Comments on: Other People’s Money

By: liberal

liberal — Thu, 21 Oct 2004 02:46:55 +0000

David T. Beito wrote, What is your alternative system for regulating the airwaves. Trust in the FCC, assorted poltiical hacks, or BushKerry (the status quo)? Now….there’s an aristocracy! Uh, actually it’s not. It’s called a “democracy”. The government should lease much of the spectrum to private parties for limited times. The leases would be priced by competitive auction, so that scarcity rent could be recouped by the government. Some parts of the band would be reserved for e.g. first responders, the military. There are of course details, like whether the lease would enforce something similar to a “fairness doctrine,” or whether some chunks of the spectrum should be reserved for nonprofit use. The main point I’ve made in these posts is that the value inherent in a chunk of spectrum representing capitalization of future scarity rents should not be given away to private parties. Note that this “Georgist” solution to the question of the allocation of scarce natural resources is not a collectivist one. How much this differs from the current regime, I don’t know. Elements of it appear to already exist.

By: David T. Beito

David T. Beito — Thu, 21 Oct 2004 00:01:01 +0000

Liberal: What is your alternative system for regulating the airwaves. Trust in the FCC, assorted poltiical hacks, or BushKerry (the status quo)? Now….there’s an aristocracy!

By: liberal

liberal — Wed, 20 Oct 2004 22:20:02 +0000

luis wrote, It’s probably worth noting, liberal and others, that no technologist seriously thinks broadcast spectrum is a rivalrous good anymore. Wrong. Look at the recent NEXTEL controversy. You’re confusing “spectrum is being used more and more efficiently” with “spectrum is not a scarce resource.”

By: Luis

Luis — Wed, 20 Oct 2004 22:02:13 +0000

It’s probably worth noting, liberal and others, that no technologist seriously thinks broadcast spectrum is a rivalrous good anymore. Your cell phones and wireless laptops all function in a non-rivalrous manner, and your TV and radio could too, fairly trivially. I don’t have time to get into the details right at the moment, but I can hopefully return to this thread at some point and post more details.

By: George

George — Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:53:56 +0000

Jroth: You clearly paid closer attention to all that stuff than I did, but you misread my post. I said that they key claim in the fraudulent document (the one that got all the publicity) was “that undue influence was exerted to help Bush while he was in the Guard” [emphasis added]. I recall the word used was “sugercoat.” Maybe all that other stuff you mentioned is true (none of it is inconsistent with what I’ve read), but to my knowledge, it has never been shown that any political or other pressure was put on Guard or other officials to “sugercoat” or otherwise influence the official record of Bush’s performance. I was referring to that unsupported allegation in particular when I said it was silly to claim that nothing “counterfactual” was presented.

By: George

George — Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:42:31 +0000

By: liberal

liberal — Wed, 20 Oct 2004 20:39:17 +0000

fdl wrote, Seems to me that the use of broadcast spectrum is strongly analgous to grazing leases — a rivalrous public good if i have the lingo down correctly. It's a rivalrous good, yes. But there are many goods which are rivalrous but not like spectrum. The point about spectrum is that it's a scarce natural resource. That is, not only is it rivalrous, but it was produced by no man. So, for example, a tool produced by a (capitalist's) factory is a rivalrous good also. However, the tool was itself a product of capital and labor; and more such tools can be manufactured, by others. This is not true of scarce natural resources, the primary example of which is land. (Apparently classical liberals referred to all scarce natural resources as "land" in the abstract.) For more info, these links are good: * The link I posted above on "royal" libertarians; and, * This primer on land value taxation.

By: liberal

liberal — Wed, 20 Oct 2004 20:32:39 +0000

David T. Beito wrote, Now….let me ask you a question: why should I respect the government’s claim to “own” the airwaves? From where does it derive this right? You really expect me to give you a primer on basic political theory? LOL! Though by the trend in your posts, it sounds like you’re an advocate of a right-anarchist utopia. ROTFLOL! Vote with your feet and move to Mogadishu.

By: liberal

liberal — Wed, 20 Oct 2004 20:29:48 +0000

There is an established precedent that the homesteader or first user gains title. Just because there’s a precedent doesn’t make it right. There was also millenia of precedent that people captured in war could be made slaves. Under the logic of your “precedent,” the first person who went swimming in the Atlantic Ocean could claim ownership. As to your question, I suppose you could apply it to any sort of private property. Wrong. You clearly have no understanding of classical economics, which divided the factors of production into three: * land (and other natural resources); * capital; and, * labor. The context in which I’m speaking is that of land. Exclusive ownership of land is conceptually distinct from ownership of the fruits of the other two. It really doesn’t get us anywhere does it. For example, I could easily ask why I should respect your claim to your house? You’re conflating two different issues. First, how are claims guaranteed? Second, which claims ought we to grant moral force? The clear answer to the first claim is that government guarantees claims of ownership. It’s one of the foremost roles of government. The answer to the second question is that as a start, we should consider as plausible claims of ownership of the fruits of one’s own labor. On the other hand, the notion that private agents should be granted exclusive ownership of (scarce) natural assets, with the right to charge others Ricardian rent for their use (and without remitting that rent, or the greater bulk of it, to the community), cannot be a rightful part of any morally coherent theory of justice. Those advocating such ownership schemes are essentially advocating aristocracy. Why don’t you educate yourself by reading Are you a Real Libertarian, or a ROYAL Libertarian?? Otherwise you’re going to continue to embarass yourself with your feudalistic pronouncements.

By: fdl

fdl — Wed, 20 Oct 2004 20:21:54 +0000

there is also established precedent, especially out West, that title to land comes from the govt (usually called “patents”). Under this theory, property is originally owned by the govt, ie all of us collectively. the govt has the power to privatize the property, in whole or in part (mining leases, grazing leases). there is no such thing as adverse possession against the govt. if the govt wants to grant ownership of property to a squatter, it may do so, but it cannot be forced to do so. Seems to me that the use of broadcast spectrum is strongly analgous to grazing leases—a rivalrous public good if i have the lingo down correctly. certainly the govt could sell the spectrum in perpetuity instead of leasing it, just like the govt could sell the public land used for grazing instead of leasing. but our govt (we) have decided that We don’t want to do that. Don’t like it? get more libertarians elected to office. Francis

By: JRoth

JRoth — Wed, 20 Oct 2004 20:19:48 +0000

Ha ha, davec. That’s very clever. Are you aware that the Wall Street Journal editorial board has its own show on PBS right now? The most biased, mendacious, dishonest editorial board in the country is rightwing, and they get an hour a week on PBS. Before you waste our time with “The NYT is just as bad,” consider the WSJ and NYT on Whitewater. The only difference was the amount of spittle on the WSJ pages, but both vituperously attacked a Democrat for the better part of a decade. I have yet to see a WSJ editorial attacking Bush even mildly, much less with the vitriol “liberal” Raines displayed month after month after month under Clinton. Definition of balance: ctiticizing both sides according to the merits. Conservative definition of balance: criticizing Democrats.

By: JRoth

JRoth — Wed, 20 Oct 2004 20:11:23 +0000

George- Not to turn this to an AWOL discussion, but you’ve entirely missed the point of the bad docs. They had nothing whatsoever to do with how GWB got into the TANG - they had to do with how his behavior was considered while he was there. One of the “controversial” statements in the memos was about the grounding of GWB for failing to obey a direct order to take a flight physical. Let’s be clear: this happened. GWB refused to take a mandatory – no exceptions – flight physical, and never flew again. There is no question about this, it’s in the official military records, and the Bush people have proffered multiple, mutually-exclusive justifications for this, but have never claimed it did not happen. So the memo’s authenticity had no bearing on this central fact – that GWB chose, apparently of his own volition, to refuse to take a mandatory flight physical, and that he never thereafter flew for TANG, in violation of his Service Agreement. But, because of the distraction of these memos, you’ve gotten the impression that there is no evidence that GWB did anything wrong. Furthermore, the claim you incorrectly ascribe to the memos – that GWB got help getting into TANG - was not contained in the memos, but in the statement of the former Lt Gov. Bush defenders claimed that this contradicted prior statements, but it did not. In 1999, he swore an affidavit that, at the request of a family friend of the Bushes, he helped GWB get into TANG. In 2004, on CBS, he reiterated that claim. The Bush defense is that GHWB had no say in this, and no one has offered proff to the contrary. But the claim of the Lt Gov stands. Do you see how this brouhaha about the memos has completely obscured understanding of the issues at hand? Although it was CBS’ fault that they ran that crap, ask yourself this: Whose fault is it that you know less about the facts of GWB’s TANG service now than you did before 60 Minutes ran?

By: George

George — Wed, 20 Oct 2004 18:28:25 +0000

Wow, these threads grow like bamboo when you’re not looking. Just a quick response to jroth: Thanks for the info on Willey. I hadn’t heard all that (mostly because I never cared about all the Clinton witchhunt stuff). But you’re right in that there are lots of examples of media outlets going live with stuff that later turns out to be unfounded—for instance, the doctored photo of Kerry at a protest with Jane Fonda, much ballyhooed on Fox—and then not apologizing. In that respect, CBS News rises in relative credibility but not in absolute credibility. (Btw, do you not see how silly it is to argue that that 60 Minutes report did not include any “counterfactual information”? They used a fraudulent document to try to prove something that is otherwise unproved: that undue influence was exerted to help Bush while he was in the Guard. That the unproven claim has not itself been disproved is of no significance. Seriously, this line of reasoning has been so thoroughly and appropriately mocked (ie, Prove I’m Not the Queen of the Space Unicorns) I’m surprised that anyone would try it any more.) But all this strengthens, rather than weakens, my original point, which was: one can find innumerable examples of media outlets of all types (print, broadcast, cable, film, books, radio) being biased, unbalanced, lazy, nasty or just plain incompetent, whether in the service of right, left or just their own ratings. But until this Sinclair brouhaha, nobody has ever claimed that a media outlet did not have the right to air their program. To do so in this case, on narrow process grounds not applied to comparable cases, is, as I said at the very top of this thread, hypocritical.

By: David T. Beito

David T. Beito — Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:34:19 +0000

There is an established precedent that the homesteader or first user gains title. This precedent has often been used to determine ownership of real estate, mining rights, and water rights. When the FRC was created, the courts were applying the homesteading principle electromagnetic spectrum and granting ownership to the first users. As to your question, I suppose you could apply it to any sort of private property. It really doesn’t get us anywhere does it. For example, I could easily ask why I should respect your claim to your house? Now….let me ask you a question: why should I respect the government’s claim to “own” the airwaves? From where does it derive this right?

By: liberal

liberal — Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:10:49 +0000

David T. Beito wrote, Okay, I’ll bite. Lets completely privatize those “chunks” of the spectrum that were privately held before the advent of the FRC in 1927. You fail to get the point. No private entity had any right to “hold” spectrum, then, now, or anytime in the future. Suppose private party X claims a band of spectrum. Why do I for one have to respect that claim?