FCC Plan to Alter Media Rules Spurs Growing Debate

Szechuan · Post by **Szechuan** » Thu May 29, 2003 5:17 pm

"Substantial grass-roots resistance to the Federal Communications Commission's plans to relax or eliminate several major media ownership rules has been building in recent weeks, turning a number-crunching bureaucratic process into a growing debate on free speech..."

Would you like to know more?

[/gag theft]

3278 · Post by **3278** » Thu May 29, 2003 5:35 pm

On the other side are the two Democratic commissioners, Michael J. Copps and Jonathan S. Adelstein, several public-interest groups and organizations that say what is at stake is nothing less than the health of the democracy. More consolidation, they say, will lead to fewer voices, making it difficult for minority viewpoints to be heard.

The health of democracy means we have to continue to limit freedom? I wish people would understand that "liberty for all" means liberty for rich people, too.

Cazmonster · Post by **Cazmonster** » Thu May 29, 2003 7:18 pm

3278 wrote:
On the other side are the two Democratic commissioners, Michael J. Copps and Jonathan S. Adelstein, several public-interest groups and organizations that say what is at stake is nothing less than the health of the democracy. More consolidation, they say, will lead to fewer voices, making it difficult for minority viewpoints to be heard.
The health of democracy means we have to continue to limit freedom? I wish people would understand that "liberty for all" means liberty for rich people, too.

Right, because the rich enjoy so little about our society.

Szechuan · Post by **Szechuan** » Thu May 29, 2003 7:33 pm

It's true! How can I be happy when I have my health, a stable home life, great friends, a good job, and my university being paid for?

Daki · Post by **Daki** » Thu May 29, 2003 7:35 pm

And they deserve less because they have more? That's bullshit. *More to be added after meeting*

Anguirel · Post by **Anguirel** » Thu May 29, 2003 8:24 pm

3278 wrote:
On the other side are the two Democratic commissioners, Michael J. Copps and Jonathan S. Adelstein, several public-interest groups and organizations that say what is at stake is nothing less than the health of the democracy. More consolidation, they say, will lead to fewer voices, making it difficult for minority viewpoints to be heard.
The health of democracy means we have to continue to limit freedom? I wish people would understand that "liberty for all" means liberty for rich people, too.

In some senses, yes. To preserve a healthy democracy, we already limit the freedom of Congress to pass laws of censorship or banning specific religions. Equally, police forces are limited in their practices from unreasonable search and seizure. Monopolies and Trusts were discovered to have an adverse effect on the economy, and thus they are restricted. What defines a healthy democracy is not what freedoms it allows, but rather, what it limits.

That said -- in this case I think many people are being stupid. Why shouldn't a newspaper be allowed to own a Local Cable station? It seems to me that the removal of these regulations could easily allow for more voices rather than fewer. Buy-outs and mergers are still monitored and newer regulations designed for the modern situation could be crafted to maintain those elements which address the concerns of these people without arbitrarily limiting specific voices to a given medium according to archaic dictates.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Thu May 29, 2003 8:45 pm

Anguirel wrote:
3278 wrote:The health of democracy means we have to continue to limit freedom? I wish people would understand that "liberty for all" means liberty for rich people, too.
In some senses, yes. To preserve a healthy democracy, we already limit the freedom of Congress to pass laws of censorship or banning specific religions.

Yeah, I don't like those, either.

Anguirel wrote:Equally, police forces are limited in their practices from unreasonable search and seizure.

Well, I tend to think of that as /upholding/ the freedom of the other people, though I get your meaning.

Anguirel wrote:Monopolies and Trusts were discovered to have an adverse effect on the economy, and thus they are restricted.

Yeah, see, that's what I have a problem with. Freedom for all! Unless it's inconvenient. I just don't like legislation, you know?

Anguirel wrote:What defines a healthy democracy is not what freedoms it allows, but rather, what it limits.

That's an interesting point of view. What makes you say that?

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Thu May 29, 2003 9:06 pm

The emphasis there is on "healthy." Infinite freedom ends up being anarchy, which flat-out doesn't work.

Anguirel · Post by **Anguirel** » Thu May 29, 2003 9:10 pm

3278 wrote:
Anguirel wrote:What defines a healthy democracy is not what freedoms it allows, but rather, what it limits.
That's an interesting point of view. What makes you say that?

Actually, I heard it on the Daily Show, but don't let that sway your opinion on it. It was a paraphrase of something said by one of their guests a few weeks back. I've actually mentioned it previously here, so I'll just quote myself.

Anguirel wrote:I saw a really interesting interview on The Daily Show (with Jon Stewart, on Comedy Central) on this exact topic. They had Fareed Zakaria, a NewsWeek writer (and editor for NewsWeek International) and ABC political analyst on to discuss his new book (of course), but he talked about the fact that elections aren't the big thing behind the modern "democracies." That's the most easily visible thing, and the one you can point to, but what's really important is actually the exact opposite of a democracy.

It's the portions that say "You can't do this, even if the majority want it." The Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court, the institutions that prevent freedoms from being snatched up by the majority. Those are the institutions we need to establish in Iraq if we want to prevent the parody of elections that occur in other regions - the ones that led to the related phrase of "One Man, One Vote, One Time." An election now would allow whoever had the most fear, the most devotion or the most money to win, not the guy who would actually do the job he was elected to do.

Anyways, it struck me as a rather profound thing to say, and very true. The things that define our "Western Style Democracy" aren't all the freedoms enjoyed, but the limitations placed to protect those freedoms for all people despite the will of the majority or the powerful.

Thorn · Post by **Thorn** » Thu May 29, 2003 9:13 pm

See, I don't see how the rights of rich people are being infringed on.

Unless I missed a really big memo, corporations are not people. As such, their rights are not protected by the Constitution. Corporations are plenty protected, just by virtue of being a corporate entity.

I still am amazed how people try to ascribe the rights of American citizens as guaranteed by the Constitution to corporations. Until someone provides me with a compelling reason why corporations should be treated like people (and yet not like people, considering all the special good stuff they get), I'm going to continue backing legislation that sets limits on corporate expansion.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Thu May 29, 2003 9:15 pm

I may agree that wealth may make your freedoms more enjoyable, and even enviable to some. It may even make your decisions seem careless or crass to those who don't posess similar wealth, but I agree with 3278 and Daki. Wealth does not disqualify you from your intrinsic freedoms.

I look at it like this: What if I get rich? What if I get sometghing for my kids, and because somebody else is jealous they lose it, or its taken? To me its like some sort of soviet wealth distrubution system to me. That didn't work for them, and it doesn't work for me.

Daki · Post by **Daki** » Thu May 29, 2003 9:22 pm

Thorn wrote:See, I don't see how the rights of rich people are being infringed on.

Unless I missed a really big memo, corporations are not people. As such, their rights are not protected by the Constitution. Corporations are plenty protected, just by virtue of being a corporate entity.

I still am amazed how people try to ascribe the rights of American citizens as guaranteed by the Constitution to corporations. Until someone provides me with a compelling reason why corporations should be treated like people (and yet not like people, considering all the special good stuff they get), I'm going to continue backing legislation that sets limits on corporate expansion.

They are not treated like citizens and that's why they can legally be subjected to double taxation. A corporation is taxed on the revenue they earn... but if that company pays dividends, then people are taxed on those dividends. Same money being taxed twice.

Anguirel · Post by **Anguirel** » Thu May 29, 2003 9:27 pm

Daki wrote:They are not treated like citizens and that's why they can legally be subjected to double taxation. A corporation is taxed on the revenue they earn... but if that company pays dividends, then people are taxed on those dividends. Same money being taxed twice.

I dunno... Double Taxation seems to be par for the course. I pay income taxes, capital gains taxes (which are income taxes of a different sort) and sales taxes. Taxed when it comes in and taxed as it goes out. In the case of Dividends, it's only being taxed a single time per entity-transaction. Sales taxes are double-taxation. I pay a tax on the money as it leaves my hand, but the company receiving it is then taxed on it as income. Same money, same transaction multiple taxes.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Thu May 29, 2003 9:29 pm

Thorn wrote:See, I don't see how the rights of rich people are being infringed on.

Because corporations don't exist as physical entities themselves; a corporation is a group of people, all of whom have individual freedoms, among which, in my mind, is the freedom to be as profitable as possible. It's like we say to the people running these corporations, "Hey, be as successful as you want, but if you're /too/ successful, we're going to hold you back."

I mean, there's one restaurant in my hometown, and I'm sure that lack of competition raises the prices there, but you don't see them getting slapped with anti-trust legislation. Sure, their prices affect maybe only 100 people, but if the principle of monopolization is unsound, why isn't it unsound across the board?

Thorn · Post by **Thorn** » Fri May 30, 2003 12:21 am

It's like we say to the people running these corporations, "Hey, be as successful as you want, but if you're /too/ successful, we're going to hold you back."

We say that to the corporation. People can be as successful as they want.

As far as I'm concerned, if Bob Jones wants to own both a newspaper and a TV station, that's fine. However, I have a problem with Bob Jones, Inc. owning both a newspaper and a TV station. Because if, say, the TV station goes under, then Bob Jones himself is held liable, whereas Bob Jones, Inc. can simply declare bankruptcy and disappear, leaving Bob Jones the individual - okay, without a job - but still retaining ownership of his house, his car, his stocks, bonds, etc.

Yes, corporations are made up of groups of people. And I have no problem with individuals making tons of money and doing (practically) anything they want with that money. But groups of people form a corporation so that they can seek wealth under the protection of a corporate designation. In exchange for that protection, they are subject to laws designed to protect the ordinary citizen from abuses of corporate power.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Fri May 30, 2003 2:15 am

I fully agree with you, there. I look at those as two separate issues, though; corporate responsibility and freedom to profit. I think corporations shouldn't be allowed to be limited liability any more than the individuals who together form that corporation. But I also believe corporations should be allowed to be as successful as they want.

I think we both mean the same thing?

Thorn · Post by **Thorn** » Fri May 30, 2003 2:50 am

I.E. If Bob Jones, Inc. fails, it fails?

Absolutely.

Despite my Screaming Greenie ways, I'm a firm believer in real, true capitalism. If a business fails through mismanagement or because demand disappears, well... that's capitalism. That is, in fact, the whole damn point.

If the government stayed out of every aspect of business - no sweetheart tax deals, no bailouts, no none of that shit - then anti-trust laws really wouldn't be all that necessary. Corporate power would be naturally checked and balanced by the market.

So yeah, I think we do mean the same thing. Cool.

ratlaw · Post by **ratlaw** » Fri May 30, 2003 4:36 am

3278 wrote:
On the other side are the two Democratic commissioners, Michael J. Copps and Jonathan S. Adelstein, several public-interest groups and organizations that say what is at stake is nothing less than the health of the democracy. More consolidation, they say, will lead to fewer voices, making it difficult for minority viewpoints to be heard.
The health of democracy means we have to continue to limit freedom? I wish people would understand that "liberty for all" means liberty for rich people, too.

By decreasing the number of owners of information distributors, we increase freedom? How's that follow, exactly? I suspect the, to pick an arbitrary city, Tusla market will have trouble hearing about the negative practices of Media Company X once all of the TV stations, radio stations and local news papers are owned by Media Company X. Or the doings of local politician Y who's campaign happens to be supported by Media Company X. I suppose the economic benefit of letting the owners of Media Company X make that much more money is greater than the societal benefit of letting the people of Tulsa get fair and accurate reporting. Clearly the health of a democracy is based on the economic well being of it's wealthiest 1%.

Anguirel · Post by **Anguirel** » Fri May 30, 2003 5:36 am

ratlaw wrote:
3278 wrote:
On the other side are the two Democratic commissioners, Michael J. Copps and Jonathan S. Adelstein, several public-interest groups and organizations that say what is at stake is nothing less than the health of the democracy. More consolidation, they say, will lead to fewer voices, making it difficult for minority viewpoints to be heard.
The health of democracy means we have to continue to limit freedom? I wish people would understand that "liberty for all" means liberty for rich people, too.
By decreasing the number of owners of information distributors, we increase freedom? How's that follow, exactly? I suspect the, to pick an arbitrary city, Tusla market will have trouble hearing about the negative practices of Media Company X once all of the TV stations, radio stations and local news papers are owned by Media Company X. Or the doings of local politician Y who's campaign happens to be supported by Media Company X. I suppose the economic benefit of letting the owners of Media Company X make that much more money is greater than the societal benefit of letting the people of Tulsa get fair and accurate reporting. Clearly the health of a democracy is based on the economic well being of it's wealthiest 1%.

If I thought that was what was going to happen, I might be more concerned. However, it isn't like we're looking at an ABC / CBS / NBC / FOX merger here. We're allowing a newspaper to be owned by the same company that owns a TV station in places where there are multiple local papers, and allowing specific stations to reach a wider audience (i.e. I can currently watch Boston stations on my TV even though I'm not even in the same state). Within an individual city you won't have fewer voices, you're likely to have more (newspapers operating local cable news stations, for example). Across the country... ok, yeah, Tulsa may lose their local network affiliate because it's cheaper to re-broadcast Kansas City's station than to have a separate one in Tulsa. So fucking what... It's not like they're showing anything different anyways. Local news will probably be done via an override of the local signal from a local studio. End result: nothing changes for the citizens of Tulsa, network costs go down, profit goes up.

Unless I misread something in the article... The only two hotly debated points were Newspaper ownership of TV stations and an increase from 35% to 45% of the country's population being able to view a given station. Was there some restriction pending removal in effect that bars a company from buying out every station in town if they think they can get away with it?

3278 · Post by **3278** » Fri May 30, 2003 5:45 am

ratlaw wrote:By decreasing the number of owners of information distributors, we increase freedom?

Well, I wouldn't put it that way, obviously. I'd say by limiting the opportunities of individuals to succeed limits freedom.

ratlaw wrote:I suspect the, to pick an arbitrary city, Tusla market will have trouble hearing about the negative practices of Media Company X once all of the TV stations, radio stations and local news papers are owned by Media Company X.

Well, could be, although I have to say Newsweek slams other publications in their "family" in nearly every issue. But that's neither here nor there: I agree that having a limited number of options available is almost /always/ a very bad thing. What I don't agree with is the idea that the government gets to decide when there are enough options, and when someone's made too much money. I hate monopolies a /lot,/ particularly utility and information monopolies [grumble, grumble] but I don't believe it's the government's right to interfere.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Fri May 30, 2003 7:03 am

I hate monopolies a /lot,/ particularly utility and information monopolies [grumble, grumble] but I don't believe it's the government's right to interfere.

An interesting opinion. Would you care to elaborate?

Part of a government's job is to enforce contracts, and in our case, preserve a capitalistic marketplace. Capitalism depends on competition, so anything that reduces competition isn't a good thing, particularily monopolies.

But to go back a bit-- a corporation is not a group of individuals, it's a legal entity with the ability to act as an individual in certain ways-- it can own property, open bank accounts, and so on. The individuals who own it are protected, to a degree, by this-- if a corporation goes bankrupt, a shareholder will not be held liable; in a sole proprietorship, they would be.

So, taxing a corporation is much like taxing an individual. "Double taxation" isn't that odd, when you think of it that way-- we tax everyone on the money they earn; if you spend it, then we tax the other guy on the money he earns from it as well.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Fri May 30, 2003 4:44 pm

Yes, corporations are made up of groups of people. And I have no problem with individuals making tons of money and doing (practically) anything they want with that money. But groups of people form a corporation so that they can seek wealth under the protection of a corporate designation. In exchange for that protection, they are subject to laws designed to protect the ordinary citizen from abuses of corporate power.

So wait, abuses of power are okay if all of someone's money and property is at risk, but not okay when it's only their job and a lot of investment money?

"Double taxation" isn't that odd, when you think of it that way

But it is odd. What's even odder is that we're the only industrialized country that still does it.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Fri May 30, 2003 5:38 pm

Cain wrote:
I hate monopolies a /lot,/ particularly utility and information monopolies [grumble, grumble] but I don't believe it's the government's right to interfere.
An interesting opinion. Would you care to elaborate?

Sure. I believe the government has one right, and one responsibility, and that is to ensure the continued survival of the state. While I might personally dislike monopolies, I don't think the government has any right to legislate them unless and until it can be shown that monopolies jeopardize that continued survival.

A lot of people - we'll call them "Democrats," for lack of a better term, see injustice and pain and hardship in the world, and they want to fix it. And that's cool. The problem is, the government isn't always the best way of fixing things. And even when it /is/ the best way, you eventually come to a point where the government - one entity, spread over a vast amount of land and a vast populace - is trying to fix every problem in the world, and the cost of the cure is greater than the cost of the disease.

Let's take - and I do so with trepidation - welfare. If children can't afford lunches at school, the government says, well, hey, we'll pay for those lunches, and that's fine when it's the only thing you're subsidizing. But eventually, you come to this point where anyone who's poor gets money for /some/ reason, anyone who has any kind of problem has to have it solved by the government, and I'm suddenly paying half my paycheck to fix other people's problems when I can't even fix my own.

Or this situation; we decide monopolies hurt us, and before too long, you can't own a television station if you own the newspaper. What the hell business is it of the government's what I purchase with my money?

We seem to have forgotten that there's more than one way to solve a problem. Just because there's something wrong doesn't mean the /government/ has to fix it. I agree monopolies suck, but why does the /government/ have to be the one to fix the problem? Are the millions of customers powerless to do anything? Are the other companies? By asking the government to solve every problem for us, we lose the ability to solve problems for ourselves, and we reach the point we're at now, where every fight we get in is fought by wealthy and powerful proxies, where the rich fight the poor with Big Business and the poor fight back with The Government.

Make individuals accountable for their own actions. Make corporations as liable as the people who own them. Learn how to take action for yourself, or with others, instead of taking the easy way out and just handing someone else money to fix your problem. We've become slaves to Government and Business because we gave up the right and responsibility of fighting for ourselves.

If I sound like a revolutionary, I'm sorry, but you /did/ ask me to elaborate.

Bishop · Post by **Bishop** » Fri May 30, 2003 6:18 pm

Rally to the cause!! Rally to the cause!!! The Banner has risen again!!!!!!!

Sorry. Couldn't help it.

ratlaw · Post by **ratlaw** » Fri May 30, 2003 7:59 pm

I would argue that the government has the be the one to solve the problem because the government isn't just there to ensure the survival of the state. That's merely one of its functions, though arguably the most important. Does the government not have a responsibility to protect the citizens from whom it gets its power? Not to protect them from themselves, but to protect them from abuses by entities within the state with more concentrated power.

You're advocating individual and corporate accountablity, and I agree with that. You're also arguing that our sense of personal responsibility has decreased, and I agree with that too. But I don't agree that it's because of Anti-trust laws and the FCC. Consumer rights is a difficult thing to defend without the support of the government. Consumers are a large and diverse group of people, predominantly with out the time to be involved in their own issues. In large part that's because being a consumer cross-cuts so many other interests. As a result consumer activism is a weak and fairly powerless thing compared to market dominance and monopolistic business practices. I'd argue that the reason the government has to be the one to fix the problem, is becuase the government is the only entity capable of fixing the problem. Show me a case of a monopoly that wasn't broken by the government, but was broken by market forces or consumer action.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Fri May 30, 2003 8:25 pm

ratlaw wrote:Does the government not have a responsibility to protect the citizens from whom it gets its power?

At the moment, yes, because we've given them that responsibility. But I don't think it /should/ be that way. I think citizens should work on protecting themselves. I mean, it's my mother's responsibility to protect me, too, but now that I'm 18, I rarely ask her to give me a bath or beat up some boys for me.

ratlaw wrote:You're advocating individual and corporate accountablity, and I agree with that. You're also arguing that our sense of personal responsibility has decreased, and I agree with that too. But I don't agree that it's because of Anti-trust laws and the FCC.

Well, I don't think it's /because/ of those, nono. I think those are just symptoms [arguably much less offensive than most].

ratlaw wrote:Consumers are a large and diverse group of people, predominantly with out the time to be involved in their own issues.

I think if people don't have time to be involved in their own issues, they need to /seriously/ rethink their priorities.

ratlaw wrote:I'd argue that the reason the government has to be the one to fix the problem, is becuase the government is the only entity capable of fixing the problem.

Well, I think you think that because the government is the only entity which /has/ fixed the problem. Individual action has done an awful lot of amazing things in the past - well, it started, for instance, the US - but I don't believe it's broken up a monopoly before. Should we assume that it's impossible then? And I'm pretty sure monopolies /have/ been broken my market pressure in the past, though I'm hardly enough of an expert in business history to tell you when. Anyone else?

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Sat May 31, 2003 3:33 am

Sorry, not thinking quite straight, painkillers not a good thing. Pardon the ramble, I now have visions of sugarplums tapdancing in my head.

32, you may be right, about personal and corp responsibility, but part of maintaining the state, is keeping the desired things going. When this country was formed, the founders wanted a capitalistic marketplace, as part of the desried State, right? So our govt needs to work to maintain competition, to keep a capitalistic marketplace.
Another country might not have this obligation, a more communistic or socialistic place may want less competition with the state businesses; a monopoly is permissible there and the State has no obligation to break it up. However here, it's not the same thing at all; we need, to preseve the State, to avoid monopolies or at least prevent existing ones from abusing their power. Which makes it, a governmental responsibility.

If my brain were working right, or maybe because it isn't I want to go on about how welfare is also part of the "American Dream" as it were as it helps give people hope for a better future.

Ok, too much writing, brain hurts, I've been staring at todays Sluggy comic so long that I'm seeing homicidal mini-lops poinging off the screen and trying to steal my soda. Forgive the ramble and I'll try to clear up the mess when I have more than two functioning brain cells again.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sat May 31, 2003 3:48 am

Cain wrote:32, you may be right, about personal and corp responsibility, but part of maintaining the state, is keeping the desired things going.

Well, I don't agree. I think it's up to us to keep desired things going, and up to the government to keep the necessary things going.

Cain wrote:When this country was formed, the founders wanted a capitalistic marketplace, as part of the desried State, right?

Don't care. Founders intent doesn't mean anything to me.

Cain wrote:So our govt needs to work to maintain competition, to keep a capitalistic marketplace.

1. The founders wanted a capitalistic marketplace.
2. Therefore, the government must work to maintain competition.

Yeah, I think there are some steps missing. Simply because the people who started the country wanted a thing doesn't mean we must have it, and doesn't mean the /government/ is the only or best option for providing it. It doesn't mean that it /isn't,/ either; it's just not a factor.

Cain wrote:However here, it's not the same thing at all; we need, to preseve the State, to avoid monopolies or at least prevent existing ones from abusing their power. Which makes it, a governmental responsibility.

Oh, well, okay. See, that's what I've been looking for. How do monopolies threaten the existence of the state?

Cain wrote:If my brain were working right, or maybe because it isn't I want to go on about how welfare is also part of the "American Dream" as it were as it helps give people hope for a better future.

Yeah, that's the drugs talking.

Jestyr · Post by **Jestyr** » Sat May 31, 2003 7:07 am

Salvation122 wrote:Infinite freedom ends up being anarchy, which flat-out doesn't work.

How do you know? When was the last time anybody tried it; under what circumstances?

Marius wrote:What's even odder is that we're the only industrialized country that still does it.

Er, not quite. By the way 'double taxation' has been defined here, any country that has both income tax and sales tax engages in the practice. Count us in, for one; New Zealand, for another. I'm sure there are many more.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Sat May 31, 2003 11:21 am

I was speaking more narrowly about the double taxation of corporate dividendsd.

Jestyr · Post by **Jestyr** » Sat May 31, 2003 12:19 pm

Ahh. Yes, I believe most dividends are paid with franking credits here, to avoid double taxation.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Sat May 31, 2003 3:38 pm

Jestyr wrote:How do you know? When was the last time anybody tried it; under what circumstances?

The French Revolution. Any time a government collapses without another one ready to be implemented immediatly.

Anarchy can work on a small level of about a thousand people or so. On the nation-state level, it doesn't, because someone always get lots of guns and decides that he wants to govern.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Sun Jun 01, 2003 4:23 am

32: The painkillers are only beginning to take effect, so I should be much more clear-headed for a bit, although I don't know for how much longer.

1. The founders wanted a capitalistic marketplace.
2. Therefore, the government must work to maintain competition.

Ok, point 1a: Capitalism is dependant on competition. Point 1b: Monopolies are inimical to competetion.

Cain wrote:
However here, it's not the same thing at all; we need, to preseve the State, to avoid monopolies or at least prevent existing ones from abusing their power. Which makes it, a governmental responsibility.
Oh, well, okay. See, that's what I've been looking for. How do monopolies threaten the existence of the state?

If a business gains enough power, controls enough vital services, it can demand concessions from the state. A monopoly is probably the only real way it can happen, though. The Bell corporation's a good example of this-- when they were the only providers of telephone and telegraph services, they could have charged whatever they liked, and force the government to give them all kinds of concessions or lose rapid communication. (And they did get some concessions, but only after agreeing to be limited in other ways.)

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Sun Jun 01, 2003 5:20 am

Cain wrote:[quote\1. The founders wanted a capitalistic marketplace.
2. Therefore, the government must work to maintain competition.

Ok, point 1a: Capitalism is dependant on competition.[/quote]
According to Princeton University's WordNet, 'capitalism' has only one definition:

WordNet wrote:capitalism
n : an economic system based on private ownership of capital.

The American Heritage Dictionary has a slighly more detailed definition:

American Heritage wrote:cap·i·tal·ism
n.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.[/i]

It defines 'free market' as:

American Heritage wrote:free market
n. [/b]
An economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated or are regulated with only minor restrictions.

I can imagine how one might get from one to the other, but there's still a pretty broad leap of reasoning between "we're supposed to be a capitalist society," and "the government should regulate businesses to preserve competition."

In the end, it doesn't really make a difference. When businesses are nearing monopoly status, well, there's a government agency -- the FTC -- that monitors that. In fact, it has to give it's approval for every merger. If it sees that a monopoly is created that will harm the marketplace it won't allow the merger. In the case of media, there are two agencies that have to approve mergers -- the FTC and the FCC. And they'll still be there after this rules change.

So they change the maximum ownership limits. So what? All the safeguards against monopoly abuse are still in place. Any company has to go through review by two federal agencies.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sun Jun 01, 2003 8:57 am

Cain wrote:
3278 wrote:1. The founders wanted a capitalistic marketplace.
2. Therefore, the government must work to maintain competition.
Ok, point 1a: Capitalism is dependant on competition. Point 1b: Monopolies are inimical to competetion.

But the simple fact that the founders intended for there to be a capitalistic marketplace in no way creates a logical imperative for the government to work to maintain competition. For one thing, the desires of the founders aren't necessarily imperatives for our government. For another, simply because monopolies are bad doesn't necessarily mean that the government must be the one to prevent them. [Logically speaking, that is. I mean, in terms of Ps and Qs.]

Instead, you'd have to prove that if the government didn't step in to prevent a /specific/ monopoly a threat would be presented to the state. Which is, more or less, what the original plan was. It went the way our plans usually do.

Cain wrote:
3278 wrote:How do monopolies threaten the existence of the state?
If a business gains enough power, controls enough vital services, it can demand concessions from the state.

I'm...sorry? The state /does/ still have the military, right? I mean, I can demand concessions from the state, too, but that doesn't mean very much. It means more when Ted Turner does it, but not very much.

"If you don't give in to our demands, we'll publish nothing but negative news about you!"
"That's nice. We'll revoke your FCC license, arrest anyone involved in broadcasting illegally, prosecute all persons spreading slander or libel, freeze all your assets, take every piece of property you own by force and give it all to charity as a means of building PR. We'll be praised for ending a corporate menace that thought it could blackmail the American government and its citizens, and you'll be in jail. And we won't once break the law. Blueberry muffin? My wife baked them."

Cain wrote:The Bell corporation's a good example of this-- when they were the only providers of telephone and telegraph services, they could have charged whatever they liked, and force the government to give them all kinds of concessions or lose rapid communication.

And that's a great example of the kind of monopoly that one could make a compelling argument threatens the existance of the state. Rapid communication is - now - essential to the state, and if that were threatened, the state would be. That's a case where someone might want to defend the government's right to step in. This media ownership issue isn't.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sun Jun 01, 2003 9:00 am

Oh, and: "Able to gain concessions from the State" is not the same as "threatens the State," and a general case for against monopolies cannot be founded on the possibility that it will be.

Cipher · Post by **Cipher** » Sun Jun 01, 2003 7:57 pm

It's lovely how the content of these discussions always revolves around whether or not corporations can be trusted with all the power that they hold ("should we allow them to own more than one media outlet in a given region?", as if we had a right to make that decision) and, if not, what steps the government should take to restrain that power.

But no one ever asks whether the government can be trusted with the power it holds - at least, not in these discussions. Why are pro-statists always willing to presume that federal agencies act in altruistic public interest, when nothing in the 20th century, or any century prior, has indicated that?

Corporations are run by amoral, self-centered, profit-loving managers, seeking to maximize value for their shareholders. So be it. What makes Congressmen so moral?

Thorn · Post by **Thorn** » Sun Jun 01, 2003 8:02 pm

Marius wrote:
Yes, corporations are made up of groups of people. And I have no problem with individuals making tons of money and doing (practically) anything they want with that money. But groups of people form a corporation so that they can seek wealth under the protection of a corporate designation. In exchange for that protection, they are subject to laws designed to protect the ordinary citizen from abuses of corporate power.
So wait, abuses of power are okay if all of someone's money and property is at risk, but not okay when it's only their job and a lot of investment money?

Well, you know, I am a liberal, so I'm pretty much against all abuses of power.

But no, unlike private citizens, corporations do not have an inalienable right to be assholes, imo.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sun Jun 01, 2003 8:08 pm

[i]*kisses Cipher*[/i]

That's why we missed you.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Sun Jun 01, 2003 8:09 pm

Cipher wrote:But no one ever asks whether the government can be trusted with the power it holds - at least, not in these discussions.

I know you haven't been around lately, but you're, like, wrong.

*Points to pretty much any topic by Wendigo or Leon de Narf, and many of Cain's.*

Why are pro-statists always willing to presume that federal agencies act in altruistic public interest, when nothing in the 20th century, or any century prior, has indicated that?

Because while they aren't selfless, they are pretty handy. As I stated above, anarchy doesn't work.

Cipher · Post by **Cipher** » Sun Jun 01, 2003 8:34 pm

Salvation122 wrote: I know you haven't been around lately, but you're, like, wrong.

*Points to pretty much any topic by Wendigo or Leon de Narf, and many of Cain's.*

I don't doubt that people fear government and wish it would relax its grip on the collective spine of man once in a while. But there's a difference between people fearing government when it's doing something clearly bad (invading other countries, trashing the environment, etc), and people fearing government when it's doing something supposedly good (taking away people's money, putting guns to people's heads). What concerns me is that government regulation is the first solution proposed in situations like this - the situation being encroaching media power - and that the debate always comes down to whether or not the solution is needed, not whether or not the solution is appropriate.

You don't get any points for fearing Stalin. It's when you start calling Abe Lincoln a dictator on par with Napoleon that you get admittance into my club.

Because while they [federal agencies] aren't selfless, they are pretty handy. As I stated above, anarchy doesn't work.

Doesn't work at what?

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Sun Jun 01, 2003 8:52 pm

Um, anything, really. People are not, on the whole, able to live without some kind of controlling structure.

Cipher · Post by **Cipher** » Sun Jun 01, 2003 10:10 pm

So it doesn't work at "keeping people alive"? Most folks agree that it's a person's responsibility to keep himself alive. I don't mean to say that his burden rests on his shoulders alone, but the buck stops with him, not with the State.

I'm really going to have to ask you to be more specific.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Mon Jun 02, 2003 12:23 am

Well in my mind, firstly, I am not pro statist per se. I am a patriot, and pro certain portions of the state. I say this, so that we keep it in mind.

Next there are several differences between even the largest corporation and smallest government. The foremost in my mind is military capablity-most corporations have negiligble military assets at best. Corporations do set legislation per se ( I would readily agree they can influence portions of policy by influencing politicians and voters, but obviously they can't set Congress's agenda.) nor do they enforce law-again with few notable exceptions.

Corporations may not be any more moral or altruistic than politicians, but I hardly see that as any Corporations fault, and I would also challenge you define the terms good, evil, and phrases like "for the good fo the people." Obviously we may not see eye to eye-if a politician fails to toe to your beliefs but holds to his own is he amoral?

Myself, I am not under the impression that the state exsists for any reason other than continuing itself. We can all assign motives as we see fit, but the state is like any tool-to quote a song from the eighties "its in the way that you use it..." The state to me is not inheirently evil, or for that matter good. It is what we make of it. If you are arguing that we should be much more responsible in the way we use our tools, you won't hear an arguement from me.

As for fear and loathing with concern to the peoples reaction to the government-well I know people who are afraid that if remove the tin foil from tyheir hair the CIA will read their minds. I have yet to much to make me think either have reasonable fears, or reasonable facilities to judge that fear-and yes I am questioning the American peoples grasp on their own freedoms.

I just don't see how this ruling by the FCC jeopardizes my freesom of information. After all this the information age brother.How many people subscribe still to papers? I do, but most of my immediate circle of contact does not. Is this unusual? Is it different for any of you?

Cipher wrote:You don't get any points for fearing Stalin. It's when you start calling Abe Lincoln a dictator on par with Napoleon that you get admittance into my club.

And what club is that? And for that matter why do I care to join? And while we are questioning things here why would I call Abe a Frog? (Fecitousness aside I really don't get it, I hate that period of history-bores me to tears. Educate me please!!!!)

And I am with Sal, people round here question whether the government can be trusted all the time.

Ironically I seem to be the right wing around here, and funny enough I think I am about as middle of the road as it gets. At work I am considered the liberal guy. The left wing here in Bulldrek, seems to me, very very left.

Hopping a bit here, sorry for the back track, but I think there are some actions of certain governments in the 20th century that qualify as altruistic, good and even saintly-even if they weren't meant to be or even if they were performed for other reasons.

A man isn't a hero because he wants to be-he is a hero because he is forced. Governments are no different. Why should they be?

Anguirel · Post by **Anguirel** » Mon Jun 02, 2003 4:22 am

Talked to my dad about this some... It occured to us that fewer sources actually means more voices in a small area... If conglomeration A owns three stations in town, they'll try to have different programming on each, whereas if each is owned by a different person they may all try to reach the same audience.

It doesn't apply to the situation here (35% national coverage to 45% -- that's widening the potential audience of a single source, not adding sources to a given audience), but it explains the proliferation of specialty channels on cable. CNN, Home & Garden, DIY -- these sorts of channels probably couldn't exist on their own, but can survive in niche markets if there's a big corp out to get 100% market saturation. Just something to think about when discussing the "larger corps mean fewer voices" argument.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Mon Jun 02, 2003 2:46 pm

Cipher: I have no idea what youmean by "statist"; but if you want to know why I trust congressmen more than corporations, it's because we can un-elect congressmen. A corporation's primary goal is to make money, almost by definition. A congressmen's job is to remain elected.

If a corporation sees a way to make money, and people object, they can't threaten the profits. OTOH, if a politician sees a way to make money, and people object, they can move to have him lose office.

As far as the "going to the government for help" bit goes-- there's a saying that comes to mind: "Why re-invent the wheel?" Part of the reason why the government exists is to express the will of large groups of people. When something needs to be done, and it requires large numbers of people to contribute or otherwise be mobilized, it's highly impractical and inefficient to start a grass-roots campaign for each and every issue. It's much more practical and efficient to work within the existing structure of government.

And that's a great example of the kind of monopoly that one could make a compelling argument threatens the existance of the state. Rapid communication is - now - essential to the state, and if that were threatened, the state would be. That's a case where someone might want to defend the government's right to step in. This media ownership issue isn't.

Given the recent trends towards media-merging, I'd say it makes a compelling case for the future. We appear to be moving towards a unified media system, likely internet-based, where media ownership and the internet usage will be inextricably linked. At some point, the media ownership and internet communications issues will be so intertwined, dealing with one will likely involve dealing with the other. With that in mind, setting up plans to deal with future issues now only seems like prudence.

Instead, you'd have to prove that if the government didn't step in to prevent a /specific/ monopoly a threat would be presented to the state. Which is, more or less, what the original plan was. It went the way our plans usually do.

OK, I see where you're going with that. I think we can agree that specific monopolies will be inimical to both the marketplace (which feeds the military and the voters) as well as the State itself. However, we can also see a domino effect that a corporation will probably try-- once they corner a small section of the market, they almost inevitably try to use that leverage to dominate another section of the market. (Microsoft, Windows, and IE being an excellent example of this.) Considering how out-of-proportion the whole mess became, it appears to be a wise choice to deal with the potential problems while they're still small.

Oh, and: "Able to gain concessions from the State" is not the same as "threatens the State," and a general case for against monopolies cannot be founded on the possibility that it will be.

No, but "demand concessions" is somewhat different.

Ok, that's it, I'm going back to bed now. That last argument doesn't sound right, and I can't seem to think of what I was trying to say.

Cipher · Post by **Cipher** » Wed Jun 04, 2003 12:49 am

If a corporation sees a way to make money, and people object, they can't threaten the profits. OTOH, if a politician sees a way to make money, and people object, they can move to have him lose office.

There are quite a few bankrupt, non-existent telecom companies (picking only the example that springs most immediately to mind) that would put the lie to your assertion. In fact, it's safe to say that a civilian's "voting" power over corporations is stronger than their voting power over national politicians. A Senator in a large state, or a President, can get away with a million fewer votes, provided he retains the plurality; a state-wide corporation would suffer for the loss of a million dollars.

As far as the "going to the government for help" bit goes-- there's a saying that comes to mind: "Why re-invent the wheel?" Part of the reason why the government exists is to express the will of large groups of people. When something needs to be done, and it requires large numbers of people to contribute or otherwise be mobilized, it's highly impractical and inefficient to start a grass-roots campaign for each and every issue. It's much more practical and efficient to work within the existing structure of government.

The above is true as far as it goes. It's the premise - that the purpose of government is to "help" - that I have issue with. I don't believe that's the intention of anyone who takes power.

The reason that people seek power in government is because some folks have money that a Congressman would rather go somewhere else. This is inherently and unavoidably true - a government agency does not produce, it merely redistributes. As an armchair economist, I have my own conclusions on the effectiveness of redistribution (that is to say, it's not effective).

You are, of course, correct. When Mussolini took charge in Italy, it was easier for him to use the existing power structures (corporations) to create his own methods of exercising power (syndicates). It was more convenient for Robespierre to form a "Committee for Public Safety" than an "Axe-Wielding Death Squad," despite their identical function. And I didn't even have to use the Nazi example. Terror always comes to us in familiar forms; that's what makes it terrifying.

I could go on, but I think my .sig makes my opinions on the subject clear.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Wed Jun 04, 2003 1:39 am

Cain wrote:A corporation's primary goal is to make money, almost by definition. A congressmen's job is to remain elected.

Which by definition means it's in his best interests to act selfishly if it means it will keep him elected; there's no motivation toward the "common good," only the "common will."

Cain wrote:If a corporation sees a way to make money, and people object, they can't threaten the profits.

"I won't but your products. None of us will."

Cain wrote:OTOH, if a politician sees a way to make money, and people object, they can move to have him lose office.

"I won't vote for you. None of us will."

What's the difference?

Cain wrote:As far as the "going to the government for help" bit goes-- there's a saying that comes to mind: "Why re-invent the wheel?"

Because the jet engine is faster? Because walking gets you there much more cheaply when everyone else is driving and clogging up the system? I mean, I can draw this metaphor out until next Tuesday, but the fact remains that there are ample reasons to re-engineer a system if it's not working properly or if something else will work better.

Cain wrote:
3278 wrote:And that's a great example of the kind of monopoly that one could make a compelling argument threatens the existance of the state. Rapid communication is - now - essential to the state, and if that were threatened, the state would be. That's a case where someone might want to defend the government's right to step in. This media ownership issue isn't.
Given the recent trends towards media-merging, I'd say it makes a compelling case for the future.

So, we shouldn't let the same company own a newspaper and a television station in the same city because of the future possibility of...what, exactly?

Cain wrote:I think we can agree that specific monopolies will be inimical to both the marketplace (which feeds the military and the voters) as well as the State itself.

Not necessarily, no. They /can/ be inimical. One example of a large, monopolistic entity whose existence is threatening to the populace and the state would be the US Government, but that doesn't mean that all governments are necessarily injurious to their populi.

Cain wrote:However, we can also see a domino effect that a corporation will probably try-- once they corner a small section of the market, they almost inevitably try to use that leverage to dominate another section of the market. (Microsoft, Windows, and IE being an excellent example of this.)

Those bastards at Microsoft! How dare they give me a super-compatible operating system and a free web browser that works better than all the rest!

Cain wrote:
3278 wrote:Oh, and: "Able to gain concessions from the State" is not the same as "threatens the State," and a general case for against monopolies cannot be founded on the possibility that it will be.
No, but "demand concessions" is somewhat different.

I know this isn't the argument you wanted to make, so could you clear it up? As it is, I don't quite know what you mean.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Wed Jun 04, 2003 2:13 am

There are quite a few bankrupt, non-existent telecom companies (picking only the example that springs most immediately to mind) that would put the lie to your assertion. In fact, it's safe to say that a civilian's "voting" power over corporations is stronger than their voting power over national politicians. A Senator in a large state, or a President, can get away with a million fewer votes, provided he retains the plurality; a state-wide corporation would suffer for the loss of a million dollars.

It only takes one person to file a recall petition. And a corporation may or may not be selling their product in your area. Let's take Boeing for example. If Boeing were to start dumping toxic waste, and people protested by refusing to buy Boeing products, how much would that hurt their bottom line? The answer is, not at all. Even if people tried to boycott any company that used Boeing airplanes, the victims would be the airlines, not the airplane manufacturer.

Which by definition means it's in his best interests to act selfishly if it means it will keep him elected; there's no motivation toward the "common good," only the "common will."

Considering you don't believe in "good" or "evil", this is probably the closest one can find.

What's the difference?

See above. If things get really bad, a voter or group of voters can push to have a politican removed immediately. You can't remove a CEO from office, unless you happen to be on the Board of Directors.

Because the jet engine is faster? Because walking gets you there much more cheaply when everyone else is driving and clogging up the system? I mean, I can draw this metaphor out until next Tuesday, but the fact remains that there are ample reasons to re-engineer a system if it's not working properly or if something else will work better.

Nice sidestep. The fact is, we have a functioning apparatus for expressing the will of and mobilizing large groups of people. Your personal responsibility arguments have been that it's better to begin a grass-roots campaign each and every time something needs to be done. Which is not only inefficient, but slow and wasteful. It is much more efficient to use an existing structure than start one from scratch each and every time one wishes to get something accomplished.

So, we shouldn't let the same company own a newspaper and a television station in the same city because of the future possibility of...what, exactly?

Because both will be tied to the Internet, at some point in the future. I expect that before too long, all of these media outlets will be competing on the internet; their original formats won't make much of a difference. If one group manages to lock all the media outlets in a given area, they will be able to dominate and skew the news in any way they wish.

Basically, in the not-too-distant-future, media will be inextricably linked with rapid communication and data flow. It's merely prudent to start working on the possible issues now, so we can have a solution before there's a problem.

Not necessarily, no. They /can/ be inimical. One example of a large, monopolistic entity whose existence is threatening to the populace and the state would be the US Government, but that doesn't mean that all governments are necessarily injurious to their populi.

C'mon, 32. That's not an argument, that's an attempt to start a tangent on the value of the US government.

Those bastards at Microsoft! How dare they give me a super-compatible operating system and a free web browser that works better than all the rest!

Oh, come on now. They all but confessed that they used their market dominance to drive Netscrape out of business. Intelligent business practice is what's making them use their existing market dominance to push out into other areas.

They make an excellent example of how one monopoly enables a company to dominate more and more markets. At first, Microsoft only dominated the PC OS market. They could put out trash at any price, and people would more or less have to buy it (I can't see any other reason why ME was released, and neither can several Microsoft Windows employees that I know). However, they saw money to be made in the browser market, selling the programming codes to others. So, they made their computers progressively more unfriendly to Netscape, and made their system more friendly to their own internal stuff.

Now, the profit margin on web browsers isn't big, but it was something everyone knows about, so it made for good news. Still, there are many other areas in which Microsoft can push towards, and make a fortune-- SQL server comes immediately to mind. It'll only take a few "insider secrets" for their SQL server program to be inimical to any other, pushing them to dominance.

Time for dinner. Remind me to finsh my arguments later.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Wed Jun 04, 2003 3:01 am

Cain wrote:It only takes one person to file a recall petition.

And it only takes one person to start the Twinkies are Evil Boycott 2004.

Cain wrote:And a corporation may or may not be selling their product in your area.

A politician may or may not represent my area; Washington's senators don't /ever/ answer to me.

Cain wrote:
3278 wrote:Which by definition means it's in his best interests to act selfishly if it means it will keep him elected; there's no motivation toward the "common good," only the "common will."
Considering you don't believe in "good" or "evil", this is probably the closest one can find.

Let's not ignore the important point being made here just so we can point out that I'm a nihilist.

Cain wrote:See above. If things get really bad, a voter or group of voters can push to have a politican removed immediately. You can't remove a CEO from office, unless you happen to be on the Board of Directors.

Removing a CEO from power would be pretty silly, anyhow, when it's a corporate policy to which you're objecting.

Cain, the fact of the matter is, both commerical and governmental enterprises are so vastly much more powerful than individuals that action taken at the individual level will have next-to-no effect. Sure, I can petition to recall Bush, but how effective do you think that'll be? Probably about as effective as me trying to force the CEO of Sony to step down.

My response to this is to put more power in the hands of the people in the first place, so we don't have as large a difference between personal right and governmental right.

Cain wrote:Nice sidestep.

Hey Cain? You're being a dick again. It's not a sidestep, and my personal nihilism isn't an issue here. [If it were, I wouldn't have to write these long replies; I could just say, "Who cares," "It doesn't matter," and, "Prove it," over and over again.] I wrote a nice, topical post, and you've got to make it personal again.

Cain wrote:The fact is, we have a functioning apparatus for expressing the will of and mobilizing large groups of people.

Yes, and the fact is also that it doesn't work very well at most things, including but not limited to expressing the will of the people and mobilizing large groups of people.

Cain wrote:Your personal responsibility arguments have been that it's better to begin a grass-roots campaign each and every time something needs to be done.

Pretty sure I didn't ever once say that. I think you'll find that I've never used the word grass-roots on this board until just now.

Cain wrote:
3278 wrote:So, we shouldn't let the same company own a newspaper and a television station in the same city because of the future possibility of...what, exactly?
Because both will be tied to the Internet, at some point in the future. I expect that before too long, all of these media outlets will be competing on the internet; their original formats won't make much of a difference. If one group manages to lock all the media outlets in a given area, they will be able to dominate and skew the news in any way they wish.

Well, more than likely, given the scale of organizations we're talking about, these companies are /already/ on the internet. Who cares? So Franko, Inc., owns the Des Moines Times, Des Moines TV-8, and www.desmoinesmedia.com. It doesn't matter; since there's no "given area" for the internet, I fail to see how that changes anything.

Cain wrote:
3278 wrote:Not necessarily, no. They /can/ be inimical. One example of a large, monopolistic entity whose existence is threatening to the populace and the state would be the US Government, but that doesn't mean that all governments are necessarily injurious to their populi.
C'mon, 32. That's not an argument, that's an attempt to start a tangent on the value of the US government.

Well, if that's what it was, I'm sure you'd know better than I. I was just the person who said it. Tell you what, why don't you reply to the point and ignore the tangent, then?

Cain wrote:
3278 wrote:Those bastards at Microsoft! How dare they give me a super-compatible operating system and a free web browser that works better than all the rest!
Oh, come on now. They all but confessed that they used their market dominance to drive Netscrape out of business. Intelligent business practice is what's making them use their existing market dominance to push out into other areas.

...yes. That's true, and I don't dispute it. What I dispute is that America would automatically be a better place to live if Microsoft held 20% of the OS market and not 80% [or whatever they have].

I'm not going to get into another silly debate about browser wars or OS dominance, particularly since it wouldn't be about monopolies at all by the third post. If we're going to discuss a given example, let's use another one, please? I think Microsoft is a great example of the pros of single-corporation market-dominance, but I'd rather cede that advantage than talk about "the open source community" and Sun's superiority for the 30th time. I hope you don't mind.

FCC Plan to Alter Media Rules Spurs Growing Debate

FCC Plan to Alter Media Rules Spurs Growing Debate

Commie Wealth Allocators?