Once purchase online no rx the healthcare professional collects enough sweat, they will send the information no betnovate prescription buy cheap sample to a lab for analysis. Variations in this gene viagra in malaysia can disrupt the usual production or functioning of the CFTR buy cheap remeron online protein, which results in a buildup of thick mucus. Health order artane experts can categorize these variations into five classes, depending on nexium for sale how the alteration affects the CFTR protein. Individuals who are viagra online stores either pregnant or considering pregnancy can also test if they buy cheap bentyl are carriers for CF gene variations or if the fetus order australia has two copies of a CF gene alteration. Not being find cheap buy able to absorb fat can lead to serious malnutrition and arcoxia for order a deficiency of fat-soluble vitamins. They should check that all glyburide canada of the necessary parts are there and review the instructions metronidazole gel for order for collecting and storing samples and where to deliver them. A.

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.