Berries cheap cheapest internet are rich in antioxidants, including flavonoids, which may help protect order discount cheap online the brain from oxidative stress and inflammation. Avocados are a order generic buy prescription and alcohol source of healthy monounsaturated fats, which can contribute to improved colchicine online blood flow and brain health. Dark chocolate contains flavonoids and sales alternative antioxidants that may improve cognitive function and promote better blood discount atrovent flow to the brain. However, reducing or avoiding certain foods order asacol lowest price dosage and incorporating brain-boosting foods into a balanced diet can contribute online cialis to a lower risk of dementia. The brain regions responsible generic ampicillin for processing proprioceptive information may become damaged or shrink during betnovate india the disease, affecting the transmission and interpretation of signals related purchase compazine to body position and movement. A significant issue is an cafergot overnight increased risk of falls due to unsteadiness and difficulty adjusting discount celebrex to terrain changes. As a result, people with dementia may generic robaxin have altered gaits, difficulty reaching for and grasping items, and order cheapest methotrexate low cost dosage challenges with daily living tasks. A person's sex and geographical location.

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.