Turning down the volume on TV commercials

[Liability]

This is taking us away from the point. That point being that there should be private ownership of the airwaves. Private ownership does not impede anyone's rights, and would solve the dilemma of anyone else using that frequency and jamming transmissions. The market remains better at regulation than government.

No. That is NOT "the point." It is your merely contention. And your contention is based on a false premise.

I have already addressed that mistake you make.

The "market," in actuality, cannot be expected to effectively serve to prevent the undue control over access to the airwaves by corporate entities.

The market may well be better at regulating SOME things: but it is silly and quite baseless to presume that it could "regulate" access to the airwaves in any way that wouldn't deprive most of us OF that access.

Yes, my contention, or my point. Same thing.

It doesn't deprive you of access at all. You would be free to purchase a different frequency, or not to purchase a different frequency.

You miss the point. There are but a finite number of available (usable) frequencies in any given market.

The concern is not that any one frequency would be used and thus unavailable to the rest of us. The concern is that eventually all of them would be used, depriving the rest of us of access.

And if the government is not the one allocating those limited resources in a competitive way, then by what claim of right can CBS or MSLSD or NBC, etc., obtain the right to exploit a frequency on its own? Who do they "buy" that frequency from? If they don't buy it from anybody, then what stops me from saying "screw them, I will just ramp up the wattage and use that very same frequency!"? If that latter kind of thing happens enough, it yields cacophony time.

 

[2Parties]

If they don't buy it from anybody, then what stops me from saying "screw them, I will just ramp up the wattage and use that very same frequency!"?

The same thing that keeps most people from acting completely stupid and outrageous. Common sense.

 

[Liability]

If they don't buy it from anybody, then what stops me from saying "screw them, I will just ramp up the wattage and use that very same frequency!"?

The same thing that keeps most people from acting completely stupid and outrageous. Common sense.

Common sense. Hm. You have none of that, which partly explains the utter imbecility of that stupid reply you just offered.

 

[RadiomanATL]

If they don't buy it from anybody, then what stops me from saying "screw them, I will just ramp up the wattage and use that very same frequency!"?

The same thing that keeps most people from acting completely stupid and outrageous. Common sense.

Uhhh...

no.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

If they don't buy it from anybody, then what stops me from saying "screw them, I will just ramp up the wattage and use that very same frequency!"?

The same thing that keeps you from turning the volume all the way up on your stereo system when you don't buy the right to have a radio. The same thing that keeps me from showing up at someone else's demonstration, taking over their stage, and turning turning the volume up louder than theirs.

The laws in these instances all serve the same purpose: regulating and limiting the right to free speech in order to better protect everyone's rights.

 

[2Parties]

If they don't buy it from anybody, then what stops me from saying "screw them, I will just ramp up the wattage and use that very same frequency!"?

The same thing that keeps most people from acting completely stupid and outrageous. Common sense.

Common sense. Hm. You have none of that, which partly explains the utter imbecility of that stupid reply you just offered.

Most people really don't act like you think they do. The only people who remotely act that way are those with power, or those who want it.

Most people don't blast their car stereos.
Most people don't do things just to irritate other people.
Most people don't act like complete dicks to each other.

If we need a nanny state to regulate people being assholes to each other than humanity is screwed anyways, and giving the effort will cause more harm than good.

 

[Liability]

The same thing that keeps most people from acting completely stupid and outrageous. Common sense.

Common sense. Hm. You have none of that, which partly explains the utter imbecility of that stupid reply you just offered.

Most people really don't act like you think they do. The only people who remotely act that way are those with power, or those who want it.

Most people don't blast their car stereos.
Most people don't do things just to irritate other people.
Most people don't act like complete dicks to each other.

If we need a nanny state to regulate people being assholes to each other than humanity is screwed anyways, and giving the effort will cause more harm than good.

Most people aren't as fucking retarded as you are.

But, psssst.

If you study almost any part of history, guess what you might just find (if you are honest and if you had the ability to notice little things that jump off the freakin' page all the time)?

CRIMINALS.

Yup. It's twue. It's twue!

Do you KNOW why cattlemen brand their cattle?

Because -- pssssssst -- sometimes, people rustle other people's cattle! They even had a name for that kind of thing: "cattle rustlers!"

And, do you know what a CLAIM JUMPER is?

No?

Look it up.

How do you get oil out of a well that has no oil underneath it? That's RIGHT. You DRILL down at an angle into the other guy's deposit.

 

[Liability]

If they don't buy it from anybody, then what stops me from saying "screw them, I will just ramp up the wattage and use that very same frequency!"?

The same thing that keeps you from turning the volume all the way up on your stereo system when you don't buy the right to have a radio. The same thing that keeps me from showing up at someone else's demonstration, taking over their stage, and turning turning the volume up louder than theirs.

The laws in these instances all serve the same purpose: regulating and limiting the right to free speech in order to better protect everyone's rights.

No. Your "examples" are non-responsive. Entirely so.

If you show up at the performance of some other guy's band (when that band bought the stage time and the right to benefit from the sale of the tickets at that venue and you didn't) the police would toss your ass the fuck out and probably arrest you because you are not allowed to steal the other guy's license rights.

But if there is nobody to SELL the airwaves to you, then your use of it is just a brute claim of "right" which is not legally superior to MY claim of right. I claim it because I choose to try to exploit it. It's right there in the ether. Who the fuck is gonna stop me? YOU?

Now, you MIGHT object and say some silly crap like, "but i was here first!"

"Wah wah wah. Tough titties. I was here second and my wattage is bigger than your, so fuck off," I might just respond.

These kind of disputes are NORMALLY settled by resort to the law. But, according to you, there is no "law" here since the airwaves and the frequencies cannot be "owned." And if they cannot be "owned" then nobody can lease them to limit the access to them in any kind of orderly way. Your right is NOT then superior to my right. We can squabble over it, but you lose your right to exploit it profitably if you can't exclude me -- so you're screwed. Bugger off!

As I said before, WE employ the legal fiction in order to create the conditions whereby the frequencies CAN be exploited profitably. And unless we do, it's anarchy, chaos and cacophony. Hey. That can be fun, too, I suppose. But the radio signals are gonna sound like shit. SKRRRRRRttttttchhhzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Emma]

Why do you even bother?

 

[Liability]

Why do you even bother?

Who? Me?

I'm on a (more or less educational) mission from God!

 

[Emma]

Why do you even bother?

Who? Me?

I'm on a (more or less educational) mission from God!

Could you at least sing and dance for us?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCTJeT2i9QU[/ame]

 

[blu]

Common sense. Hm. You have none of that, which partly explains the utter imbecility of that stupid reply you just offered.

Most people really don't act like you think they do. The only people who remotely act that way are those with power, or those who want it.

Most people don't blast their car stereos.
Most people don't do things just to irritate other people.
Most people don't act like complete dicks to each other.

If we need a nanny state to regulate people being assholes to each other than humanity is screwed anyways, and giving the effort will cause more harm than good.

Most people aren't as fucking retarded as you are.

But, psssst.

If you study almost any part of history, guess what you might just find (if you are honest and if you had the ability to notice little things that jump off the freakin' page all the time)?

CRIMINALS.

Yup. It's twue. It's twue!

Do you KNOW why cattlemen brand their cattle?

Because -- pssssssst -- sometimes, people rustle other people's cattle! They even had a name for that kind of thing: "cattle rustlers!"

And, do you know what a CLAIM JUMPER is?

No?

Look it up.

How do you get oil out of a well that has no oil underneath it? That's RIGHT. You DRILL down at an angle into the other guy's deposit.

ummmmm don't you mean its because cows of different owners get mixed up in the field and they need an easy way to sort them out?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No. That is NOT "the point." It is your merely contention. And your contention is based on a false premise.

I have already addressed that mistake you make.

The "market," in actuality, cannot be expected to effectively serve to prevent the undue control over access to the airwaves by corporate entities.

The market may well be better at regulating SOME things: but it is silly and quite baseless to presume that it could "regulate" access to the airwaves in any way that wouldn't deprive most of us OF that access.

Yes, my contention, or my point. Same thing.

It doesn't deprive you of access at all. You would be free to purchase a different frequency, or not to purchase a different frequency.

You miss the point. There are but a finite number of available (usable) frequencies in any given market.

The concern is not that any one frequency would be used and thus unavailable to the rest of us. The concern is that eventually all of them would be used, depriving the rest of us of access.

And if the government is not the one allocating those limited resources in a competitive way, then by what claim of right can CBS or MSLSD or NBC, etc., obtain the right to exploit a frequency on its own? Who do they "buy" that frequency from? If they don't buy it from anybody, then what stops me from saying "screw them, I will just ramp up the wattage and use that very same frequency!"? If that latter kind of thing happens enough, it yields cacophony time.

There is a finite amount of land in the world as well.

 

[RadiomanATL]

This thread is tasty.

 

[Ravi]

Liability has performed some extreme pwnage on this thread.

Not surprised that JB doesn't comprehend and sorry to see that KK's blinders are so firmly in place.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

But if there is nobody to SELL the airwaves to you, then your use of it is just a brute claim of "right" which is not legally superior to MY claim of right. I claim it because I choose to try to exploit it. It's right there in the ether. Who the fuck is gonna stop me? YOU?

But if there is nobody to SELL the right to free speech to you, then your use of it is just a brute claim of "right" which is not legally superior to MY claim of right. I claim it because I choose to try to exploit it. It's right there in the ether. Who the fuck is gonna stop me? YOU?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

according to you, there is no "law" here since the airwaves and the frequencies cannot be "owned." And if they cannot be "owned" then nobody can lease them to limit the access to them in any kind of orderly way.

Are you retarded?


GO read my posts again, slowly, with the help of an adult.

 

[Liability]

according to you, there is no "law" here since the airwaves and the frequencies cannot be "owned." And if they cannot be "owned" then nobody can lease them to limit the access to them in any kind of orderly way.

Are you retarded?


GO read my posts again, slowly, with the help of an adult.

No ya whining shithead. Just addressing your ignorant questions.

Why the fuck are you asking your idiot questions if you concede that there are appropriate laws needed to regulate the airwaves for purposes of access?

Do you argue just to see your dopey words posted, you twit?

Go fuck off. As I noted before, it makes sense to discuss these things with Kevin Kennedy and guys like him, because at least they have the ability to follow along even if they disagree. You? Not so much.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Just addressing your ignorant questions.

I asked no questions. i corrected you.

Why do you lie and purposely misrepresent what people say?

 

[Liability]

Yes, my contention, or my point. Same thing.

It doesn't deprive you of access at all. You would be free to purchase a different frequency, or not to purchase a different frequency.

You miss the point. There are but a finite number of available (usable) frequencies in any given market.

The concern is not that any one frequency would be used and thus unavailable to the rest of us. The concern is that eventually all of them would be used, depriving the rest of us of access.

And if the government is not the one allocating those limited resources in a competitive way, then by what claim of right can CBS or MSLSD or NBC, etc., obtain the right to exploit a frequency on its own? Who do they "buy" that frequency from? If they don't buy it from anybody, then what stops me from saying "screw them, I will just ramp up the wattage and use that very same frequency!"? If that latter kind of thing happens enough, it yields cacophony time.

There is a finite amount of land in the world as well.

A silly rejoinder, Kevin. As I noted earlier, finite land does not implicate free speech. Finite frequencies do.