Turning down the volume on TV commercials

[☭proletarian☭]

What if there are finite locations where one may speak freely?

 

[Liability]

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?

Uuuummmm. No.

That is, in fact, just one reason cows are branded. Another reason cows, or horses, etc., get branded is so that I might have some evidence that some fucker stole MY cow or MY horse.

I can own a cow and exclude your right to use it. Ownership of property is clearly recognized in the law and tools to enforce my exclusive right are well known.

But unless we create some legal method to preserve one's claimed exclusive right to use a radio frequency, how the fuck can anybody exclude another person's use of that very same frequency in some area? The frequencies are simply OUT THERE in the ether. I cannot brand them or put a Lojack on them. What IS my claim of right to use that frequency? Where does it come from? Without laws and regulations, your right to try to exploit the frequency is not superior to my right to try to do so. What are you gonna do? Bully me? Well, fuck you. Maybe I'll just bully your ass instead. Or that third guy might try to bully both of us and vice versa.

To avoid these problems and related problems (like our competition over that frequency making it unusable to all), we engage in the legal fiction that the public owns the airwaves and the public has their servant, the government, write the laws and rules and regulations that avoid those problems, granting temporary leases to those who wish to exploit certain frequencies.

NOW we have a mechanism to make my right to exploit that frequency exclusive (at least for as long as I have the lease rights and can get that lease renewed). Now there is a legal right that the government can enforce. NOW if you try to exploit the frequnecy to which I have the legal lease rights, the LAW recognizes my legal right and will shut you down.

 

[Liability]

What if there are finite locations where one may speak freely?

Try to stop being an asshole.

 

[RadiomanATL]

To avoid these problems and related problems (like our competition over that frequency making it unusable to all), we engage in the legal fiction that the public owns the airwaves and the public has their servant, the government, write the laws and rules and regulations that avoid those problems, granting temporary leases to those who wish to exploit certain frequencies.

NOW we have a mechanism to make my right to exploit that frequency exclusive (at least for as long as I have the lease rights and can get that lease renewed). Now there is a legal right that the government can enforce. NOW if you try to exploit the frequnecy to which I have the legal lease rights, the LAW recognizes my legal right and will shut you down.

Bravo.

 

[2Parties]

If you study almost any part of history, guess what you might just find?

CRIMINALS.

Who took more from the American people this year? Petty criminals or government?

You, like most Americans, believe if you set up a giant monopolistic governing body it will generally work in the best interest of the people they govern (to regulate airwaves, to protect us, etc.). The problem is that will never happen. Real monopolies (not Wal-Mart) don't work like that. This governing body, by it's very nature, will attract criminals. That's why you see so many of them at the highest level of government.

You are a utopian just like the leftists who want national health care, art funding, without the military. You want the military without the national health care and art funding. Hint: If you study almost any part of history, guess what you might just find? That governments don't work like that. You are going to get both.

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!"

If I wanted to spend my entire income on cattle I'd automatically have half my cattle "rustled" by government...

...and you'd be ok with that.

And, do you know what a CLAIM JUMPER is?

The principal behind it (I refuse to get into a "legal" debate as their are numerous contradicting laws on some things) is that someone is occupying or taking something that is not rightfully theirs. This is something you refuse to understand.

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.

Isn't it mysterious that oil drillers have ties to government and get away with it? Isn't it shocking the government isn't protecting the innocent person by enforcing regulations against this? Not really.

You are always going to have crime. I get it. I also understand that creating a giant governing body that forcefully takes large chunks of income is the larger crime, and that's something you refuse to see.

 

[Liability]

If you study almost any part of history, guess what you might just find?

CRIMINALS.

Who took more from the American people this year? Petty criminals or government?

You, like most Americans, believe if you set up a giant monopolistic governing body it will generally work in the best interest of the people they govern (to regulate airwaves, to protect us, etc.). The problem is that will never happen. Real monopolies (not Wal-Mart) don't work like that. This governing body, by it's very nature, will attract criminals. That's why you see so many of them at the highest level of government.

You are a utopian just like the leftists who want national health care, art funding, without the military. You want the military without the national health care and art funding. Hint: If you study almost any part of history, guess what you might just find? That governments don't work like that. You are going to get both.

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!"

If I wanted to spend my entire income on cattle I'd automatically have half my cattle "rustled" by government...

...and you'd be ok with that.

And, do you know what a CLAIM JUMPER is?

The principal behind it (I refuse to get into a "legal" debate as their are numerous contradicting laws on some things) is that someone is occupying or taking something that is not rightfully theirs. This is something you refuse to understand.

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.

Isn't it mysterious that oil drillers have ties to government and get away with it? Isn't it shocking the government isn't protecting the innocent person by enforcing regulations against this? Not really.

You are always going to have crime. I get it. I also understand that creating a giant governing body that forcefully takes large chunks of income is the larger crime, and that's something you refuse to see.

Although unduly long-winded, your silly rambling post is essentially non-responsive.

Of course we are always going to have crime. And government includes (wait for it) police. But since police and courts have to use resources (tax dollars hard at work) the government DOES do some taking. The solution? Hm.

Real poser.

Your "argument" makes absolutely no sense.

 

[2Parties]

But since police and courts have to use resources (tax dollars hard at work) the government DOES do some taking.

How much can they rightfully take?

If these groups that are often claimed to be public SERVANTS were truly SERVANTS, they wouldn't demand we fund their "services" at gunpoint or threat of imprisonment.

The solution? Hm.

Live life and don't get entangled with the criminals. Produce a real good or service people want and trade that for the goods and services you need for you and your family to live a good and peaceful life.

Violent revolution to produce an "anarchist utopia"? Nah.

 

[Liability]

But since police and courts have to use resources (tax dollars hard at work) the government DOES do some taking.

How much can they rightfully take?

If these groups that are often claimed to be public SERVANTS were truly SERVANTS, they wouldn't demand we fund their "services" at gunpoint or threat of imprisonment.

I'd like to believe that nobody is as stupid as that response you just vomited makes it appear you are. But, clearly, you ARE just that stupid.

Who the fuck actually objects to paying fair and reasonable taxes for valid and desired public services like sanitation and police and courts, etc.

The solution? Hm.

Live life and don't get entangled with the criminals. Produce a real good or service people want and trade that for the goods and services you need for you and your family to live a good and peaceful life.

Violent revolution to produce an "anarchist utopia"? Nah.

Yeah. Excellent advice. "Don't get entangled with criminals." Brilliant!

Nevermind the fact that THEY sometimes have different ideas, you nitwit.

I have no clue what the fuck you are attempting to "say" in that last line, however.

It may be that your mental retardation just impedes any hint of a possibility you might otherwise have to offer meaningful communication.

 

[Paulie]

It's fucking ridiculous that people would rather the government regulate TV volume instead of them regulating their OWN TV volume.

That doesn't make any sense to me. You're too fucking lazy to turn down your TV if it happens to get too loud? You don't think your TV's volume level is your own responsibility?

WTF???

 

[Liability]

It's fucking ridiculous that people would rather the government regulate TV volume instead of them regulating their OWN TV volume.

That doesn't make any sense to me. You're too fucking lazy to turn down your TV if it happens to get too loud? You don't think your TV's volume level is your own responsibility?

WTF???

We all can do that, sure. But none of us should HAVE to.

And besides, no matter how inconsequential this legislation is, it is STILL true that I'd prefer the idiots in Congress spend lots of time on this crap than ANY time on most of the rest of what they are doing.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

I'm afraid I simply don't follow this logic. I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with it. Finite frequencies, whether regulated by the market or government, remain finite. So if it would endanger freedom of speech in the hands of the market, why doesn't it endanger freedom of speech with the government owning it?

 

[The T]

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.

I'm afraid I simply don't follow this logic. I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with it. Finite frequencies, whether regulated by the market or government, remain finite. So if it would endanger freedom of speech in the hands of the market, why doesn't it endanger freedom of speech with the government owning it?

Politics Vs the Freemarket...No brainer. Government can take over the frequencies to spew propaganda (and they've done it). Lest we look at Chavez and what he's done to their 'ownership' of the spectrum?

It's been denied to their people.

Story

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Most people aren't as fucking retarded as you are.unless we create some legal method to preserve one's claimed exclusive right to use a radio frequency, how the fuck can anybody exclude another person's use of that very same frequency in some area?

TRhw way we do now

BTW, the same frequency is use by multiple parties. 98.8 FM or 640Am will oft be different in different cities. They just don't allot two transmitters in the same area the same frequency.

What IS my claim of right to use that frequency?

The same as your right to use a bullhorn. Should you purchase, lease, or otherwise have accessto the equipment, you may use it to exerciseyourright to free speech so long as you do not violate the rights of others. Just as there are laws restricting when, where, and how I may se a bullhorn, there are laws regarding when, where, and how I may use a radio transmitter- how poerful a signal I may emit, what frequency/ies I may use, and what I can use it for

.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

What if there are finite locations where one may speak freely?

Try to stop being an asshole.

Why do you refuse to answer?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

It's fucking ridiculous that people would rather the government regulate TV volume instead of them regulating their OWN TV volume.

That doesn't make any sense to me. You're too fucking lazy to turn down your TV if it happens to get too loud? You don't think your TV's volume level is your own responsibility?

WTF???

It also proves that all who support this bill do not believe their own rhetoric (I know Liability hasparroted it in other threads) regarding a self-regulating free market. Instead, they support government interventionism where it is not needed.

 

[Liability]

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.

I'm afraid I simply don't follow this logic. I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with it. Finite frequencies, whether regulated by the market or government, remain finite. So if it would endanger freedom of speech in the hands of the market, why doesn't it endanger freedom of speech with the government owning it?

Of course a finite number remains finite. That's not changed by who allocates the distribution of frequencies.

The point is that BECAUSE they are finite, if we were to permit some corporations to simply seize permanent control over the finite number of frequencies, we would end up with NO available frequencies. But, because we ask the government to do the allocating of that finite number -- as leases -- the frequencies do not become private property and forever unavailable. And because we employ the legal fiction that the airwaves belong to ALL of us, we can also impose conditions on HOW the corporations may use those LEASED airwaves -- such as forbidding them from denying us all access to the airwaves.

If the airwaves are OURS, not the "private property" of ABC or MSLSD, then WE reserve some of our access to those airwaves. But as soon as the "market" does the allocating without the rules and regulations of the government, then the private property owners would inevitably and almost certainly lay claim to the right to completely EXCLUDE us in order to more fully exploit their "property."

If I own the land I have my house on, I can damn well exclude you. But if the government "owns" that land (in the limited sense of holding it FOR us), then when they LEASE that land to a company, they can absolutely place conditions on that lease (like, "thou shalt not restrict the public from the use and enjoyment of this land for X number of hours per week.")

 

[☭proletarian☭]

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

I'm afraid I simply don't follow this logic. I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with it. Finite frequencies, whether regulated by the market or government, remain finite. So if it would endanger freedom of speech in the hands of the market, why doesn't it endanger freedom of speech with the government owning it?

Politics Vs the Freemarket...No brainer. Government can take over the frequencies to spew propaganda (and they've done it). Lest we look at Chavez and what he's done to their 'ownership' of the spectrum?

It's been denied to their people.

Yel L is the one effectively saying the government owns the frequencies. No matter how he tries to spin it, whenever he says' we' as in the collective, he means the government. He makes this clear with every post.

 

[Liability]

It's fucking ridiculous that people would rather the government regulate TV volume instead of them regulating their OWN TV volume.

That doesn't make any sense to me. You're too fucking lazy to turn down your TV if it happens to get too loud? You don't think your TV's volume level is your own responsibility?

WTF???

It also proves that all who support this bill do not believe their own rhetoric (I know Liability hasparroted it in other threads) regarding a self-regulating free market. Instead, they support government interventionism where it is not needed.

Blather and nonsense. Not unexpected from you.

You are, of course, again, simply wrong.

I do not endorse government interventionism where it is not needed.

I do, however, fully disagree with your contention (often made and repeated by you but never supported) that the intervention of the government in this matter is "unneeded."

It is NOT "unneeded." It is needed. And, it has worked out fairly well.

 

[Liability]

I'm afraid I simply don't follow this logic. I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with it. Finite frequencies, whether regulated by the market or government, remain finite. So if it would endanger freedom of speech in the hands of the market, why doesn't it endanger freedom of speech with the government owning it?

Politics Vs the Freemarket...No brainer. Government can take over the frequencies to spew propaganda (and they've done it). Lest we look at Chavez and what he's done to their 'ownership' of the spectrum?

It's been denied to their people.

Yel L is the one effectively saying the government owns the frequencies. No matter how he tries to spin it, whenever he says' we' as in the collective, he means the government. He makes this clear with every post.

Wrong. I am saying no such thing and no matter how you try to spin what I am saying, your falsehoods do not change diddly dog.

WE own the frequencies. The government really cannot "own" private property, if we care to speak in a highly technical sense.

Because WE own it, we USE the government as our AGENT to provide the laws, rules and regulations necessary to insure that WE get the benefit of the airwaves while still permitting them to be exploited by private companies.

That a dufus like you cannot comprehend this is telling about you, sickle boi. But the tale it tells about you is kinda pathetic.

When I say "we" -- despite your ineffectual and dishonest effort to distort what I said and what I still mean -- I mean "we."

 

[The T]

I'm afraid I simply don't follow this logic. I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with it. Finite frequencies, whether regulated by the market or government, remain finite. So if it would endanger freedom of speech in the hands of the market, why doesn't it endanger freedom of speech with the government owning it?

Politics Vs the Freemarket...No brainer. Government can take over the frequencies to spew propaganda (and they've done it). Lest we look at Chavez and what he's done to their 'ownership' of the spectrum?

It's been denied to their people.

Yel L is the one effectively saying the government owns the frequencies. No matter how he tries to spin it, whenever he says' we' as in the collective, he means the government. He makes this clear with every post.

No. The people DO, and the FCC manages it at our behest, and the Creation of the FCC via the Communications Act of 1934. It's a regulation body. Liability is correct.