Argument for media remaining privatized?

[Havax]

I'm all the way libertarian but I was just thinking about how media is run by a conglomerate of a few private corporations who sort of hold a monopoly. The media is definitely biased and corrupt which sways the elections. Is this acceptable in our ideal libertarian society? Or is there some element I'm missing here?

 

[Travlyr]

The FCC licensing process guarantees a monopoly on airwave information.

 

[JamesButabi]

The FCC licensing process guarantees a monopoly on airwave information.

This. Sound money and minimal government destroys nearly all of the crony free market problems that exist today.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Privatized vs the option of having them nationalized- government run?

 

[emazur]

Privatization doesn't necessarily mean the best products win, it just means you're far more likely to have to option to find what you're looking for, even if it's relatively obscure. Nationalized media means no Peter Schiff Show, no Freedom Watch, and perhaps even no websites like LewRockwell.com if taken to the extreme.

If the government was bound by the Constitution, biased media wouldn't be much of a problem b/c the government wouldn't have the power to do the kinds of things it does now.

 

[AlexAmore]

I wouldn't even call it privatized. It's government sanctioned and regulated. Big whoop that the government gives one a license and permission to do something while forcing them to run it exactly how the government deems fit all while paying the massive amounts of extortion.

Of course, once you're in bed with the government you make a lot of money and want the regulations to keep the small business down to crush competition.

 

[hard@work]

I'm all the way libertarian but I was just thinking about how media is run by a conglomerate of a few private corporations who sort of hold a monopoly. The media is definitely biased and corrupt which sways the elections. Is this acceptable in our ideal libertarian society? Or is there some element I'm missing here?

Yeah, this:

The FCC licensing process guarantees a monopoly on airwave information.

Is so important for people to understand. These legal constructs are similar to the same constructs they are trying to implement with the internet. They are trying to create systems that are controlled and locked down like they did with the television programming over the years. That is what SOPA is all about. They are trying to protect their profits using government. To be fair, media created deserves to be credited. But society and technology has taken a quantum leap beyond old media's methods. And old media has scrambled to stifle innovation while adjusting to this change.

A Ron Paul candidacy would be the beginning of the breakdown of these controls. More companies would be able to compete for our business. And we would see a continuing shift away from the pre-programmed networks into self and user generated content. Companies like Time Warner (CNN) could be amazingly profitable and have terrific growth under a more free system. But the people that run Time Warner are old money and old media dinosaurs. They are very uncomfortable changing business models towards what the younger aggressive upstarts are doing. If they had their way they would use the FCC to control all the information systems out there. And then their content would be broadcast at the fees and rates they wish to protect.

Aside from this -- nationalized media is the media of the state. That is the media of the fascists and communists. That is a system where people disappear, and no one knows. You don't want that.

 

[tttppp]

I'm all the way libertarian but I was just thinking about how media is run by a conglomerate of a few private corporations who sort of hold a monopoly. The media is definitely biased and corrupt which sways the elections. Is this acceptable in our ideal libertarian society? Or is there some element I'm missing here?

You need to deregulate the media and allow smaller companies to compete. If that doesn't fix the problem, then fund more media companies to compete with them.

 

[tttppp]

I wouldn't even call it privatized. It's government sanctioned and regulated. Big whoop that the government gives one a license and permission to do something while forcing them to run it exactly how the government deems fit all while paying the massive amounts of extortion.

Of course, once you're in bed with the government you make a lot of money and want the regulations to keep the small business down to crush competition.

I agree. One thing I've always said, when you have excessive regulations, the companies participating in the industry are basically government run because they have to run their business exactly how the government would.

 

[Danke]

The FCC licensing process guarantees a monopoly on airwave information.

Yep. Free the Waves.

 

[mczerone]

Get rid of the power center and there won't be anything for them to influence.

You're trying to fix the fever and cough and not trying to get rid of the infection that cause them.

 

[BUSHLIED]

Most professions have ethics codes and you can lose you license for violating those codes...Journalists should be held to a standard. Our media is out of control.

 

[DamienMaddox]

Mainstream media is losing its grasp.

Ron Paul would not be doing nearly as well if it weren't for private media. You are forgetting that online news networks, blogs, etc, are a type of media too. Since government hates competition, they would have squashed all that before it got big enough to make any difference. No one would know who Ron Paul was in that scenario.

In 2008, the impact of the internet was not as big as it is today, and it continues to get stronger. Another big perk for the government to try to pass SOPA/PIPA. This forum would be shut down in no time just because of the youtubes it links to.

 

[ronpaulhemp]

I wouldn't refer to the media in this country as being completely privatized. It's government regulated and certain companies get certain benefits, etc..

 

[Zippyjuan]

Yep. Free the Waves.

The problem is that the airwaves are limited in quantity. That does not apply to the internet or print media though.

 

[brushfire]

The FCC licensing process guarantees a monopoly on airwave information.

Yup - imagine if you had to go to the government to license your youtube page. Then imagine if tv channels were like youtube channels.
Its not hard to see why they want SOPA.

 

[Danke]

The problem is that the airwaves are limited in quantity. That does not apply to the internet or print media though.

With the digital medium, that really doesn't apply.

 

[cindy25]

there is a solution; exempt family owned newspapers and TV stations from taxes

 

[dillo]

our media is a bastardization of privatized

 

[european]

I'm all the way libertarian but I was just thinking about how media is run by a conglomerate of a few private corporations who sort of hold a monopoly. The media is definitely biased and corrupt which sways the elections. Is this acceptable in our ideal libertarian society? Or is there some element I'm missing here?

Reason 1: what you think it would be like if it was state tv?