they use lies and smears. There would likely be more national news channels available as well.

[greves]

By the way this thread should be moved to General Politics or Issues or something.

[murrayrothbard]

-Running after someone with a chainsaw without killing them.

This is an act of aggression given the context of the situation. The means to commit harm are clearly in play.


-Saying you will kill someone.

This may or may not be. It depends on the situation. If I'm sitting on my couch and randomly say I'm going to kill someone it is not an act of aggression. If I am at your doorstep holding a knife and say I'm going to kill you it is. The means have to exist within the context of the situation.


-Saying someone else will kill someone.

The only way this could possibly be aggression if it was demonstrated that the person uttering this was in fact causing this to take place. E.g. hiring someone to kill someone, forcing someone to kill someone etc. If I say John Doe is going to kill Jane Doe who have I committed aggression against?


So that short little chain gets us back to my original statement, which was that it is not allowable to say "Ron Paul wants to kill gays and blacks."

I guess then, we might need to say something like: it's OK for the media to lie and say something like "Ron Paul lives on the moon," whereas it's not OK for them to say "Ron Paul wants to raise taxes," because the former has no implied violent consequences, while the latter does (if you're on board with the whole taxes = violence idea).

I don't see how any of those utterances could be an act of aggression... However, if some politician states that he wants to raise your taxes and actually has the means to do so and acts to carry out his claim he is clearly committing an act of aggression.

[murrayrothbard]

Another good point a friend just brought up (I asked him what he thought about this thread) is this: can a company/person make false claims about a product to get more sales? Obviously not, that is fraud. Can a person make false claims about another person (as a "product", or candidate, in this case) to get more sales (votes) (for someone else)? Obviously not, that is fraud.

Well I agree with the first statement. I can't offer to sell you Grade AAA apples and then give you rotten apples. This is fraud. But in the second case there is no actual exchange of property. There is no fraud. Just lying. Lying, qua lying, is not a rights violation.

P.S. Given your avatar and signature I would have thought you would have noticed the more obvious act of aggression in your second scenario. By promoting the concept of democracy and coercive rule by politicians are you not an accomplice to aggression? ;)