Comments on: Same Old Song on the Radio http://www.stopbigmedia.com/blog/2009/05/same-old-song-on-the-radio/ Sat, 04 Feb 2012 20:17:26 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: dgswilson http://www.stopbigmedia.com/blog/2009/05/same-old-song-on-the-radio/comment-page-1/#comment-16538 dgswilson Tue, 12 May 2009 12:55:17 +0000 http://live.stopbigmedia.com/blog/2009/05/same-old-song-on-the-radio/#comment-16538 I'm a little confused. As far as I can gather, from looking at the constitutional outline for free speech and therefore "The Press", government is not supposed to get involved. (?) Then I read that "http://www.freepress.net/node/56765" is pushing to get a bill passed that will allow smaller radio broadcasters to enter the market? So, I gather there is legislation that is keeping them out? The more I look, the more I read, it seems to me that we, as the public, would be better served to push for more more "undoing" than to suggest that government "do something" - more. Overall I see government "doing" to much. It also seems that anything they "do" has more to do with representing their own interests than anybody out here. Isn't it against the law for a agency like the FCC to even exist? Isn't that what the Ist Amendment was written for? To ensure this - (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=900) - Our Constitution, through the First Amendment, forbids government interference with the press; it entrusts regulation of the press to the marketplace and allows the people to determine their own interest. As Thomas Jefferson explained, in the area of information exchange, it is "better to trust the public judgment, rather than the magistrate...And hitherto the public has performed that office with wonderful correctness." What am I missing? I think that what "The Public" is missing is that whenever it is offered a "special government benefit" it should decline. This is because there are always strings attached. It allows for more government control. More centralized power. It would be easier to decline if we all realized that the government has nothing, of it's own, to make these offers with. Everything it offers it gets from us. So actually when Shirley is offered a subsidy or a special consideration it is always paid for by Toni. What is really happening is government is seeking permission to pass legislation. In this it will increase it's control over the public. Basically it will gain a greater ability to define rights and liberties. We should not only start saying no - to everything offered -, we should attempt to dismantle everything that has been done. Then - start over. I’m a little confused. As far as I can gather, from looking at the constitutional outline for free speech and therefore “The Press”, government is not supposed to get involved. (?) Then I read that “http://www.freepress.net/node/56765″ is pushing to get a bill passed that will allow smaller radio broadcasters to enter the market? So, I gather there is legislation that is keeping them out? The more I look, the more I read, it seems to me that we, as the public, would be better served to push for more more “undoing” than to suggest that government “do something” – more.

Overall I see government “doing” to much. It also seems that anything they “do” has more to do with representing their own interests than anybody out here. Isn’t it against the law for a agency like the FCC to even exist? Isn’t that what the Ist Amendment was written for? To ensure this – (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=900) – Our Constitution, through the First Amendment, forbids government interference with the press; it entrusts regulation of the press to the marketplace and allows the people to determine their own interest. As Thomas Jefferson explained, in the area of information exchange, it is “better to trust the public judgment, rather than the magistrate…And hitherto the public has performed that office with wonderful correctness.”

What am I missing? I think that what “The Public” is missing is that whenever it is offered a “special government benefit” it should decline. This is because there are always strings attached. It allows for more government control. More centralized power. It would be easier to decline if we all realized that the government has nothing, of it’s own, to make these offers with. Everything it offers it gets from us. So actually when Shirley is offered a subsidy or a special consideration it is always paid for by Toni. What is really happening is government is seeking permission to pass legislation. In this it will increase it’s control over the public. Basically it will gain a greater ability to define rights and liberties. We should not only start saying no – to everything offered -, we should attempt to dismantle everything that has been done. Then – start over.

]]>