Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 25th Aug 2010 22:19 UTC
Multimedia, AV A couple of days ago we talked about how the RIAA and NAB are planning on asking US Congress to mandate FM radio chips inside every cell phone. This plan was met with some ridicule, so the NAB decided to write a blog post addressing the critics. Most of the post is overshadowed by an overdose of America's favourite national pastime: WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE. 9/11!
Permalink for comment 438432
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
FuriousGeorge
Member since:
2010-08-26

I said:


(Remember, being a true libertarian means supporting the rights of private institutions or even governments to deny equal protection based on race, religion, or creed. It's very fashionable to claim libertarianism, but when push comes to shove how long will you really own it.)


You said:

Being a true libertarian is hardly about the rights of governments to do anything, maybe even to exist; it's all about the rights of individuals to have their natural rights respected by the government, if any government is to be tolerated at all. Bundling together the rights of private, peaceful institutions and the rights of governments is a non-starter for a libertarian.


Actually, I believe libertarians tolerate government as a necessary means to protect individual liberties. That could include the liberty of an individual to discriminate against another based on race, religion, or creed.

It is anarchists that believe there should be no government at all.

Yes, freedom of association means I have no right to tell you with which kind of people you may or may not do business or hang around. What's wrong with that?


Nothing, and I don't think I implied there was. I was saying that a true libertarian would be opposed to, for instance, the US Civil Rights act, which (among other things) makes it illegal for private business to discriminate based on race, religion, or creed.

And who said mandatory seatbelts are justified? The fact that they save some lives is irrelevant. You own your life, not your government. What, are all those accidents a burden on public healthcare? Well, that's an example of the wicked character of a public healthcare system.


Many countries have private health care (like the US), and they still mandate seat belts.

As for traffic lights, speed limits and the like, privatize roads and cities, and let the market decide.


You do realize that most private business fail, right? Also, I have a problem with a profit motive for transportation infrastructure on principal, but I could be wrong.

Do you have an example of a nation with a privatized highway system to serve as a model for the plausibility of this argument?

Also, why would a libertarian abide traffic lights and speed limits to begin with? Shouldn't you have the right to go as fast as you want?

Why enforce immigration laws? Shouldn't anyone be able to go anywhere they want, whenever they want to go there?

And how does one privatize a city? What did you mean by that?

So, in a sense, I basically agree, the FM chip is just more of the same, namely special interest groups with laughable excuses, lobbying governments to mandate expensive and redundant, or even stupid and wasteful regulations at the expense of everyone else. This case is particularly blatant, that's all.


I still think it is at least as reasonable or only as absurd as the seat belt mandate. That's my whole point.

As I said, you can express why you are against it, which you did quite eloquently, and I can still agree to disagree.

Edited 2010-08-27 12:27 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1