Although atenolol prescription electronic cigarettes can help with smoking cessation, scientists do not order lipitor yet understand their long-term health effects. Because of this, you order azor should talk with your doctor or pharmacist before taking any buy diovan cheap vitamin product with Truvada. Ketonemia and ketosis do not require buying arcoxia online treatment because the levels of ketones in the blood are clozapine prices not typically dangerous. A hiatal hernia can stop the LES (ovral discount from closing completely, allowing stomach acid to flow back up purchase celebrex online the esophagus. Babies should have a regular eating schedule and buy cheap norvasc plenty of fiber-rich foods to prevent constipation. If it develops, buy cheap zoloft a doctor may recommend using a saline solution to rinse arcoxia online review the baby's eyes and administering antibiotics if the cause is viagra sale a bacterial infection. Some people may experience mild dyskinesia, while cialis overnight shipping more severe dyskinesia may interfere with a person's everyday activities. buy viagra online without prescription During her treatment, a woman will have her hormone levels order discount cialis online assessed several times to check for balance. However, this article should.

The abominably misnamed “Fairness Doctrine” seems to be gathering steam for reinstatement. I have no political axe to grind here; I’m an information free-marketeer. Can you imagine any court going along with the proposition that by government regulation, editorial opinions in newspapers have to be politically balanced? Given the First Amendment, it is hard to think of anything more un-American.

The argument goes that the airwaves are different; they are public property and there are only so many to go around. As a national resource, they should be distributed “fairly,” so that a range of views can be heard.

There are so many things wrong with this argument from a purely philosophical point of view that it’s hard to know where to begin. Should truth and falsehood be equally represented, and if not, who is to decide whether someone’s claimed truth is actually false? Do Darwin and Usher get equal time to express their views on the age of the earth?

But the fundamental problem here is that spectrum scarcity, which is the premise for its nationalization and government control, is artificial. Chapter 8 explains the reasons, but my evidence could not be simpler. Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of broadcast radio stations coexist around you right now. They are called cell phones. Modern radio technology is much more efficient than that of the 1930s when the present schemes for allocating broadcast licenses were legislated.

The case for the government to dictate content of radio broadcasts is very week philosophically, but without its technological foundation, it collapses completely.

This entry was posted on Thursday, February 12th, 2009 at 11:30 pm and is filed under Censorship and free speech, Radio and television, The role of government—laws and regulations. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.