| | Tibor Machan wrote "The question about nationalization is moot--the public "owns" the sphere where radio and television broadcasting goes on. This sphere is identifiable--could be auctioned off, as some have proposed. Bits and pieces of it, like land or regions in a lake or stream, could be owned by individuals or groups of them and they could rent it out to others or used it themselves. For more technical matters, there are engineers who know this stuff very well."
I assume that you are responding to my question.
What I find difficult to comprehend is the concept 'the public "owns" the sphere..." What does that mean? Where does that ownership come from? If the public does 'own' the spectrum, does it not mean that each individual has an ownership in it (otherwise, wouldn't that mean a collective having more rights than an individual?)? If so, when the government or any other agency auctions it off, say, against my consent, wouldn't it be violating my property rights?
I am not supporting 'nationalization', I think it is as meaningless as 'privatizing' it. The only thing necessary is an agency for coordinating the use of specific frequency bands to avoid conflicts -- it could be a government or a private one -- based on some sort of voluntary agreement. But to claim that that agency 'owns' the frequency bands is meaningless -- so long as sunlight, for instance, contains em waves of every frequency. Because, I think, 'to own' implies the ability to have the complete control over the generation, transmission and reception of such waves and as long as natural sources exist, for example, that cannot be controlled at will, it cannot be so.
Perhaps, I am arguing over semantics.
Incidentally, I am an electrical engineer.
coaltontrail
|
|
