Re: FCC Regulation (fwd)
From personal experience, I can say that the current staff at the FCC Private Radio Bureau (which regulates ham radio) is surprisingly enlightened. In recent years they've worked hard to remove obsolete
This particular spoof is best appreciated by a radio ham -- it was clearly a parody of the FCC licensing system for ham radio. It also points out the substantial cultural similarities between the Internet and (traditional) ham radio. Unfortunately, one year's joke often has a nasty habit of turning into next year's reality. licensing requirements like morse code for VHF/UHF and many (but not all, unfortunately) of the more onerous restrictions on "acceptable use" of the ham bands. In these proceedings it became clear that the hams themselves are the real problem. Some hams still want a big benevolent FCC to protect them from people who personally offend them, and many of these people have a following. Although this phenomenon is by no means qualitatively unique to ham radio, it does seem to have grown quantitatively beyond anything seen elsewhere. It really gives one pause. Is government really the enemy of personal freedoms, or does it merely reflect an intolerant and unenlightened general population? It's easy to make a government that responds to the will and whim of the majority, but how can one create a government that rises above the petty illiberalism of the people it governs to protect the rights of the individual? Phil
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Phil Karn writes
In these proceedings it became clear that the hams themselves are the real problem. Some hams still want a big benevolent FCC to protect them from people who personally offend them, and many of these people have a following. Although this phenomenon is by no means qualitatively unique to ham radio, it does seem to have grown quantitatively beyond anything seen elsewhere.
There are plenty of other examples, though, whether quantitatively beyond or not. Consider calls for government censorship, for instance. The entire War On Drugs is mostly just an effort by one segment of the general population to impose their idea of virtue upon others who personally offend them with their drug use, and to use big benevolent government for the purpose. Much of the current battle against tobacco smoking is another case. Who's behind the current US FDA drive against purveyors of nutritional supplements? I believe that they're being driven in large measure by forces outside of government who, for one reason or another, are offended by such supplements. Substantial stuff, by any reasonable quantitative measure.
It really gives one pause. Is government really the enemy of personal freedoms, or does it merely reflect an intolerant and unenlightened general population?
Excellent question. Answering it the wrong way leads to tremendous energy misdirected to trying to influence politicians and bureaucrats, even when they are effectively representing their constituencies in the general population. It's like shooting the messenger because he bears bad news. Protesting intrusive government instead of popular gratuitous acceptance of government benefits is like putting the cart before the horse. The pessimism about the prospects for ``legal hacking'' that has been expressed on this list ultimately results from a general population too ready to wield government against those they find offensive, folks who are not going let mere legal formality stand between them and their objective.
It's easy to make a government that responds to the will and whim of the majority, but how can one create a government that rises above the petty illiberalism of the people it governs to protect the rights of the individual?
Democratic political government is like a cancer, and it has now become well entrenched. It used to be that you could point to the tyrant, and if he got too obnoxious, shoot him. Now that the tyrant is the majority, the option for the rest of us is solar exodus, with strong crypto to help in the rear-guard action. John E. Kreznar | Relations among people to be by jkreznar@ininx.com | mutual consent, or not at all. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLmBMGsDhz44ugybJAQEbJAQA0/ju2njqmJtFsBlo+wCcoJ2Aw1dtpvwm pEi4m1RpRkU/7pVopw9xk/cTzAiM1IxzVMIIItbVv5RXVBCv24VZ7+XExWM9N1HK tU8OyGk8mUOFNgazHxPRyyGqFOqDZa9ors9gyVNK/JMdj5hWjIPsrd8XuQ+iGO9m OBUhHSsyi1Q= =obEz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (2)
-
jkreznar＠ininx.com -
Phil Karn