Should our government have a “kill switch” to turn off cell phone communication?
Posted by deleted 10 years, 2 months ago to Government
Who would agree with this?
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
about things which they were elected to Reject? -- j
(1) universal kill switch for "stolen" cars.
(2) locator GPS beacon for firearms.
Those who sacrifice Liberty for security, deserve neither.
Yes Susanne it is!
As Dewey explained "I believe that all education proceeds by the participation of the individual in the social consciousness of the race." The very thought of being disconnected, of living as a separate entity, is frightening to those raised and taught this philosophy. My guess is that the government can get these collectivists to do anything they want them to do with merely the threat of being unable to connect.
Strangely - I have a landline phone. My cellphone stays in my work truck. I don't have a phone - opr internet connection - in my shop. And I'm not dead yet.
Even worse - how did we EVER survive without cellphones? Computers? Microwave Ovens? 300 channels on TV and 62 music channels? Vehicles that didn't have to think for the drivers?
Sorry, but I disagree.
Consider...if you were a terrorist...which would you take out, if you had to choose, cell towers or power substations?
And people were.
Urban rumour later was that it was to prevent the knowledge of the deaths getting out there
Ask me about the "Pay Per Mile" program that On Star and all those services are going to be used for with the imbedded road RFID sensors.
It has already been tested in MA and MI and IL.
Is such an act to secure the rights of its citizens? Does the action violate rights? If the answers are yes and no (respectively), then it is consistent with the proper role of any government. If that isn't the answers, then no.
Now asking a question closer to the original: as far as a gov HAVING the ability or means of carrying out such an act? I think the form that the means take is a non-essential issue, so long as rights aren't violated.
Now should our government have the means? No. They've demonstrated time and again that they are not interest in securing rights when it comes to implementing a totalitarian agenda.
The next problem you have is one of ownership. Property implies an owner. Who "owns" the airwaves? Who is responsible for dealing with the problems of interference caused by non-conforming devices?
So what you have is a finite resource that when used has the potential to affect everyone - either intentionally as part of a conversation or unintentionally as interference or background noise - and to which there is no real owner. How is the court going to arbitrate any kind of lawsuit when at least one of the parties is unknown?
If use of the EM spectrum is a "right", how does one confront the reality that when one uses it, he or she simultaneously excludes others from using it? And what about when that use infringes on the proper workings of other devices?
The challenges you presented with airwaves are the same challenges with other types of physical property -- e.g., land:
1. There is only so much land. Everything anyone wants to build -- whether it's a home, park, or factory -- requires real estate. Land is a finite resource.
2. Who owns the land? How does one deal with interference?
3. If the use of land is a right, how does one confront the reality that when one uses it one simultaneously excludes others from using it?
Each of these are challenges for land, airwaves, and really all physical objects that could become property; and a free society, in principle, handles all physical property in the same fashion.
1. Every physical object is finite. A free society handles finite land with the pricing system controlled by supply and demand. A free society can handle the airwaves the same way.
2a. Who owns physical objects? In a free society land is demarcated and belongs to its owner who acquired it by trade from someone who owned it before him, which is repeated until the first settlers (if a society started free) or more barbaric times of conquering (if a barbaric society transitioned to a free one). The airways are already demarcated by our government -- they own it for right now -- the only thing left to do to convert them to private property is to sell the demarcations (piecemeal or wholesale) to the highest bidder. Even though the manner of demarcation is different for land and airwaves (dictated by the differences in the physical nature of land vs. airwaves), the principle is the same -- mark off a clear area by some means for which one can use and dispose of said property.
Keep in mind a right to property technically isn't a right to an object, whatever that means; more accurately it is a right to use and dispose of said object -- it's a right to a type of action as all rights are.
2b. How does one deal with the interference of one's physical property? Short answer: trespassing laws with proof of trespass. Call the cops to remove a trespasser on your land. The airwaves are no different. If your demarcated airwaves are being physically trespassed by an unauthorized user, and proof is available (which it is since we're dealing with physical objects), then call the "airwaves cops" to remove the trespasser. (More egregious crimes may warrens a different response from the government -- e.g., vandalism may desert jail time plus fines).
3. One doesn't have a right to the use of a physical object if it belongs to someone else by right. How can one walk on your land and claim a right to it simply because he and it are there? Same goes for the airwaves. The objective measure of when rights are violated is NOT the frustration of a whim or desire; it IS the initiation of physical force. This challenge of who is the victim of initiated force is settled by property rights.
Land disputes still occur even with these basic objective means for settlement. Civil courts settle odd cases all the time for land. It doesn't have to be any different for airwaves, in principle.
So as you can imagine these challenges would and do exist for just about every physical object and can be handled by a free society, in principle, via private property rights -- airwaves need not be any different.
I'm not against property rights, but as a licensed amateur radio operator (Amateur Extra class), I'm trying to tell you that the physics of the matter make ownership of the EM spectrum (or rights to its use) by ANY party a logical absurdity. All we can do is coordinate our shared use of it as a true public resource. That coordinating body can be called whatever we want, but the fact that it is a coordinated effort by a group of people makes it a de facto governmental body or bureaucracy. This is one case where there is no application of "private" property because it just does not apply in this instance.
The highest bidders would be the new owners. And I don't think they would own the spectrum as such, which is absurd. That's not even how they are currently demarcated by our government. They would own the medium of a certain range of the spectrum over a geographical area, as the majority of the airwaves are demarcated today.
You say it would be a logical absurdity to turn airwaves into private property. That's a fairly strong statement, which makes sense if I was arguing for the "ownership" of part of (or all of) the spectrum as such, and not the medium of said spectrum over a geographical area. If owning the spectrum as such is what you're calling absurd, would you still think it absurd for a range of spectrum's medium over a geographical area since that would be no different in principle to any other physical property?
Why couldn't, for example, ATT own the cellular bandwidth medium it's currently using over the same geographical area? What's so absurd about that?
As far as natural interference, what do people do today about natural disruptions to their property? They either wait for it to pass, like storms disrupting homes. Or they fight it if they can, like natural fires to buildings with water, or floods with dams, or lightning with rods, etc. Why would this be any different for airwaves, even if we couldn't stop natural interference?
Have you read Miss Rand's article on the topic? http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/a...
I would also point out that there is a severe problem with making the highest bidders the owners, and I will present several cases: government/military, emergency services, and amateur use. If you go to a system wholly determined by those with the deepest pocketbooks (a system wholly controlled by private interest without input from the public) the inevitable result will be to eliminate these services. I somehow doubt anyone supports this idea. If you could find an "investor" who was willing to purchase these "rights" to extend them to use for amateur radio operators, the costs able to be born by the amateur community are a pittance compared to the costs of obtaining the bandwidth commercially. There are a few million licensed amateur radio operators in the United States. Google offered $4.6 BILLION dollars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...) for a relatively small piece of bandwidth. In order not to be "altruistic", said investor would have to charge over $1000 per person per year to every single amateur in order to recoup their investment - let alone turn a profit. And the current frequency allocations to radio amateurs and government-use providers far exceeds the simple slice purchased by Google.
And thanks for the link to Rand's essay, but she overlooks a critical flaw which she uses on more than one occasion in her other writings as a cardinal "sin" - that of coercion. When one broadcasts, one subjects EVERYONE to that broadcast whether they want to be a part of it or not. And not only people, but animals and especially equipment. Rand's lack of field technical expertise is blatantly obvious, as she wholly overlooks the idea of incidental interference, which is the effect of a passing radio-based communication on electrical circuitry with detrimental effects. It doesn't have to be receiving equipment to be adversely affected by this transmitted coercion. There is a reason why hospitals prohibit the use of transmitting equipment of several kinds within their grounds. Similar provisions exist with aircraft. The reason why we don't see this much in the United States is because ALL electronic devices have to include countermeasures to allow for a certain amount of incidental interference in their devices and those standards are set - again - by the FCC and UL. How would you propose that those standards be set and enforced by a private entity? What is to ensure that they aren't going to be arbitrary in nature? The reality of the situation differs wholly from the conceptual presented by Miss Rand.
Further, in the type of system so espoused, how would the common person - unversed in radio theory - attempt to track down any given source of interference so as to bring suit to court? Are they going to be forced to pay money out of their own pockets for expensive radio direction-finding gear or the service of a professional to isolate, identify, and then seek redress from the offending party - who produced the interference in the first place!? From your comments, you seem to espouse simply "waiting for it to pass". What about the instance where the transmitter is the local television or radio station who broadcasts 24/7? What if a radio station's transmissions bring down a commercial airliner? Coercion in this case is the argument's own worst enemy!
I would also address your "ownership" terms. What you are outlining is EXACTLY the way current licensing works! A station license enables the station to transmit on certain frequencies within certain geographical jurisdictions and within certain power limits. But again - who is going to be the overseeing body granting the rights to broadcast? Again, I see no way that this can be resolved without again defining ownership in the original state - which Rand fails to do in any reasonable manner. She wants to use the concept of a pioneer to define rights, but this is severely flawed, as it is the amateur that wholly developed radio from its infancy in the first place - not commercial interest! Are you going to seriously contend that Marconi should have the rights to all radio broadcast frequencies because he used a spark-gap transmitter (which has the effect to transmit on ALL radio frequencies simultaneously)? Rand states that the problem was because no one recognized the others' rights, but actually, the contrary is true: no one owned or claimed ownership to the rights to broadcast in the first place - only the technologies which allowed them to so transmit at all!
Rand then went on to make a very obviously flawed logical argument by stating that the "discovery" of new frequencies provided more opportunities for transmitters to satisfy the demand problem. This is incorrect. The frequencies always existed - only the equipment to transmit and receive on such had yet to be developed. I have no problem with the rights to the design of equipment for use in exploiting the EM spectrum be private property and covered under the patent system, but as the USE of such affects everyone and everything within transmission range, such use MUST be constrained by mutual assent.
I would also point out one more logical problem resulting from Miss Rand's technical ignorance: that is of control. When one claims ownership of something, one is similarly claiming control and responsibility for use. Please apply this to radio wave propagation and you will quickly see this to be an absurd overreach and pretense of knowledge in this particular sphere. If the radio spectrum and its use were privatized to the degree so advocated, you would see any potential use of it tied up in the courts based on the masses of claims of interference! The corporate interests who "owned" the rights to broadcast would be perpetually tied up in court for instance after instance of incidental interference! The oversight by the FCC and standards set up by the UL actually do more good than harm in this case by mandating a minimum level of interference a device must be able to ignore to function properly and by setting limits on the use and function of broadcasters. If you can devise some private entity with not only the ability to coordinate but the efficacy and capability to enforce such and address the needs of the public, you just get the Federal Reserve - just for radio waves.
While I support the idea of private property rights, there are reasonable bounds to everything. Rand makes an elegant argument with several valid points, but in the end it falls short because the nature of the phenomenon in question leads to severe flaws in her logical arguments as I see them.
Yes the highest bidders would pay the government. It's fairly arbitrary, and there is fairly prevalent evidence to the contrary, that privatizing the airwaves would make it inaccessible to the public. History has show when things are privatized for comercial use, they become more, not less accable to the public.
I welcome any possible solutions you may have. So far, all I have heard is an empassioned plea based on ideology, but lacking a plan to overcome the numerous technical and legal hurdles. I don't question that your proposition has merit, but it needs to present MORE merit than the existing system to justify a change and so far I am not seeing it.
"Yes the highest bidders would pay the government."
Then it is not really a private system, nor any different than what we already have in place. If your argument is to get the government out of the matter, yet the solution leaves the government entrenched, I am missing the "privatization" portion of your solution entirely.
"It's fairly arbitrary, and there is fairly prevalent evidence to the contrary, that privatizing the airwaves would make it inaccessible to the public."
I have already shown mathematically the results of privatizing bandwidth and the costs if such is to be done. If you wish me to take your argument as more than simple conjecture, you will need evidence to support it.
"History has show when things are privatized for comercial use, they become more, not less accable to the public."
In general, I agree that privatization leads to more efficient use of constrained resources. In this case, however, the barrier for generating emissions is almost non-existent. This is not an issue of resource constraint, but in actuality the inverse: there are too MANY resources in play and very little to naturally constrain either supply or demand!
The ends (privatizing airwaves) is different than today because the use of said property (medium over a geographical area) today is by permission, while achieving my suggested ends would be to use that property by right (as part of individual rights).
Once ownership is established by right, then others will not be able to violate those rights. Really no different in personal action from today, and the government may largely be doing a lot of the same things, but the moral differences in justification are profound. Before no rights existed, it simply was government decree and permissions, now actual rights of citizens are motivating actions and determining what is rightful action and what is wrong.
As you say , "[the privatization] needs to present MORE merit than the existing system to justify a change." If all else being equal, except one is operated by rights and the other by permissions, is operating by right not more merit? If operating by rights is not more meritorious than operating by permission, I must as you, "a merit for whom"? If not for the individuals of those involved, then I sense you mean a merit for society as a whole, which is a collectivist perspective. If so, our differences on this issue it seems is a difference of collectivism vs. Individualism.
As far as the possible technicalities of how to go about identifying the boarder line case of violation vs non-violation of rights needs to be determined -- I'm sure the number of example cases are limitless. The existence of such cases is, however, an inessential issue. The essential issue is discovering an objective principle that applies to all such cases resulting in the owner of said property disposing of his property unhindered and uncoerced. Which brings me to Miss Rand's biggest achievement regarding the security of rights; she discovered the formulation explicitly that the only way to violate rights is by using physical force (directly or indirectly). This is the objective measure that or founders failed to make explicit thus lacked a means for objectively measuring when/how rights are violated. Granted my knowledge of airwaves is a best a moderate laymen, but Miss Rand's formulation also applies to every physical object subject to properties rights, which includes things I'm not intimately familiar with (such as airwaves) or things yet to be discovered (such as who knows what next?). So, the technical aspects of determining violation of properties rights of airwaves is possible even if not fully thought out yet -- we have an objective means of figuring it out.
Also just because indirect force may be interfering with/violating someone's property rights doesn't mean it's an issue for the courts. If I may draw a parallel to land property: e.g., suppose a neighbors tree drops leaves on my property, but I don't go make him pick them up, even if I may have a rightful claim (not considering the fact that my trees are likely shedding leaves on his property). I expect this same behavior to occur for airwaves -- some margin of accepted interference. Continuing with the parallel: if tree fell over onto my property, however, and destroyed my means of production, then it would make sense for me to ask my neighbor to pay for it before I bring him to court. Contracts can also be drawn up to govern these margins of acceptance explicitly, such as home owners association contracts.
Without such explicit contracts, people's level tolerances will be different, and we can discuss the once in a millennium case involving the nut job who expects to pick up his leaves off of his neighbors lawn and expects his neighbors to do the same, but this is such an out of the norm of everyday life case that I hardly think its worth consideration on how this gets resolved; we may have more important things to figure out first.
Allow me to elaborate on your "falling leaves" situation to illustrate just how interference works in simpler terms. Let's say that I grow a Dutch Elm tree in my yard. Because I have a Dutch Elm tree, I will be the only one for about 30 miles in ANY direction to be able to grow a Dutch Elm tree. Period. Now that doesn't necessarily create a conflict of property rights. However, the existence of MY Dutch Elm tree may also prevent you from planting a Japanese Maple in your yard. It may also prevent your neighbor from owning a Black Walnut. Oh, and it might even prevent those grape tomato plants from bearing fruit. And we might start seeing the unexplained deaths of all the robins in the area. Can you begin to see how the lack of control is central? This is a directly analogous example of the real effects of radio wave propagation in terms of direct and indirect interference. Side effects are a given and mitigation is a real problem without general rules everyone has to play by regardless of ownership of any particular transmission right!
"The existence of such cases is, however, an inessential issue. The essential issue is discovering an objective principle that applies to all such cases resulting in the owner of said property disposing of his property unhindered and uncoerced."
There is no present use of radio waves and none realistically imagined that can constrain the use of such to non-coercive use - as I have attempted to explain. Any choice to broadcast will at a very minimum assert itself on everyone and everything within the radio horizon according to the power level of the output. It simply is not the case that the aforementioned "disposal of property" can take place without creating coercion.
I understand the philosophical arguments Rand presents, and I'm not unsympathetic to them in theory. She states the assertion that If A -> B with all of its conclusions. While A generally applies, it is frustrated in this instance. In this instance, the conditions for A are not met: one can barely define and definitely not control! Since A does not hold, we can not conclude B. It makes no difference that I want there to be a way to work this out. What I want runs contrary to what IS, forcing me to yield (logically) to what IS.
Since my argument, and Rand's, is control of the medium and not over the emissions themselves, I'm assuming when you say "you can't have control over emissions" you mean there is no means for others to control when they transmit or the frequency that then transmit in a geographical area? Thus, they can't help but violate the rights of whoever the owner of the medium would be? If that's what you mean, I find that hard to believe since emissions are governed by causality just like everything else that exists physically. Since they are governed by causality one can choose whether or not one violates someone else's rights by taking certain actions or not.
Perhaps you're referring to the fact that the power of emissions is 1/R^2 which technically means emissions travel forever. It also means one can judge the power levels of a transmission at X distance away from the source. And since there is natural background noise everywhere at a known power level, this gives us some options in terms of defining a cut off for considering how far the actual signal goes. Additionally, no one said the jurisdictions had to be up against one another; they could be separated by a certain distance. This gives us some options for defining geographical areas where interference is acceptable (a no man's land if you will). Perhaps all geographically defined areas for property can be defined with a certain buffer area where interference is acceptable (say the first five miles within the perimeter); or an area of diminishing levels of acceptable interference as you get further from the boarder (say 2watts at the boarder and noise levels at 5 miles from perimeter); or a flux definition at the boarder to determine how much power is acceptable from neighbors at the boarder (say 2 watts at boarder or nothing higher than noise levels); any of these gives us some options to define jurisdictional areas that are touching. If the boarders need to move to meet someone's purposes, a trade could be made. If you're property is useless since it may be too small to avoid overcoming certain thresholds, you could sell it to a neighbor who can use it.
Options exist to clearly delineate how the property is defined, it's limits, it's violation, etc. Perhaps these are the rules we need to define that you referenced earlier. If so, then we are in complete agreement.
Once these rules are defined, the owners can draw up contracts to define how he permits customer use to be consistent with his property limits. Or he can just use it for himself or allow anyone to use it.
As for the rest: defining jurisdictions, etc., we've already been over this: there must be some policy body charged with the responsibility for laying out all the things you mention: from power output to frequency allocation to geographical boundaries. Currently, this authority resides in the FCC (and globally in the ITU). I have already laid out the problems with privatizing the FCC because it would lead to a dissolution of the auxiliary services of amateur radio and emergency services and turn the new "Private Communications Commission" into a Federal Reserve. Further, this body would of necessity be responsible for setting guidelines on how much interference EVERY electronic device must be able to internally neutralize in order to mitigate unintentional interference. How do you propose to do that with a private body (because as soon as you invest it with police authority, you make it an appendage of government)?
I understand how important it is for you to work this out so that it melds with your ideology. But your lack of a technical background/experience seriously undermines your ability to evaluate the depth of technical issues which confront your proposition. Rand is in the same boat, so you share elite company. If you want to come up with a solution along the lines of privatization, my suggestion is to first obtain a Technician class amateur radio license. It will give you a basic grounding in the principles and fundamentals of radio communications and a brief introduction into the FCC and ARRL (the largest private body of radio amateurs).
I know all of the semantics of the points you wish to make, and again, I am not unsympathetic. The problem is that the technical aspects of this provide your greatest hurdles - not the semantic ones.
The problems facing you:
1) Interference is coercive and a bi-product of ALL radio transmissions, which are also inherently coercive.
2) Interference is both direct (affecting the original transmitting frequency and neighboring frequencies) and indirect (affecting harmonics and combinations with other frequencies).
3) ANY transmission source affects ALL electronic devices to some degree determined by effective power and frequency - both of the original transmission but also any harmonics or effects of interference.
Please note that these are all TECHNICAL issues - not semantic ones. As Rand observed, we must first identify and quantify A before we can begin to draw conclusions based on A or derive methods of interaction with A. We can not derive "A therefore B" without first sufficiently defining A.
I'm not arguing for an unusable definition of the boundaries of property; Indeed we can use the existing demarcations of the airwaves to establish boundaries for private property since they seem to work!!! I am not advocating for a PCC. A private system is not a system without government; indeed the government are the enforcers of securing property! Rand was never an advocate of anarchy and neither was I.
What's the difference been what I'm advocating and our current system? Ownership! Government would still recognize and protect property boundaries, they just wouldn't own it. There is no earthly reason why this isn't possible; I don't need to be a SME on waves to figure that out. (Forget about auxilery services, abstract them away for now, and just think about whether or not it is possible to operate the airwaves as private ownership instead of government ownership).
I don't know what to make of your third paragraph except a form of venting frustration. One doesn't have to be a subject matter expert to understand certain essentials about any subject. I don't think the essentials here are out of reach of a layman like myself.
I never said the government HAS to own the airwaves, only that I have yet to see a privatization plan which accounts for all the necessary concerns in a superior manner (or frankly even a substantially different one) when compared to the existing infrastructure and policies. I in no way imply or state that there is no better solution nor that pursuit of such should cease, only that it must rest upon practical and realistic solutions - not merely ideological ones.
"(Forget about auxilery services, abstract them away for now, and just think about whether or not it is possible to operate the airwaves as private ownership instead of government ownership)."
No. This issue is not tertiary, but crucial to the issue at hand. If your solution can not address this issue, it is incomplete and not ready for presentation.
"One doesn't have to be a subject matter expert to understand certain essentials about any subject. I don't think the essentials here are out of reach of a layman like myself."
James Madison spent months identifying the flaws in the Articles of Confederation and developing the Virginia Plan. Then the Framers of the Constitition spent weeks discussing its various points. ALL participants, it should be noted, were highly versed in the history of government: they had studied not only the British form of rule, but Carthage, Rome, Greece, Germany, Switzerland, and many others both modern and historic, which enabled them to come to a working framework that addressed if not all the concerns, all of the most pressing ones. While this proposal certainly pales in scope to the Constitution, my advocacy of further study of the physics and realities of radio communications are not an indictment of either your will or a condemnation of your ideas, but merely a frank recognition that knowledge is a pre-requisite to problem-solving - one for which there is neither substitute nor shortcut.
At this point, I believe the conversation is effectively stymied. I look forward to a plan which addresses ALL the concerns I have brought up. When it is prepared, I will be most eager for its presentation.
"Our Constitution guarantees the right of free speech and free exchange of ideas, and we must say “no” to any kill switch bill that threatens these important rights."
The price for becoming uppity is having your fun gadget toys switched off by those in charge of your tough love when needed.
So practice the virtue of knowing when to shut up and sit down. Know thy place.
You may now raise a fist and issue that 60s hippy cry of "Power to the people!"
Uh . . . . . . . . .yeah, guess that's what you kinda commie have.
I rarely use my cell, but the fear is, it could spread to the Internet, landlines, cars, etc. I did find out that OnStar could not turn off my Camaro, when I was up to renew, and found that if stolen, my Camaro could not be disabled..
No interference can be tolerated, not to mention that the very concept of such legislation is unconstitutional on its face.
This action must be stopped, we must draw a line that may not be crossed by these corrupt and ignorant politicians. That they are power grabbing politicians goes without saying and should be clear to everyone nationwide. As to their ignorance of the Constitution that separates our nation from every other should also be as clear as the sun rising every day. Throw all the bums out should be our motto in the next election and every election thereafter.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
I would say that you have hit the nail on the head. If the government hands out free cell phones to people and wants to put a kill switch in those specific phones: that is the right of the entity that paid for the phones (ie the gov).
But our cell phones are paid for by individuals or private corporations - this is not the government's business. It is not their prerogative to take this away.
Jan
Jan, silenced
If people want to talk about assembling wirelessly, it would be good to use a simple analog FM VHF/UHF transceiver.
As far as the emergency serices, if you can't even acknowledge or identify that privatizing the airwaves is possible I see no reason to go the next step and adress this.
Takeaway: the core argument for Private Property ownership remains unaffected, but inapplicable as so defined in the case of radio waves! As such, any proposed use of radio waves can not take for granted the assertion that Private Property ownership will result in the most efficient means of use. We find neither confirmation nor denial - only that the validity of the claim remains subject to to some future verification and testing.
What an opportunity for scientific discovery! What we have is an unproven hypothesis in need of a test of validity. Only through a valid conclusion (established through the act of testing) may we assert the validity of the hypothesis - in this case whether or not Private Property ownership is ALSO the most efficient means of resource allocation when applied to indefinite and practically unlimited resources. If the test satisfies the requirements of the conditions, we can consider the test conclusive and affirmative and state that we now have initial evidence in support of our theory. If not we must re-examine both the test(s) and the hypothesis. It is also
"I never claimed our use of airwaves would become superior by making the transition o private ownership, only that we'd own it privately."
You do realize that such a statement directly undermines your position, don't you? It essentially admits confirmation bias - a willingness to place ideology above truth. Objectivists reject all such and I would suggest you do the same. We do not change things for the sake of ideology. We seek change as net improvement. We are interested in increasing value for all involved parties - not increasing it for some at the unwilling expense of others.
Load more comments...