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!
Thread beginning with comment 438387
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
wannabe geek
Member since:
2006-09-27

Just some off-topic remarks..


(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.)


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.

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?

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.

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

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.

Reply Parent Score: 2

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

wannabe geek Member since:
2006-09-27

I said:


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 does. But notice we are talking about the rights of individuals as such, not governments.



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



Many libertarians are individualist anarchists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism



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.


Agreed.



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


Well, let's forget about Medicare, Medicaid, and the massive regulations on private healthcare insurance, and pretend there's a free market in that sector. Then, a fortiori, mandatory safetly belts are unjustified, which was my point.



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.


When a private business fails, it's usually bought out by a better manager. If no-opne wants to buy it, that means it has nothing of value to offer, and it should stop wasting resources anyway. It's not something for end users to worry about.

I'm a bit surprised you are particularly against the profit motive for transportation. Why not for food production, clothing and housing?

Anyway, you can't change people's motives with regulation. You only change the means they choose.



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


Not really. Governments do not let it happen. Private roads were quite common in the US before the nineteenth century, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_highways_in_the_United_States

For more discussion of plans for a private road system, you may want to have a look at Walter Block's "The privatization of roads and highways":

http://www.amazon.com/Privatization-Roads-Highways-Walter-Block/dp/...

Also available for free in PDF:

http://mises.org/books/roads_web.pdf




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?


Not if the street is owned, and you are at best a co-owner under a covenant. I would expect that kind of private regulation in private cities to be the norm in a libertarian society. Coexistence rules are useful, and there's nothing wrong with them if they are freely accepted by individuals.



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



You hit a point of lively debate among libertarians, but there's something they all agree on: I have no right to "immigrate" into your house. Another reason to build private cities.

The disagreement is mainly about whether empty, government-controlled land is actually unowned or collectively owned by the host country citizens.

On the other hand, they tend to agree that the economic effects of immigrant workers are possitive for both the immigrants and the host country. It's just a particular case of free trade, applied to labor.

The problem are the cultural friction effects, and immigrant with no intention to work.



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


There are many ways to do that, but what I have in mind is to share it out among the citizens. So you have a right to your home and the right of passage to the city border, but any street could be fenced off if all its residents agree on that, as long as no other citizens are trapped inside a ring. I would like to see private neighborhoods with different regulations about noise, traffic, public order and so on. That would be the first step toward all-new private cities.




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.


Fair enough ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2