Topic: Ron Paul
Distancing Myself from the Ron Paul Socialists Many Paul supporters are calling for government control over the news industry. Here is one Paul supporter that opposes it.by Freedom Jackson
(Libertarian)
Friday, February 1, 2008
Distancing Myself from the Ron Paul Socialists
Socialism is social or government control of the means of production. It is a disturbing fact that many, though certainly not all and hopefully not most, Ron Paul supporters advocate significant social/government control over a vital industry: the news media. When one wanders through the various blogs and comments in response to news articles, it is not difficult to spot calls for government to control the news industry to make sure it acts in the "public interest." The usually entails calling for the FCC or the FEC to forcibly intervene to make sure that Paul gets equal air time with other candidates and is allowed to participate in all the debates. This advocacy of a government control is especially perverse given that Paul himself advocates that government stay out of regulating the media and supports allowing full private property rights. It may come as a surprise to some Paul supporters, but Paul is a supporter of laissez-faire capitalism - private control, as opposed to government control, of the means of production. He is also a strong supporter of the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Paul does receive noticeably less news coverage, as well as less questions in debates, than Republican candidates who rate higher in the national scientific polls. However, he receives more media attention than candidates who poll lower, such as Alan Keyes, as well as Duncan Hunter before he dropped out of the race. So, the coverage time in national news appears to be based on national polling results. Whether polling is a good criteria for determining media coverage, and whether that is the actual criteria, is another topic. But, Paul supporters who are incensed that Paul does not receive as much coverage as the "frontrunners," and wish the government to remedy this injustice this offer several arguments for increased government control. One argument often heard is that "the airwaves" are owned by the public, and that therefore it is in the public's interest that the government control what is broadcast on the airwaves. The control they want is enforcement that the media presents all sides of an issue, gives all the information they have, and covers all candidates of opposing opinions. This more expansive information they say, and perhaps they're right, is in the public's interest. The media outlet Paul supporters most complain about is Fox News Channel, which is delivered through private cable lines rather than the air so the argument does not apply to Fox. But, even if it were broadcast on the airwaves, the idea that the airwaves are owned by the whole society in collective is a socialist idea - an idea Paul himself rejects. To the contrary, and surely a surprise to many so-called Paulites, Paul advocates true privatization of the airwaves and abolition of the FCC. Another assumption underlying their claims that any particular news organization has a responsibility to the fully inform the public is the assumption that people have a right to be provided with information by others rather than assuming people have a responsibility to inform themselves. This idea that some people have a moral obligation to give to others and ought to be forced to do so runs directly counter to Paul's philosophy. This, again, is a socialist and communist premise.
Again speaking of Fox, Paul was excluded from one Fox News Channel debate when Fox said that there was not enough space for him in the small trailer in which the debate took place and because he was polling low nationally. Regardless of the reason for the exclusion, even if it is because they just don't like what he has to say, if Paulites respect private property rights and oppose government control over private property as Paul does, then they ought to be supporting Fox's right to exclude anyone they wish from their buildings for any reason they wish. Only non-governmental, and non-coercive methods, used to register displeasure with Fox's decisions and change their behavior are consistent with Paul's ethics.
Another argument for government control frequently seen is that the major news outlets are "corporations," and therefore they must be forced to serve the "public interest" (whatever that is). However, a corporation is not public property but private property. A corporation is owned by a finite number of private individuals who have pooled together their resources for a common purpose - to produce a good or service and to make as money as possible for themselves doing it. Corporations are not owned by society as a whole, but by the private investors. To assert that they are owned by society and/or that they must serve the public interest is socialism. To take control of a corporation away from the investors and turn its production decisions over to the government is coerced socialization or nationalization. Again, such ideas are antithetical to Paul's philosophy.
Not only is the government control of the news industry these Paul supporters ask for a severe diminution of private property rights, but because what is being produced by the industry is speech and news, it would be a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution to create or enforce any "law" that controlled it. That amendment says: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." What good is freedom of the press, if not protection not only to be fair and impartial but freedom also to promote particular viewpoints (and candidates) and to diminish others? The very purpose of a Constitutionally-protected free press is to prevent factions from employing the strong-arm of the government to help them force their will on the press when they don't like what they're saying or not saying. The First Amendment protects the liberty to be biased. Ironically, the First Amendment protects the news media from Paulites themselves who claim to support a candidate that is a "strict Constitutionalist."
One incredible argument for regulation is that there is a media "monopoly," and that therefore it needs to be controlled by the government on behalf of the public interest. The notion that there is a news monopoly is obviously false. A monopoly is the state of affairs where there is only one provider of a good or service - i.e., competition does not exist. There are several television news stations on the air and cable, radio news stations on the air and satellite, many newspapers, and many suppliers of news on the internet (surveys show that most people get their news from the internet). Certainly there is some consolidation, but how anyone could conclude that there is a news monopoly defies explanation. There is much competition, and it is increasing thanks to the lack of regulation (though still too much regulation) and the resulting technological progress (FCC licensing requirements apply only to the airwaves and not to cable, satellite, or the internet). We know from studying economic history, as well as through economic reasoning, that the only thing that can truly prevent competition is governmental intervention. So, intervention is the last thing we should be seeking if the claim is that there is not enough competition.
One interesting observation is that many of these Paul supporters who advocate government control of the media are the first to claim that there is a conspiracy involving the government and the "mainstream media" to silence Paul. Well, if that's the case, then why would the solution to be to bring even more government in? For individuals convinced that the government is that corrupt, what reason do they have to trust the government's ability to determine what is fair or in the public's interest? There is no way to determine what the public interest is without allowing the market to work. It can't be determined by bringing in government to override market forces. That only prevents the determination. If a news organization is not satisfying public demand, or is dishonest, this will be realized and its profits will naturally suffer as long as it continues on that course.
To be fair, regulation of the means production, if minimal, does not equate to socialism. It is, though, a step in that direction. However, the government control that many Paulites are calling for is not minimal regulation. It would constitute a very large degree of government ownership over the news industry (control being equivalent to ownership). If such government control over production decisions is not complete socialization of the media, it is close. And there is tremendous danger it would lead to more government control. The economist Ludwig von Mises points out: "If the State takes the power of disposal from the owner piecemeal, by extending its influence over production; if its power to determine what direction production shall take and what kind of production there shall be, is increased, then the owner is left with nothing except the empty name of ownership, and property has passed into the hands of the State." Is this what some Paul supporters want? If so, they're supporting the wrong candidate.
So, let it be known that there are some Paul supporters, such as myself, that support free speech, a free press and respect private property rights even if we don't like what any particular news company is saying or what they're doing with their property. Yes, there are some Paulites who support the Constitution and its ability to defend against socialism. Will you join us?
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 45 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Freedom Jackson only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Freedom Jackson is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Very good point. One of the problems in maintaining liberty is that very few people accept as a general principle that there ought NOT to be a law against things just because we dislike them. A Libertarian position is difficult to be steadfast in. We have to realize that liberty is indivisible. My right to be free means the right of those I think are wrong headed, mean spirited or disgusting to be as free as I.
The issue comes up again and again. Libertarians claim they are for liberty, for personal freedom, for free market and no government controls -- except when it is a hindrance to them. If the people do want to hear your message, forcing them to listen is not liberty. If the people do not believe what you say, saying they are blind sheep is basically saying you are better than they, and that liberty is meaningless.
If the private corporations choose to exclude you, your only recouse is , of course, strong government control. If you want freedom to be wrong, then that is a philosophical position, as rtbohan states, and is a certainly valid one. Saying, however, as some Libertarians do, that their ideas are somehow so "vital" that they have a right to order private corporations on private cable lines to submit to their silly demands, or suggesting that the democratic republic is flawed because most people disagree with their native idealistic viewpoints, is hypocriticality of the highest order.
Strictly speaking, I totally agree with you. But unfortunately we are not living in a Libertarian society.
As it sits there are unfair socialist rules in place, coercing most if not all media outlets from favoring a given candidate. So when one of our own, like LewRockwell.com is compromised for supporting Paul, the only fair thing is demand that these unlibertarian rules apply across the board.
Additionally, even under libertarian standards, when a news outlet affirmatively supports a given candidate, or opposes another, it has an ethical, and maybe even legal, duty to inform its viewership of those standards of its reporting. To do otherwise might be a contractual breach of what it is claiming to represent in its newsmedia product.
To accuse otherwise pure libertarian of being socialists, just because they seek equal access and fairness under a common set of rules, is a bit disingenuous.
There is a reason we have anti-trust laws. It's not for government control it's to prevent corporate/industrial control of a commodity or service. Information can be controlled or manipulated not just by governments but also by greedy corporate barons. Just ask the survivors of the coal mines of west Virginia and Kentucky what it is like living under corporate control. Paid at the mine, spent at the company store. There is always someone or something trying to take liberty away.
The problem you have Freedom Jackson is that FCC controls the broadcast rights. They, in fact control who can broadcast (from there the private companies do have control over what they broadcast). When they limit the players in the field (different stations), they control what private companies are allowed to broadcast. So, you are saying that these private companies should have the right to broadcast whatever they want and or limit whomever they want, but should they have that ability if the FCC controls the permits? I have a major problem with the government being involved in the first place, if they weren't, and it was a truly competitive market - we wouldn't be having this conversation. However, if the government chooses the stations that can broadcast - they should ensure equal time. I hope you get my point!
Mr. Jackson. I undertand where you're coming from, but your argument is sitting atop quicksand, by equating a tightly regulated environment with a free market.
The FCC has strictly controlled the airwaves for decades, thus artificially creating monopolies, and greatly inhibiting market entry.
So we are not talking about a FREE MARKET. Television and radio are actually closer to a cartel.
This is why you don't hear people bitching (much) about the newspapers or online sources, because those mediums are closer to free markets.
Get rid of the FCC for a few years and let's re-evaluate.
Fortunately the internet should be rendering them obsolete soon anyway.
Posted By: Keith Henderson
Date: 2008-02-01 15:57:17
I agree with you on most points, but you failed to mention and comment on the argument that by choosing (for whatever reason) to give one candidate more airtime than another candidate, a news source is providing an in-kind campaign contribution and must adhere to federal laws governing such contributions.
I'm not saying that I subscribe to this opinion, but rather that it is a common reason given for gov't involvement in election coverage.
Any Ron Paul supporter who advocates the government get involved to insure that candidates get equal air time in the media obviously doesn't get Ron Paul's message and should support a different candidate. I don't think very many Paul supporters are advocating this idea. Many are justifiably upset with major propaganda agencies like FOX. They don't deserve to be called a news agency. So they do what Americans should do. They speak out about it and advocate that people don't watch and sponsors don't sponsor. This is what Americans should do rather than whine to the government to solve their problems.
I hate our major news agencies with a passion but don't think it's the government's job to fix them. If people in this country weren't so apathetic and knew the propoganda they are constantly being fed by FOX and CNN they wouldn't watch and they would demand something better.
I'm surprised at your claim. I haven't read one Paul supporter calling for government ownership or control of the mass media. Everyone I've read has taken their clue from Paul, who has stated (most publicly on Leno) that FOX News et al have a property right to decide whom they want on their programs.
I have a feeling the FCC has jurisdiction over cable networks similar to the power they have over broadcast media and if they don't they still have power by proxy over fox's broadcast channel for example. There are also plenty of other ways in which the government has power over all businesses in the US, through the use of antitrust laws for another example. The situation is set up so that a company must own and control the government or be owned and controlled by a competitor that controls the government. So yes, the situation is unfair, however, when we attempt to ensure that the rules apply equally we only lend credibility to the fact that there should be rules in the first place. It is very hard to participate in an unfair system and try to abolish it at the same time because it looks hypocritical. Tim Russert tried to catch Ron Paul on this for adding earmarks to a bill he did not vote for. They force people to play the game to get their fair share and then call the kettle black when the same people want to change things.
If we want to beat them we cannot play their phony games. We have to play the real game and boycott their advertisers. It is a lot more difficult to play the real game because you have to convince everyone first that they are playing the game whether they like it or not and second that they have a bat in their collective hands if only they should choose to swing it.
I'm not actually a fan of baseball but I'll continue the analogy. Suing the Networks for fair coverage under the rules of the FCC is like letting your self get beamed and walking to first base.
a) I have heard no calls for government control of the news by RP supporters
b) The MSM is currently government-licensed and/or corporate-funded
c) This article is another hypocritical smear at Ron Paul supporters. Given the hysterically dishonest treatment that Ron Paul has been receiving in the media, including the insane insults and snide dismissals on the internet, whining about a non-existant call for governmnet censorship by his supporters is pure dishonesty.
d) Ron Paul's positions cannot be refuted. Thus we get this kind of nonsense from his enemies.
Since Ron Paul has several times pointed out that the MSM is private property and should not be censored or controlled, it is an absurd smear to refer to as a "Ron Paul socialist" somewho holds the opposite view. Blaming Ron Paul for the views of others is growing to be a very, very tiresome smear game. Claiming that someone who disagrees with him is a "supporter" brings this sadistically stupid game to a new low.
The market will satisfy one's thirst for ideas if the market is truly free and unregulated. Thank God we have the Internet because the Main Stream Media is a tool for the government and industry. It is the propaganda machine of the facists.
If this entire article has arisen from comments on some Joe-college-freshman's blog site, I would just have to laugh. I have not seen any, let alone many, calls for government control over air time for candidates. Why not give us some links and either put our minds at ease or give us a good laugh.
I am truly sorry, sir. You are not a Ron Paul supporter. You have written lies about Ron Paul and his supporters by calling them socialists. Not one Ron Paul supporter I know advocates for government control of the media. You must have been languishing a bit too much with the Kucinich camp.
Wow, with Ron Paul supporters like you, it is no wonder we are having such a tough time getting our message out in this media.
Sad. I can only pity you, for you are not an honest person. Hey, you might as well jump on the Ron Paul bandwagon and make a name for yourself, eh? Sorry for you. I will not read your trash. I am not a socialist, and do not appreciate your smearing once again of a good man!
I can see you are a RP supporter. I support freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. There has to be very, very, very few (if any at all) supporters that are calling for government intervention toward unequal treatment by the news media. I have yet to see any of these supporters myself.
There has been innumerable outcries toward the news media for unequal coverage, but that is not the same as demanding government intervention. I do think he is treated more unfairly than most of the candidates. Like the news media trying to coax him into saying something about how he thinks 9/11 was a conspiracy. But aside from low blows like that, I do believe everything else is fair.
I agree with the notion that the better your campaign is, the more coverage you get.
I do find this article slightly insulting. But shrugging it aside, I do believe you made a few valid points should be oberved.
Um unfortunately it is not about controlling the news media. The sad fact is, people are unduly influenced by what they see on TV, and thus the media has responsibility to represent candidates fairly, else they are tampering with an election.
The Ron Paul Revolution is bringing in many new people to both politics and the Conservative Republican message. We did not all instantaneously become Libertarians. There is a growing frustration among supporters with regard to the Media's obvious attempts to OMIT Dr. Paul from their coverage. The frustration is legitimate and the response is emotional. I've seen the calls that you mention from RP supporters, and then, usually, you will see another supporter point out in a subsequent post how that view isn't consistent with Dr. Paul's message or views. We all have a lot to learn from Dr. Paul. It is disingenous to believe that we should all be fully formed libertarians in order to support Dr. Paul for President. Perhaps you should spend more time attempting to educate the people that power the revolution instead of denigrating us.
Posted By: a logical person
Date: 2008-02-08 13:48:12
OK...
First of all, it is illogical for you to classify all Ron Paul supporters as persons who support government regulation of the media. You provide no evidence for your claim other than the fact that you have come across many individuals on the internet that seem to think this way. Under no circumstances is your argument valid or strong. In fact, your set of statements could easily be interpretted as a "non-argument" given the fact that your only support comes from "personal experience" or "personal belief" (you can look these terms up in a Logic textbook and find that I am correct in saying this). Statements of opinion, which is what your article is, are in no way considered a valid argument...
Secondly, when attempting to classify Ron Paul supporters, one must acknowledge why it is, exactly, that they give him their support. A huge reason Ron Paul has picked up as many supporters as he has is his respect for the constitutional policy of small government and free markets. THIS IS HIS MAIN PLATFORM. So for you to suggest that his supporters would back more government media regulation is "unsound" (another term you can look up in Logic textbook).
Your set of statements also suggest that you are ingorant and blind to the fact that the mainstream media is already closely associated with the people who run our government. If haven't figured out that already, I have little hope that you can comprehend anyything i've just stated... good luck with life.
slander is still slander even hidden behind free speech, say your at an interview, and some worker wants his friend hired, if he says to the guy interviewing you, "i don't think this guy will make a good employee and i heard he might be racist." should the guy even interview you? or should he just hire that guys friend?
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
