From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Tue Aug 27 2002 - 18:14:34 MDT
Mike Lorrey wrote:
Quite right, Chuck, but the problem you are ignoring is that of the
left libertarian or Georgist argument, that by broadcasting in a
limited spectrum (as EM is), you have 'injured' me by limiting my
ability to do the same in the same part of the spectrum. If the entire
spectrum that TV sets can receive are used by others, then I have no
ability to broadcast, and my free speech rights are then compromised.
Given such a limited resource, it is then left to decide if the limited
resource should be available only to those who got there first
(squatting the wilderness), or whether it should be treated as a common
property which must then be regulated in its distribution and operation
to ensure fair access (both in broadcasting and receiving) for all (the
tragedy of the commons).
### Very good points! Some orthodox libertarians fail to properly account
for the initial formation of property, and the usually pernicious results of
overconcentration of certain types of property, like land, and airwaves.
The solution I advocate is for the local armed security provider (a.k.a. the
State) to sell only time-limited contracts for protection of property, with
automatic auctioning at the end of the contract term, and no property
directly held by the state.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:26 MST