FCC

From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search

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.

Issue Lie Truth
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.

Government

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 -
SuffocatingLiberty.png
Each new tax, law or regulation, comes with costs (compliance, non-compliance, enforcement and punishment). We 174,545 pages of regulations with over 1,040,940 restrictions. Our tax code has over 73,954 pages. Our federal legal code has over 23,000 pages and over 4,450 federal crimes (in 2008). Double that for statutes, case law, and regulatory provisions. Then there’s another 300,000 criminal punishments within the discretion of administrative agencies. Then you have to add in the state and local laws, regulations and taxes on top.
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:

  • Financial servitude: centralized banking/money (the Fed), fiat currency backed by debt (and the inflation that results in), they gave us the 16th amendment, the IRS, the worst tax code in the free world (73,954 pages), they fought for every tax increase and against all relief or simplification (to fund themselves), and then they piled on 174,545 pages of regulations (over 1,040,940 restrictions spread among them) in our regulatory code, and that’s not touching the 23,000 pages in our federal legal code (and over 300,000 criminal punishments burried within the discretion of administrative agencies).
  • Bigotry: centralized education with the admitted intent of reprogramming the youth (against their immigrant/catholic parents), they were champions of racism (and still are in affirmative action), supported eugenics, created our anti-immigration quotas and policies as a favor to unions (then call anyone that wants to enforce those laws a xenophobe), FDR blocked all immigration for a while, interned even 2nd generation Japanese, Germans and Italians,
  • General Statism: they replaced the constitution with federalism (jurisprudence and precedence over original intent), invented supreme court stacking and judicial activism, they gave us the 17th amendment (popular vote senate which broke the constitution and states rights completely), they gave government the power to take our property (eminent domain, national parks/federal lands), and to control what we can do on our land (via the EPA and other agencies)
  • Too big to fail: they have always been in bed with big business (like organized labor) and created the biggest cartels and trusts in the nation (utilities, unions, federal reserve, banking, Fanny/Freddy, tort lawyers, AMA, and so on),
  • Enemies of liberty: they gave us Prohibition and the post-prohibition drug war, they granted the Fed it's own unconstitutional police forces (FBI, NSA, DEA, OSS/CIA, IRS), centralized transportation (like Amtrak), used centralized road as a way to force things on the states that were unconstitutional (like the 55MPH speed limit, forced raised the drinking age, and so on), then they complain that our federally mandated highways and bridges are crumbling (the agencies they created, failing to do their charter), they invented the anti-liberty regulatory state: the FDA was created so they could control what we put in our own bodies, the FCC and fairness doctrine were created to control our free speech (so FDR could bully any TV/Radio stations that did unfavorable pieces on the administration or it’s policies), they gave us FISA warrants and invented domestic spying (look at Espionage and Sedition Acts of the 1917-1918 and how they empowered government to read our mail, listen on phone calls, and how they undermined free speech), they created American imperialism (and got us into the Civil War, Spanish American War, WWI, WWII, Kosovo, Bosnia, Vietnam, and Central/South America), they gave us conscription/draft, they took away our guns for our own good, invented the poverty industrial complex (which is over 2/3rds of our budget and 9/10ths of our future liabilities), they made it harder to save for our retirement and replaced it with a youth-tax ponzi scam calls Social Security, then they raided the Social Security Trust fund and left IOU’s in their place (for our kids to pay for our debts/sins), they invented congressional appointed agencies to give congress plausible deniability and more opacity in government, and most of all, they won’t accept responsibility for any of it. It’s all the Republicans fault.

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 -
FDR-Corruption.jpg
Graft is taking profit from one's political office (or taking money for their influence). The politicians of today have nothing on FDR, not even the 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 -
FDR-Agencies.jpg
FDR modeled his business recovery on what the Fascists of Europe had been doing: making many agencies to socialize, control and centralize industries, business and workers (National Syndicalism). Most of his programs were later declared flops (and abolished), replaced, or ruled unconstitutional. Well over a hundred new bureau's and agencies unconstitutionally burdening the nation and bankrupting investments. (Remember, Article One, Section 1 of the United States Constitution says, "Congress cannot delegate its power to anyone else", like creating an agency to do what congress should). FDR used that power abusively. By controlling the agencies, he could make people or sectors dependent on him and the government. And he used those powers to bully the opposition, and reward allies. The rule of law and constitution was for academics and he was a man of action. And the the consequences of the New Deal is something we're still paying for today: politically, socially and economically.
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.


Government

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:
  • (a) even if it was true, it wouldn't make this failing system any better
  • (b) it's not true, there's lots of ways to solve a problem, we picked the worst way (a socialist/centralized/politicized boondoggle).
  • (c) even if I wanted to eliminate it, you need to look at what would happen -- companies would figure out ways to secure their own quality to the public. Have you ever heard of the UL (Underwriters Laboratory) to guarantee electronic goods safety? ICANN for managing Internet Addresses? The IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) that does you car safety ratings? Oh yeah, they're private / not-for-profit organization. Without government, corporations create these things anyways (and better), because consumer confidence helps sales.

So the false choice is:

  • (a) the government does it
  • (b) nobody does it

The real world choice is:

  • (a) the government does it poorly, for more costs, wastes and bureaucracy and based on politics
  • (b) the private sector would do it, only for less costs and more value, and improve over time more than the politically driven government solution

Conclusion

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.

GeekPirate.small.png

📚 References