Sadly these erosions to freedom rarely if ever progress in a linear fashion.  It looks like this attack was a "testing" of the waters.  As if they said to themselves "is it time yet?"  "No not yet, lets try again at a more opportune time. 

When people began padoodling around with radios, they quickly discovered that all emissions--either their own or the reception of others'--ocupied a discreet frequency of transmission on the wave band that radios could use for send & deliver.

The number of these bands is finite, based upon the habit of electrons to bounce around and create interference. Quantum Mechanics led to the transistor, which increased the finitude of bands enormously.  but  having wider spectral birth still meant hogging a bigger share of a finite resource, which is not how capitalism is supposed to work.

Rather, the value of capitalism as as system is its ability to create more resources, so a given finitude isn't a problem. In this case, however, not. Free enterprise cannot alter the laws of physics.

This is the rationale as to why all countries nationalize the 'air waves'. It's simply not like the publishing of newspapers, which is easily seem as infinite, due tot the internet, etc....So sorry, Tibor,I don't see the slippery slope.

Eva

Eva:

You are making an argument from 50 years ago.  Technology has sinced kicked its ass.

I guess in theory there are still broadcast stations sharing limited bandwidth via the 'airwaves.'   I seriously doubt there is anyone in your generation who lived in a home where media was restricted to the bandwidth supported by our selectively transmissive damp atmosphere.    You all grew up with CNN/cable.    A single glass fibre can carry 35 billion times the amount of useable spectrum as the atmosphere.   A network consisting of bundles of glass fibres, plural, has far more potential available bandwidth than mankind can possibly imagine over-running.   And we have networks, not 'a' network.

There is no justificiation for governent control of content in these myriad of choices.   None.    Change the channel.  Change the network.    Being the traffic cop -- running the lottery -- for use of the commons is not close to justification for the government getting involved with judging content on private carriers on non-interfering networks -- even in the same trenches -- even in the same cable bundles -- even in the same fibre bundles -- even in the same fibre.       Government bureacrats are just not that smart, period, regarding what is 'fair' and what is not 'fair.'   Inevitably, criticism of government is regarded as 'unfair.'

Now there is a shock.

There is a wireless -broadcast- bottleneck/chokepoint; it is important for transmissions to/from spaceborn platforms.   It does not apply to content streaming on your network.. Neither does it apply to your local wireless network (which shares the same spectrum with other wireless networks throughout the world, with no problem at all-- their scope is entirely local, not a problem at all, and not much of a problem locally thanks to spread spectrum technology and things like Walsh Codes...)

Your argument applies to those 4 folks with rabbit ears on the TV srill receiving limited broadcast data.    Knock yourself out and regulate what is on those 'airwaves.'   "Radio" is long are already simulcasting as IP and wirelessly going the last 20 feet via local wireless access only, which is becoming endemic.   Radio reception is no longer limited to 'broadcast' or those considerations from FDRs 30s.  

Freedom is erupting, governments are clinging to the gig until their fingers bleed, but the limited spectrum argument doesn't bear the slightest technical scrutiny.

regards.

Fred.

Matthews,

You just parrot the progressive's ideas of what capitalism is, even though they are wrong, then imply capitalism doesn't work, and therefore, by implication government must step in.  Who said that 'ease of entry' is required?  What twisted logic says that because something is difficult, the government must do it?  Oh, yeah, the socialists and progressives say that.  Did you stop to think that if government could just pull almost all of the money out of the private economy, then almost no venture would have any ease of entry and the government could take over and regulate or own all of them.  Isn't that nifty how that works out that way?  

Capitalism is the economic description of political liberty.  And liberty is the primary goal.  That is the truth that progressives want to hide.  They also want to make people think that there is no objective, universal morality that would let us define moral boundaries for a government.  These things are inconvienent for those who would move to Washington and be our rulers.

Ease of entry:   Kurt Vonnegut's Lead Weights, in the form of government 'regulation' of those who can dance.   There is no 'ease of entry' until any idiot can organize a network.   I mean, there is never any ease of entry in any field, except the field of endemic dependency/Holy Consumer.   This is emperor wanabes granting themselves a permanent license to be emperors.

Those who can dance might start to think in other terms, or might long already have.   It's one thing to focus one's energies and talants and capabilitis in the service of tribal emperors and their constructivist theories-- your life for their visions.    It's another thing to use those same resources to avoid the clumsy tribal forks.

As in, today's economies, plural.

WIthout actually getting out the whips and fangs, how would the tribal emperor wannabees actually think this could ever succeed in doing anything other than building the sad economies we have today?

regards,

Fred

re 7&8:

Fred,

Not even Warsaw block countries followed the USSR into state command systems. Your slippery slope isn't interesting.

People have been talking 'mixed' now for the lact 80++ years. Sometimes markets are beneficial, sometimes not. I'm for finding out more markets based upon practical results, and for seeing what, exactly, the market can do bette than the state. 

This is not some ill-concieved mumbo-jumbo dressed up to sound 'philosophical'--or putting lipstick on a pig.

Finally, lack of ease of entry into a market is an expressiion used by everyone, regardless of politics. Said lack indicates an oligopoly, or a monopoly. Hayek, for example, said that state ownership is wrong precisely because it tends to behave like a monopoly.

OTH, Rand's Galt is pro-monopoly as a fact of nature. Now although this doesn't make it wrong on face value (although it is in other ways!), what followers of Rand cannot do is cite Austrian Skool as intellectual support.

To put it mildly, Rand's admiration for Hayek was not shared. For her part, she seemed a bit confused as to why. poor girl!

Rather, Atlas was a big hit, made lots of money, so she simply ingored the hard questions.

Eva

Matthews,

Rand's Galt is pro-monopoly

More nonsense... You need to find a nice anti-Objectivism site where you will be warmly received.

Fred, 

I agree with your whimsical sarcasm, but would rather that her skimpy defenses and feeble attacks take place in Dissent.  All things in their proper places, says the good sailor.

re Wolfer

Perhaps my sarcasm of personal affections was misplaced--never get into a pissing contest with a skunk.

Austrian Skool Economics--Mises tossed in with Hayek--is the only thing going this says, 'Any government intervention is bad'. Otherwise, Classical skool people--be they liberal or conservative-- debate on how much is necessary, not 'if'.

My position is half conservative (less is better) and only half Austrian, because they cannot do math.

As far as a correct Rand-ology goes, she seemed to have taken on a rather bizarre bi-valence, as if tobacco and alcohol was a severe problem. On the one hand, yes, she hated Hayek's 'Roads' although  it gave her amo to say, 'government always messes things up.

She likewise hated his and Mises' citation of cycles and false prosperity. Then there was the hate associated with their justifivcation of capitalism as supporting the state via the institution of private property creating many stakeholders. This, of course, lacked requisite ideological purity.

In short, she hated the smaller differences between her and the Austrians, while cannabalizing their main thrust: again, no government intervention into the economy. She was a big hater who never thanked others for their influence. Sounds like a spoiled premka, to me.

Atlas is about what we call 'monopolies'. Galt was a 'monopolist' , who actually happens to be the main character, as in 'Who is John Galt"? Rand's justification for monopolies is that this economic form corresponds to the skill distribution that naturally occurs among people, in a Gaussian sort of way.

Austrians opposed this in principle as 'bad', so there's a rupture in beliefs, of sorts, between the two. But then again, the austrians never borrowed anything from Rand, except possibly tearing pages out of Atlas for cleaning windows.

Again,the relationship was all take and no give. Virtue of selfishness, anyone?

EM

I am one of the original/founding editors of Reason and have followed the foundation's developments since 1969.  At a recent event I took part in a panel discussion and Virginia Postrel declared that she, for one, believes in the "empirical" approach.  That approach is one that commits one to holding that in any particular case freedom is more likely to be suited to our social/political lives BUT as to whether it is a dependable idea for future decisions, well that needs to be tested on each particular occasion.  No principled commitment to liberty is warranted (since the next time it might not pan out).