Topic: Media
DTV - Since when did the Federal Government acquire the right to dictate what technology should be used? What's wrong with converting to Digital TV? Doesn't everyone want to view a better level of display for TV?by Frankie D.
(libertarian)
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
A couple of months ago, I received a brightly colored, upbeat little flyer from my cable company in the mail that informed me about how to make sure that I would still be able to receive TV reception once the federally mandated conversion to digital occurred.
I stood there stunned, for a couple of reasons. First, I read a fair bit of political news on various sites, so I'm not hopelessly uninformed about all the new ways the government is overstepping its bounds, and I hadn't read any mention of this mandate. And second, I'm 42. I don't remember ever hearing of how the Federal Government had dictated what kind of technology would be allowed to be used for a particular purpose by every single person in the country.
Why is this a problem, you might ask. What's wrong with converting to Digital TV? Doesn't everyone want to view a better level of display for TV? My answer is that there is nothing wrong with an industry deciding to switch to a newer technology, and for everyone to want to have that tech. What is wrong is for the government to force that arrangement on anyone, to get involved with the voluntary interactions of consenting adults. There are no moral grounds, and no legal authorization, for the government to take this action. And worse, the government is going to give away free digital conversion boxes to the folks who don't have digital-capable TV's and don't want to upgrade their TV, paid from the national coffers.
Here's an illustration of why this is such a horrible thing. Suppose the baker comes to your house and tells you that he's improved sliced bread and from now on you are required to only buy improved bread, and all other bakers have to only make improved bread as well. And not to worry, the baker adds that he will be giving you a digestive aid so that you can convert the improved bread without any difficulties. Oh, and the digestive aid will be paid for by you and all your neighbors with a small charge that you won't hardly even notice. And you have no choice about paying the charge.
What would you say to such a baker? If you valued your life, you'd tell him be damned to you. You'll not have your charge, and I'll not have your bread!
In a moral society, the Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. What is the Government? What are just powers? And what can the governed morally consent to?
First and foremost, the Government is a subset of individuals of a society, not a free standing entity with its own rights and interests. Just powers are the powers that can rightly be delegated to the government. If an action is not moral for an individual to undertake, such as the example of the baker above, there can be no moral basis to attempt to delegate to the Government the power to undertake the same action. The governed can't consent to their government taking immoral actions as their delegates, at least, not in a moral society.
This introduction of force by the Government into the process of the choice of tech to use for TV viewing leaves the individual with an unpleasant choice. The choice is to choose to do what is right Resisting an unlawful and immoral introduction of force by the Government, or to choose to do what would make your life more comfortable Choosing to view broadcast DTV.
It's time to tell that subset of individuals, And be damned to you You can keep the converter box. I'll keep my portion of the contributions to it. And I won't be watching any DTV!'
Frankie D. Are you thinking about going Galt? Want to get together with other freedom loving folks to try and change the government from the inside? Visit the Free State Project, then Live Free or Die!
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 7 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Frankie D. only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Frankie D. 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.
The people consented to the commerce clause of the constitution. Perhaps your argument is that the commerce clause didn't give congress the right to create the FCC? As a practical matter, the FCC is trying to accomodate more users in a finite spectrum. Claimed improvements are besides the point. Remember when we just had 11 channels?
The commerce clause certainly has been abused (sometimes beyond recognition) to achieve desired ends of the government. But I don't think you've addressed this.
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.
