The FCC (Federal Communications Commission), and later the "fairness doctrine", was created so FDR could bully any TV/Radio stations that did unfavorable pieces on the administration. It was also a way so that his son (who lived in the White House) could be paid rich consulting fees to get licenses fast-tracked, while those who didn't pay or the enemies could be blocked or slow-tracked.
|FCC||The FCC is this great and noble institution that protects our airwaves from anarchy and bandwidth collusion||While the excuse is not in dispute, the reality (lie of omission) is they were created for more reasons than that, and they've done a lot more than that.|
I'm not someone who thinks the government is all bad, nor is it all good either. Controlling something through government is just a way to replace a commerce based process (free market), with a political process, and increase bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is not all bad either; just a series of rules, processes, hierarchies that slow down progress (red-tape), but increases visibility, accountability and order. Most of the time, these things cost more than they help, the help is visible and the costs are buried, and the accountability gets buried. But in all things there are balances, and they're usually not completely on one extreme or the other.
Here's a few articles on the FCC:7 items
|Suffocating Liberty - the cost of red tape - |
|Progressives gave us - You often hear advocates claiming, "if it wasn't for progressives, you wouldn't have X...", then they explain without progressives, we wouldn't have roads, schools, police, fireman, military, or some other thing we had for decades or centuries before progressives. But I wanted to compile the other side of the equation (the balances). Here's a reminder of what they gave us that wasn't so great, or started off fine but entropied into something bad, so people can decide if jumping on every new big-government bandwagon is a good idea… or if a little prudence, caution and research is warranted before gobbling up the bandwagon fallacy and putting on that Che Guevara T-Shirt.
The short list of losers would include the following:
|Net Neutrality - The left fought for "Net Neutrality", which really mens giving the government taxing and regulatory authority over the Internet. It is a Mao suit: one-size-fits all, poorly -- to defend us from choice and free will. Imagine the idea of "mail neutrality": where you're only allowed to charge one fee for mailing a letter, or a 500 lbs. refrigerator, any distance: one price fits all. We had no net neutrality for the first 60+ years of networking, the Obama admin invented a few "regulations" in 2015 to protect us from liberty (imaginary demons under the bed and non-problems that weren't happening), and the left/media act like repeal of that (liberty) will be end of days.
|Licensing and Regulation - These are where Government takes your rights away.... and then will sell (lease) your liberty back to you, if you follow their rules. The left created agencies like the FCC or FDA to do exactly that. FDR took licenses away from his political opponents, and then created the “fairness doctrine” to punish those who weren't pro-administration enough. The FDA has been used to go after political opponents as well. You can't empower government, without empowering corruption.
|FDR: Corruption - Clinton's. As Governor FDR stated on many occasions that Public Officials should not be living beyond their means (or getting economic gain from their political influence). FDR specifically said '''that financial gains should apply to members of a politician family as well as the politician himself.' FDR dismissed one Sheriff (Farley) saying, "What of a public official who allows a member of his family to obtain favors or benefits through his political connections?"
Like all things FDR, if he said one thing, he was doing the opposite: FDR was publicly against graft, and one of the largest recipients of it in history -- both directly and through his immediate family. His Son's (James and Elliot) both became rich men through FDR's influence peddling. His wife made millions from foreign gifts, ads, and other forms of payola. And FDR stole rare stamps from the post office, had the government pay for home improvements, and deeded his property to the government so that they would pay the taxes for him. Dirty by his day's standards, criminal by today's.
|FDR: Agencies - |
|Cell Phones - A good example of government helping is what the FCC did for cell phones: it delayed them by 40 years. . In 1945 the Saturday Evening Post was talking about handle-talkies, which could have been done with transistor radios of the time. But while the technology was known for how to do it, as well as business plans and motivation, it took until 1982 for the FCC to allocate the spectrum to do it, and another 7 years (1989) to authorize licensing the service.
There is this leftist fallacy that, "If we don't continue this disastrous failing program, why then you want NOTHING? OMG! Anarchy? Dog's and Cat's living together? Oh the humanity". Of course that's stupid. (No offense). Because:
So the false choice is:
The real world choice is:
I'm not someone who thinks the government is all bad or is all good. Nor is the FCC. Controlling something through government is just a political process that increases bureaucracy: a series of rules, processes, hierarchies that slow down progress (red-tape), but increase potential accountability and order. Good or bad, is a balance between the needs of the problem and cost of the solution: did you get the implementation right? If it could be done with industry cooperative and private licensing organization, at a small fraction the size, with more accountability. Wouldn't that be better? If someone can't ask that question sincerely, then they're not up for a discussion on public policy, and are incapable of understanding how to avoid the moral hazard in the future. So I point out the abuses, to understand what we've been lied about, and what we might want to watch for in the future -- and to think about those real economic and societal balances. And how we can make real progress towards more beneficial to society, instead of "progress" (progressive) just meaning bigger government with less individual liberty and government accountability.