group discussion
topic:
Politics >
Politics – everyone may post
date
newest »
newest »
Ilyn wrote: "I wish everyone all the best for 2009 - have a Happy & Prosperous New Year."
Back atcha, Ilyn...
Stephen H. Turner
The Last Voyage of the CassiopeiaAlmagest: The Adventures of MarsShield
3700
The Avedon Question
Ilyn wrote: "Thank you, Steve."
Hey, Ilyn...have you checked out the videos I've put together promoting my books? Click on my name to go to my section of GoodReads...
Stephen H. Turner
I just did. Wow! Congratulations.
Where can one learn to create videos? You may want to join this group: Tips for Self Promotion, Sales, and Advertising: http://www.goodreads.com/group/show/8255... I also just learned of the existence of this site: www.dailybookshow.com.
Ilyn wrote: "I just did. Wow! Congratulations.
Where can one learn to create videos? You may want to join this group: Tips for Self Promotion, Sales, and Advertising: http://www.goodreads.com/group/show/825..."
Thanks! Anything to get those copies moving! I'm sick and tired of being poor! ;-)
Steve
Ilyn wrote: "If I get bonus pay, I'll buy one of your books for Operation Paperback."
What's "Operation Paperback"?
I am a member of this group. From Chrissy of Operation Paperback:
We are a group of volunteers who send gently-used paperbacks to our troops, to give them some relaxation and mental escape.
We also try to find books that have been specially-requested by our soldiers. Here are some of our current requests: Philosophy and History books, Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, self-help books....
To find out more, go to http://www.operationpaperback.org or email chrissy@operationpaperback.org.
Ilyn wrote: "I am a member of this group. From Chrissy of Operation Paperback:
We are a group of volunteers who send gently-used paperbacks to our troops, to give them some relaxation and mental escape.
..."
Ah so. I'll look into it.
Steve
Posted at Fox - Rapid-Fire Q&A: Explain Political Principles to Youngsters http://community.myfoxdetroit.com/blogs/...* transfered to a new topic
Big Government, not Big Media, Threatens Free Speech
Contrary to widespread cries that media consolidation threatens free speech, the real threat comes from laws regulating media ownership.
By Don Watkins
Self-appointed consumer watchdogs--including Obama’s recent pick for FCC chair, Julius Genachowski--have long complained about media consolidation. So it was no surprise that when the FCC recently loosened restrictions barring companies from owning a newspaper and TV station in the same city, these critics went apoplectic and are now urging the House to follow the Senate in blocking the measure.
Media consolidation supposedly threatens free speech. A few conglomerates, critics warn, have seized control of our media outlets, enabling these companies to shove a single “corporate-friendly” perspective down our throats. As Senator Byron Dorgan put it, “The free flow of information in this country is not accommodated by having fewer and fewer voices determine what is out there. . . . You have five or six corporate interests that determine what Americans can see, hear, and read.”
Leave aside that Dorgan’s comments are hard to take seriously in the age of the Internet: his position is still a fantasy. Media consolidation is no threat to free speech--it is the result of individuals exercising that right.
All speech requires control of material resources, whether by standing on a soapbox, starting a blog, running a newspaper ad, or buying a radio station. Media corporations simply do this on a larger scale.
Consider the critics’ favorite bogeyman, News Corp. When Rupert Murdoch launched the company, he and his fellow shareholders pooled their wealth to create a communications platform capable of reaching millions. They further expanded their ability to communicate through mergers and acquisitions--that is, through media consolidation. As News Corp.’s owners, shareholders were able to exercise their freedom of speech by deciding what views their private property would (and wouldn’t) be used to promote--the same way a blogger decides what ideas to champion on his blog. Like most other media companies, News Corp. even extended the use of its platforms to speakers from all over the ideological map--including opponents of media consolidation.
Do News Corp.’s resources give Murdoch an advantage when it comes to promoting his views? Absolutely. Free speech doesn’t guarantee that everyone will have equal airtime, any more than free trade guarantees that every business will have the same amount of goods to trade. What it does guarantee is that everyone has the right to use his own property to speak his mind.
Some of today’s most prominent voices, such as Matt Drudge, have succeeded without huge financial resources. But regardless of how large a media company grows, it can never--Dorgan’s complaints notwithstanding--determine what media Americans consume. It must continually earn its audience. Fox News may be the leading news channel today, but if it doesn’t produce shows people want to watch, it will have all the influence of ham radio. Just think of how newspapers and the big-three network news stations are losing audiences to Web-based sources.
Now consider the actual meaning of government restrictions on media ownership. The FCC is telling certain Americans that they cannot operate a printing press or its equivalent. Such restrictions cannot protect free speech--they are in fact violations of the right to free speech. There is no essential difference between smashing someone’s printing press and threatening to fine and jail him if he uses one; either way, he can’t use it to express his views.
What galls critics of media consolidation is not that News Corp. stops anyone from speaking--it’s that they don’t like the choices Americans make when free speech is protected. In the words of one critic: “[M:]arket forces provide neither adequate incentives to produce the high quality media product, nor adequate incentives to distribute sufficient amounts of diverse content necessary to meet consumer and citizen needs.” Translation: Can you believe what those stupid consumers willingly pay for? If I got to decide what Americans watched, read, and listened to, things would be different.
In order to “correct” the choices Americans make, these critics demand that the FCC violate the free speech rights of some speakers in order to prop up other speakers who, absent such favors, would be unable to earn an audience. In short, they want a gun-wielding Uncle Sam--not the voluntary choices of free individuals--to determine who can speak and therefore who you can listen to.
The critics of media consolidation are frauds. They are not defenders of free speech--they are dangerous enemies of that freedom.
Don Watkins is a writer and research specialist at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.”
Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Op-eds, press releases and letters to the editor produced by the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights are submitted to hundreds of newspapers, radio stations and Web sites across the United States and abroad, and are made possible thanks to voluntary contributions.
If you would like to help support ARC's efforts, please make an online contribution at http://www.aynrandcenter.org/contribute....
This release is copyrighted by the Ayn Rand Center, and cannot be reprinted without permission except for noncommercial, self-study or educational purposes. We encourage you to forward this release to friends, family, associates or interested parties who would want to receive it for these purposes only. Any reproduction of this release must contain the above copyright notice. Those interested in reprinting or redistributing this release for any other purposes should contact media@aynrandcenter.org. This release may not be forwarded to media for publication.
ARC's media releases are solicitations sent to addresses obtained from individual subscription requests. You are subscribed as ilynross@optonline.net. If you prefer not to receive future releases, visit our Web site to change your email preferences.
The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, 555 12th Street NW, Suite 620 N, Washington, DC 20004
CONGRESS' FINANCIAL MESS
Opinion Editorial by Walter E. Williams
http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/090...
The Financial Crisis: Causes and Possible Cures
By John Allison
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?p...
Ilyn wrote: "Steve, I will buy one of your books next week. Which do you recommend? "
I highly recommend the very first one, "Last Voyage of the Cassiopeia", and then just going on down the line: "Almagest", then "3700", then "The Avedon Question", in sequential order. Of the sequels, "3700" is probably the most entertaining, but that's MY personal opinion....However, there are good points to all the books....
Stephen H. Turner
The Last Voyage of the Cassiopeia
Almagest The Adventures of MarsShield
3700
The Avedon Question
Ilyn wrote: "I bought it already (the first one)."
You've GOT to tell me what you think of it after you've read it! I'll be waiting with baited breath!
Steve
Mob Rule Comes to Washington
By Peter Schwartz
In dealing with AIG, why are people pussyfooting around? They believe that the bonus money was stolen from the public and must be retrieved by any means possible. So why not bypass the niceties and just send in some well-armed “enforcers” to confiscate the bonus recipients’ cars and houses and bank accounts?
If this raises fear about ushering in mob rule, it’s too late. AIG employees have been crudely vilified, they have been targets of death threats, a U.S. senator has urged them to kill themselves, protestors “tour” their homes, they have had to hire security guards and AIG has removed its name from the front of its Manhattan offices.
This mass hysteria is being fueled by the government, which is proceeding on the premise of: “Get the money back first, rationalize later.” The House passed an extraordinary piece of punitive--and unconstitutional--legislation to tax away almost all the bonus money. New York’s attorney general, abetted by the threat of making their names public, has gotten many of the recipients to “voluntarily” return their bonuses. Perversely, the rights of captured Islamic jihadists generate greater concern in Washington.
All these actions are tantamount to rule by mob action.
A mob is driven by rampant emotionalism, with no concern for facts--facts such as: Are these particular recipients guilty of anything? Are they competent individuals, necessary to keep the company operational? Would they have resigned without the inducement of the bonuses? Didn’t Washington consent to the bonuses at the time of the bailout? Aren’t the recipients entitled to the bonuses by contract?
The essence of mob rule is arbitrary and unchecked force, in disregard of all rights. If so, then when the government spends our money with virtually no limits--then trillions of dollars are gleefully disbursed through unrestrained horse-trading and arm-twisting among members of Congress--when trillions more are poured down the rat holes of failing companies at the uncontrolled discretion of bureaucrats--when government “czars” can select a company’s CEO and dictate its product line--then what we have is government by mob rule. That is, we have government with arbitrary, unchecked power to do as it wishes--which means: government unconstrained by the principle of individual freedom.
Like any mob, Washington desires a scapegoat. It blames capitalism for the mortgage and credit crisis, in order to divert attention from the real culprit: government intervention. Every housing-related measure taken by Washington has made the standards for homeownership looser than they would be in a free market. Government has stepped in to override private companies’ aversion to undue risk. Regulators criticized banks for turning down too many mortgage applications. FNMA and FHLMC were created to encourage the issuance of mortgages that would not be prudent in a free market. The FDIC anesthetizes depositors against risks taken with their funds. And the entire Federal Reserve exists to pump paper money into the economy, and to keep interest rates artificially low--often below the rate of inflation--so that more lending occurs. Yet when this house of cards collapsed, it is capitalism that was denounced, and more government power that was demanded.
The administration’s latest proposal, for a “systemic risk regulator,” should leave little doubt that it seeks carte blanche in ruling the economy. This is a plan for an economic dictator, an “enforcer” who will have the frightening authority to oversee every decision that, in his opinion, significantly influences the economy.
Of course, once the mob-rule mentality takes hold, everyone becomes a potential target. If you obtain a mortgage or a college loan, the government may subject you too to “risk regulation.” You may be told that you can’t buy a plasma TV or take a vacation or quit your job, because the risk to your finances is “unacceptable.” But isn’t that a purely private decision?--you will indignantly demand. If government power keeps expanding, however, there may no longer be any private decisions.
Peter Schwartz is the author of The Foreign Policy of Self-Interest: A Moral Ideal for America. He is a distinguished fellow, and former chairman of the board, of the Ayn Rand Institute.
Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Op-eds, press releases and letters to the editor produced by the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights are submitted to hundreds of newspapers, radio stations and Web sites across the United States and abroad, and are made possible thanks to voluntary contributions.
If you would like to help support ARC’s efforts, please make an online contribution at http://www.aynrandcenter.org/contribute....
This release is copyrighted by the Ayn Rand Institute, and cannot be reprinted without permission except for noncommercial, self-study or educational purposes. We encourage you to forward this release to friends, family, associates or interested parties who would want to receive it for these purposes only. Any reproduction of this release must contain the above copyright notice. Those interested in reprinting or redistributing this release for any other purposes should contact media@aynrandcenter.org. This release may not be forwarded to media for publication.
ARC’s media releases are solicitations sent to addresses obtained from individual subscription requests. You are subscribed as ilynross@optonline.net. If you prefer not to receive future releases, visit our Web site to change your email preferences.
The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, 555 12th Street NW, Suite 620 N, Washington, DC 20004
"Torture" Methods the CIA Should Have Used
by Scott Wheeler
http://townhall.com/columnists/ScottWhee...
Ilyn,Bold claims.. shame that they fail to match reality.. The British had a great many recognized rights, as did the Dutch who were FAR freer than we are today.. And these are but two of the many examples. A bit of reading of history would help alleviate such gaffs..
Also, if you will recall, the claim of inherent rights was undermined by the denial of personhood to blacks, women, and select foreigners.
Jim,
How do you get to what you appear to offer as a conclusion that restaurants and utilities must be government run (aka regulated)?
As for whether or not you choose to have fear, this is not a matter of liberty and certainly denying choice and freedom of peaceful interaction, which is the sole purpose of regulation, in no way promotes liberty.
By your rather peculiar "definition" of liberty used here, then literally ANY regulation at all necessarily increases liberty, yet since regulation is necessarily at odds with liberty, after all to prevent action is the sole purpose of regulation, your position becomes self-contradictory.
The government monopoly on utilities (in select areas) has led to increased costs, poor maintenance, and stifled innovation. It has caused the labor and efforts of some to be taken by force and given to others. These are not good things, nor do they increase liberty.
Anyone who has traveled abroad to developing nations knows that it is the absence of the draconian regulatory environment now found in the US, that allows for poor families to inprove their economic status. Maybe a mother has a special knack for making meat pies, so she makes thirty of them and sells them to workers at lunch time.. then she can affort to make more and sell more, and thus give a better life to her children and family. I witnessed this scenario in one developing nation which is supposed to be far more oppressive a regime than the US, yet you cannot so much as sell bottled water in the US without overcoming massive mountains of paperwork, permits, regulations, and petty bureaucrats who can and do deny you peaceful interaction with others simply by whim.
..indeed , master Brian is right by stating the Dutch were\are far freer than the Americans are today... still is... I think..
Thanks Jerin.. Most folks, at least most in the US fail to recognize that it was the recognition of personal rights, particularly property rights that made the Dutch the major trading group, and as such the creators of stock, and the beneficiaries of a booming economy. There is a mythos in the US that all "capitalisim" or free market exchange began in the US, when in fact it was in the intellectual movements of Scotland, and the financial movements of the Dutch in which these really first take hold. This recognition of personal property is one that not only was not legally recognized in the US, but now with the Kelo decision, has been explicitly denied in the US under federal law. To be clear the Kelo decision completely denied any hint of property rights in the US, despite the fact that it is only those nations which have recognized exactly these rights which have prospered. Those nations settled under a feudal system, or other non-property based system still struggle today economically. Not having explicit knowledge of Dutch or Dutch colonies today, I cannot say for certain that they are more free than the people of the US today, but if we were to place bets, I would bet heavily upon it given the draconian and literally totalitarian state which is the US today. Contrary to what some posters like to believe, this is not self-governance, liberty, or justice. Nor does it in any way at all resemble the hopes of the founders.. Still any state, including the US, in which all actions of peaceful individuals are regulated or otherwise controlled by the State, is necessarily a totalitarian state.
One wonders the world would be like Orwell's '1984' ,if not for the happy few, like master Brian, residing and at the same time 'dissenting', in the most powerful and yet the greatest country in the world...
Barbara Hollingsworth: Defending the honor of Thomas Jefferson http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinio...
My friend Ilyn Ross has kindly invited me to let you know that my giveaway novel “Headless World — The Vatican Incident” will end on Oct.15. You can enter at:
http://www.goodreads.com/giveaway?all_co...
Thanks for participating,
Stan Law
PS. I have to admit my novel is heavy on politics...
http://www.goodreads.com/giveaway?all_co...
Thanks for participating,
Stan Law
PS. I have to admit my novel is heavy on politics...
unread topics | mark unread
Books mentioned in this topic
Silent Spring (other topics)Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different (other topics)
Atlas Shrugged (other topics)
Illicit: How Smugglers, Traffickers, and Copycats are Hijacking the Global Economy (other topics)
Almagest: The Adventures of MarsShield (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Walter Block (other topics)Eric Sloane (other topics)
Ambrose Bierce (other topics)
Gordon S. Wood (other topics)
Stephen H. Turner (other topics)
More...
