June 17, 2005

• jesus. is nothing sacred.
• It's even less sacred today than it was on Wednesday
• How are kids going to learn to count to twelve in a funky stylee without Sesame Street?
• Heh. It's fuck-up Friday. Welcome aboard Weezel, old chap!
• One! One PBS post! Two! Two PBS posts! Ah-ha-ha-haaa!! /thunderclap
• Mr Snuffellufagus is crying.
• heck, if you want to sign an online petition, sign this one!
• What happened to free market and letting a product stand or fall on its own? Other childrens shows manage to stay profitable, surely it's unfair for the government to just give money to Sesame Street? I don't understand what the big deal is.
• christian... might i suggest you do a bit of research on this yourself. Start here
• Koko totally wins. My coffee, it burns.
• I'm familiar with PBS, I've watched the 'local' station in Spokane often enough until I discovered BitTorrent. Nowhere else managed to provide my fix of British sci-fi comedies like they did. But they do nothing as a television station that a private station couldn't do. Sesame Street wouldn't die without public funding, and any other shows that are successful/profitable would stay alive as well. If the government wants to provide money for education they should put it straight into the classroom not into a tv station. Kinds need to spend more time outside playing and less time sat on the couch.
• Just out of curiosity, has an internet petition drive ever had any effect on anything whatsoever, EVER? I'm leaning toward the "no" side on that one.
• Christian... explain to me why a private, for profit station would provide commercial free tv geared towards the education of children? And, if this would be a good business model for them, why haven't they done it yet. And why do you equate "successful/profitable" with quality as it relates to for profit TV? Why does education have to be relegated to the classroom, is that the only place children learn. I might also point out that a vast number of the audience of Sesame Street is preschool age..
• this really isn't as dire a situation as you'd think. here's a breakdown of total public broadcasting funding. as you can see, membership is the most important, and there are MANY other funding sources other than the feds, which is 15.5 percent. Membership $609,210,000 26.1% CPB Appropriation $362,809,000 15.5% Business $351,398,000 15.1% State Government $317,482,000 13.6% State Colleges $184,493,000 7.9% Foundations $155,493,000 6.7% All Other $131,055,000 5.6% Non-CPB Federal Support $91,841,000 3.9% Local Government $56,263,000 2.4% Private Colleges $36,988,000 1.6% Other Public Colleges $25,112,000 1.1% Auction $11,354,000 0.5% Total $2,333,498,000 100.0%
• TenaciousPettle... Generally I would agree with you on this, this petition is hosted by MoveOn.org which probably will follow through on actual delivery of the petition, and has a track record of having at least some impact on the issues they take up. Consider it chicken soup.
• Just out of curiosity, has an internet petition drive ever had any effect on anything whatsoever, EVER? Snopes says they're worthless, and I'm inclined to agree.
• christiandarke - giving you your fix of British SciFi is just one of the numerous things PBS does that a private station will not do. There's a reason that was the only place you could find it - there is no money in showing British anything, or at least, no one who is willing to risk money to show a British show, despite the fact that they produce some of the best television in the world. They would rather remake it with American accents. So clearly PBS does something private broadcasters are capable but completely unwilling to do.
• Sidedish... A valid point (and thanks for adding this data), however, there is another consideration here. Non-profit agencies that are funded by governemental entities have a certain amount of clout that they don't carry without that validation. Dropping federal support for public broadcasting could be the beginning of a serious erosion of support, I wouldn't be surprised to see that 15% from state and local governments follow VERY quickly as they too try to cut budgets. This would then be over 30% of the total revenues, a huge hit for any non-profit...and as services dwindle so does the ability to attract private donations... and so it goes....
• There's a reason that was the only place you could find it - there is no money in showing British anything, or at least, no one who is willing to risk money to show a British show Not necessarily true. It's just that, in the past, the market for such shows (which is not inconsiderable) has been supplied by PBS. In the days when network TV was the only game in town, this argument could conceivably be made, but today, with the plethora of cable channels available and the willingness with which they serve niche markets (examples: Cartoon Network, Food Channel, Independant Film Channel, Country Music Television), and the popularity of British programming, I would guess that, if PBS stopped serving that market, there would be several contenders to fill the void. I, for one, would certainly welcome the return of Benny Hill to a Tivo-able station.
• middleclasstool...i read the same snopes article, but it was more geared towards e/mail petitions and the many "e/petition" sites. I think a MoveOn.org effort will carry a little more weight, they tend to follow through on the issues they get involved in.
• Is that correct, SideDish? Federal government accounts for just under 4% of PBS funding? If so, the teapot we're desperately trying to contain this tempest in just got a little airy.
• Dropping federal support for public broadcasting could be the beginning of a serious erosion of support It could be. You might actually see the opposite reaction, though. In fact, within a certain demographic, I can pretty much guarantee that you would. A lot of people would get pissed off enough to up their contributions (or start them, if they haven't), as much as a big fuck-you to those philistines as out of love for PBS's programming. Whether that backlash would be enough is an entirely different matter.
• personally, i wish there was some way public broadcasting could get TOTALLY out from under ANY governmental funding so it could be truly independent. mr. sidedish formerly worked for stars & stripes in germany, which was supposed to be an "independent" newspaper for u.s. troops overseas although it was funded in part by the pentagon. as you can imagine, it often put the editors and reporters in totally untenable situations, such as when they'd report the truth and then pentagon would then threaten to yank funding. government-funded media just ain't a good idea, IMHO.
• no i believe the CPB Appropriation $362,809,000 15.5% is the main fed support i got those figures here if you'd like more info. also remember this issue has come up many times before and funding is chipped away but never fully eliminated, just like a lot of other government-funded programs.
• Exactly so, SideDish. I was a writing coach and journalism consultant to several Air Force publications back in the day, and the a high degree of censorship was typical. Me and a bunch of the Air Force reporters were hanging around the news office one day when a call comes over the scanner about a fairly high rank officer committing suicide on his front lawn. I'm like - ok, you and you, get a camera and a pad and head over there; you, go to the archives and dig up this guy's record and responsibilities; you, start cutting column space on page two and a skybox on the front (we were pretty close to deadline)... and they all were like, sha! No way are we going to be able to print any of this. I'm like, dudes, this is NEWS. THey just shook their heads and smiled. So, being a dumbass, I went in to see the commanding officer and asked about this, and she said, look, we understand where you're coming from, but you will not investigate, write or publish anything about this incident. Not a single word. Then she got my boss on the phone, and told him the same thing, just to be sure no one in the room misheard anything, or tried to slip something passed the approval-guy (as if - the man had an eye like a hawk on Vassopressin). Upon review: ah ha, thanks, Sidey. I had not made the connection with "CPB" and "Corporation for Public Broadcasting." So, 20%. Not insignificant, but again, this is all talk, not even close to the drawing back of a hammer.
• SideDish... You're right on both points there... however, when PBS says, "hey, we don't want the money and are ready to go on our own..." then we can let go of the federal $$'s...I don't think they are prepared to do that. And, in terms of past threats, I believe the feds often throw out statements to see who yells and then acts based on the response, or lack thereof. I think it is important for people to be vocal about this stuff when they believe in it...
• I'm sure that this won't be taken to kindly by my fellow free-marketeers, but I think the US should have a system like the BBC. Publicly funded but, ultimately, far more independent-minded than the existing news networks who fear reporting the major negative items lest they be frozen out of access. And then the congresspeople could shriek all they want about the content, but they'd have even less say than they do now, because they wouldn't be holding the purse-strings, and neither would corporations.
• how exactly does that work, chimaera? i'm not familiar with BBC funding. doesn't the government threaten to yank money whenever the BBC comes down on it?
• HuronBob, explain to me why a private, for profit station would provide commercial free tv geared towards the education of children? Because if there's a demand for it then people will pay and there's a profit to be made in that niche, and if there isn't a demand then people won't pay and the company will fold. That's what living in a free market is all about, no? In my market there are specialty channels that are user-pay (about $1CAN per month) stations that are both quality and profitable. I subscribe to the ones I want, and pay nothing towards the ones I don't. If I was looking for quality programming for kids I would subscribe to Animal Planet, Discovery Kids, and perhaps BBC Kids. There's also the National Geographic, Discovery Civilizatoins, Discovery Health, Book TV, and a load of others for adults. And there are more being added regularly as new stations are approved by the CRTC. I'm sure there is a similar private system in the US. Commercial does not have to equate with poor quality or non-educational. Sesame Street is a brand that would obviously still make money if it were to switch to another channel, it's not going to die just because the government stops subsidizing it.
• jb, But if private broadcasters are unwilling to put something on tv because they're afraid that it won't make money (and the point of British programming is largely moot thanks to modern stations like BBC Canada and BBC America as good examples :) then why should your government subsidize it? Why should you as a US taxpayer pay a British publisher so that I, a Canadian, can watch Benny Hill? Oh hang on, I'm getting something for nothing.. Nevermind, carry on!
• christiandarke - sure, some people would pay for sesame street. Or Nova, or This Old House, or whatever. But others cannot, or would not, and a large segment of the population who really need Sesame Street & other programs like it, would be SOL. I support the idea of federal funding for all the arts in general and specifically for public broadcasting because it reaches people who otherwise have no access to quality TV & educational programming. This isn't about making money - it's about a governmental responsibility to educate the populace using whatever means are available. PBS in its best form is a supplement to the public schools. Without PBS, free TV for kids is an unending stream of serious crap. When my kids were young, Sesame Street & Mr. Rogers & Thomas the Tank Engine were great for them & gave me a much needed occasional break. I could not have afforded to pay for it but I'm really glad it was there.
• christiandarke - because culture should not be left to the market. The market is good at producing widgets (sometimes the cheapest worst widgets, actually). In culture, it panders to the lowest common denominator. Just look at British tv - it's not all better than the US, but the density of good television to bad is much higher. Because the publically supported BBC keeps up the standards. The government should support PBS because of all the excellent reasons mygothlaundry and others have given. We all should support PBS because they put on damn fine programming - and they are able to do so because they are less influenced by ratings and advertisers than commercial television. You yourself said you were watching PBS because they had something no one else did. This seems to undermine your entire point.
• I just noticed you're Canadian - we were getting PBS in Toronto, too. A lot of Torontonians subscribe, actually, so many that the local PBS now describes itself as serving Buffalo and Toronto. We subscribed when we had the money.
• Personally, I'd be happy if commercially successful products like the Sesame Street merchandising juggernaut would put as much money back into PBS as they've gotten out of it. How much did they make on the Tickle Me Elmo dolls a few years back? How much of that was tithed to the broadcasting network that enabled them to get every toddler in America hooked on Elmo in the first place? The other (sad) side of this particular coin is that the feds can point to the amount of money that Sesame Street pulls in, and use that as justification for pulling the funding, when 95% of the other shows on PBS have very little chance of surviving without substantial external funding. mygothlaundry - television for children on commercial stations are pretty much an edless string of advertisement. Even the TV shows themselves are generally little more than a product shill. Again, it's all just marketing for kids - and kids apparently want mounds of sugar and bright-colored plastic crap, not education. If you believe the advertisers, that is. Cable isn't much better. I'm still frustrated that Cartoon Network dropped the old-school 'toons in bulk in favor of endless crap Pokemon knockoffs during prime time. My brother pays extra for Boomerang so he can have his boys watch cartoons that aren't half-hour advertisements. Yogi Bear is fine with them, they'll sit and watch that forever. Plus, it doesn't make my brother want to shoot the TV.
• If the focus of show producers has to change from education to profit, the children will suffer the results.
• I can't argue with people who don't think their country should fund education and the arts (that's what PBS is to me, an outlet for non-commercial educational and arts programming). We're coming at things from a completely different perspective, and have completely different values. Mr. Knickerbocker makes a point with which I agree strongly.
• I think one fundamental point of disagreement here is that I don't see television as a means of education. It's an idiot box where kids just sit and absorb information. If you're seriously interested in educating your children then half an hour with a book beats half an hour of any programming and day. Unless you are sitting down and watching together and actually discussing the programme with the child, all you're doing is using it as a cheap babysitter. And having them veg in front of Sesame Street just makes you feel less guilty than Yu-Gi-Oh. Lower income families who can't afford to access quality programming because they're only available on cable or paid channels can visit the public library (which IS a good destination of tax dollars) and borrow DVDs or tapes along with books. As for the market not being responsible enough to be left to dictate culture, the market represents the will of real people much better than the government ever will. People may prefer shows like Simple Life to Antiques Roadshow, but you know what? God help us, that's our culture. The shitty films that are coming out of Hollywood, the terrible plastic sounds coming from the RIAA... They're making billions, because that's what people really watch and really listen to. That I and others here watch PBS, and that so many care so passionately about the programming, that pledge drives are so successful... It shows that there is a sizable minority that does care and that people are willing to support public television. So let them, and stop taking money from people who would rather stare at Paris Hilton's tits. I believe the government has a responsibility to provide the availability of education to all of its citizens; but TV does not need to be an essential part of that mandate, and I believe that it shouldn't be (which is obviously a minority opinion here). I also think that the situation in the UK with the BBC is reprehensible in a non-communist nation. Private companies should not be forced to compete with public ones. But that's a different issue ;)
• I actually think that this is just more of the Federal Government trying to shift budget responsibility to the states. I expect the state portion to increase, as well as the member portion. And for those of you who are the cheap 95, PBS, like NPR, has already begun to shift their focus to pander to the 5% who are paying members. While it's not equivalent to commercial TV, the elitist myth of PBS somehow hovering above it all isn't quite true either. I expect to see Car Talk, the TV Show soon.
• I also think that the situation in the UK with the BBC is reprehensible in a non-communist nation. Private companies should not be forced to compete with public ones. But that's a different issue ;) The private companies are doing just fine, and the whole country benefits. Britain actually has a functioning television and film industry. How many English countries outside of the US can say that? And BBC News is respected around the world. There is something in the vast gulf between communism and an Ayn Rand wet dream - most of us would like to live in that between place.
• all you're doing is using it as a cheap babysitter Spoken, I'm guessing, as someone who has not raised children.* They are going to watch television sometimes, and yes, sometimes you need that cheap babysitter for an hour or so, and it's really, really great to have something that is educational and commercial-free on TV at times like that. *Someone who, furthermore, complains when his employer expects him "to work instead of surf blogs all day". Speaking of not-so-cheap babysitters.
• I expect to see Car Talk, the TV Show soon. Oddly, I'd pay to see that.
• I learned how to read by watching Sesame Street and the Electric Company when I was three. Yes, my mom and dad also helped, but they weren't nearly as fun about it as Burt and Ernie and Easy Reader.
• fish tick, I fail to see the relevancy of whether or not I've raised children to this discussion. Or indeed the comments about my surfing habits at work, which I found odd... We are discussing the use of television as an education tool, and I am saying that if you just sit your child down in front of the tv and walk away to do whatever else, you're using it as a babysitter not to educate. I wasn't even being judgmental about the practise (if you want to be judged do a google on "television as a babysitter") If you do want to sit them in front of the box and be free of commercials, you don't need a government-funded PBS, just a vcr or dvd player. If you want to use the television as an actual means to educate your child then sit with them and discuss it with them. But there are better ways to do that, like reading together, unless I suppose they are interested in a specific subject (like Pirates or Egypt or whatever) and there is a great documentary or something?
• jb, The private companies are doing just fine, and the whole country benefits. Perhaps, but in the tv/radio space the public company is consuming a very large market share that would be eaten up by those private companies and there would be more room for others to play. There are some complaints around, but mostly in the new media sectors like the Internet. Really, how can a newspaper compete and push itself into a web presence when the excellent BBC is already in that space offering a free service. I use the BBC news site all the time, and would miss its closure, but it does stifle competition. It's a hard thing to do, balancing public service with allowing private companies to make a profit. In theory I'd rather see the state get out of any market where more than one private company is willing and able to perform the function. But then considering my market is currently undergoing a slow and very painful energy deregulation, I'm not so naive to believe that it always works out so well in practise.
• The relevancy is in personal experience, I guess- a childless close relative was always making sneering comments about electronic babysitters, and now his children spend far too much of their day being thus babysat, and alas- usually by less-than-beneficial stuff. One *does* sit and read with one's kids, of course! And discuss telly with them, too, natch. I'm just saying that when one *does* have to resort to the telly as a 'sitter', it's nice that there's Good Stuff available. Most kids will *not* watch an educational video repeatedly, and as for the library, things are often unavailable, damaged, or ickky. Great in theory, but problematical in practice.
• fish tick, I see, and I apologize if I offended you (or anyone) by my comments. I don't think tv watching equates with bad parenting. I do understand there are times when one does need something to distract the kids, even if just to get a break. I didn't mean to snear about it, and I'm sorry if it came across that way.
• Why should those private companies be priviledged over the immediate social good that is the BBC? Frankly, I wouldn't bet a rat's ass that any private company moving into the BBC's turf would even bother trying to provide the services they do, and I would never let them. Private != better - actually, anywhere where profit isn't the primary purpose, it means worse. The private market is not willing to perform the function - that is why there is no American BBC news. There is plenty market overher, and plenty of commercial websites, but none as good as the BBC. Not to mention the plethera of other sites at the BBC (you might have noticed my links have a pattern recently - that place is a treasure trove). And I don't want the private market anywhere near my decent broadcasting. Making a profit is not a human right, and does not outweigh other social benefits.
• Sorry - that should say, there is a huge market in the U.S., much bigger than in Britain, and plenty of commercial news sites, and none are as good as the BBC.
• Good to see another "minority opinion" expressed clearly and politely, christiandarke. I hope you stick around. I'm not a big defender of the CBC here in Canada, but, yeah, I enjoy Austin City Limits, Soundstage, and Nova too much to argue against PBS. But: It's a hard thing to do, balancing public service with allowing private companies to make a profit. Well, the profit motive exists because it drives companies to churn out products people want. If, despite this, the government can still provide services better than private companies, then why shouldn't it do it? Unless you want to argue that it's a moral (or libertarian) issue -- which you're free to do -- I think you have to keep that in mind. That said, it's dogmatic nonsense to claim that private companies necessarily pander to the lowest common denominator, or produce worse products, or whatever. Because they don't. Even in TV, it's trivial to point to counterexamples. none are as good as the BBC. That's your opinion. Someone else might point to, say, Nightline as an example of a great news program broadcasted on a private station.
• Sesame Street and The Electric Company, in the early nineteen seventies, taught me to read before kindergarten. TV can educate. As for Car Talk: The TV Show, I coulda sworn there was a television show loosely based around them already. I'm thinking early nineties. Two guys who ran a garage and also had a radio show. Coulda sworn it starred George Wendt, but an imdb search reveals nothing.
• "Each medium, independent of the content it mediates, has its own intrinsic effects which are its unique message." That would be Marshall McLuhan. I don't think it's too wildly overstated to say that that the intrinsic effect of television is tranquilizing- that its unique message is 'don't move'. That's not to say that worthwhile things can't occasionally be broadcast on television; but the intrinsic effect and unique message of the medium are also being transmitted. Admittedly, as a kid, I watched as much low-quality TV as I could get my eyes on, and was not apparently harmed by it. I like the funny blue people as well as anybody else. Nowadays I do have a kid, I don't have a TV (mostly because I feel *I'd* waste too much time on it), and I do try to refrain from passing judgement on how other people raise their kids.
• Smo - I was actually thinking of BBC as webcontent - I don't watch television news unless clips of the Daily Show count. I don't have cable, and the local news appears to consist almost entirely of "things in your house that can kill you". But when I want news, I do head to BBC. I wish they covered more Canadian, because I really don't like the CBC webpage - it always seems to have so few stories, but I think it's just a really bad interface - there are more stories, including local, buried.
• The Australian government, in its munificence, provides six hours of quality children's television commercial-free every weekday. This is extremely fucking handy and I'm grateful for it.
• Why should those private companies be priviledged over the immediate social good that is the BBC? As I think I've already alluded to, the BBC is my primary news source. I go there to find out what's happening in the world. The quality is simply fantastic. But at the same time, a government is running a business that competes with a private corporation, even if it can do so much more efficiently, then they are interfering in that market and should stop. The news wouldn't cease to exist, it just wouldn't be presented so neatly. Aggregation sites like news.google.com, news.yahoo.com, or newsbot.msnbc.msn.com, could probably fill the gap as they evolve. I think the heart of this issue for me is a philosophical one. I just don't believe that the government should interfere -- in our bedrooms or in our economies. So at the same time that gives me a lot in common with and gets me into quite a few disagreements with both conservatives/republicans and liberals/democratics. I guess that makes me a libertarian. It makes election time a real pain -- I have to choose between a party whose morals I find backwards (opposing gay marriage) or a party whose fiscal policies are intrusive and wasteful (imposing a gun registry).
• I have philosophical issues with TV that's full of advertising.
• I have semantic issues with TV that's full of advertising.
• You're still cranky about that whole Beatles thing, aren't you?
• *rim shot, played by a spurned drummer*
• Smo:" Well, the profit motive exists because it drives companies to churn out products people want." I wonder whether you have considered how much time/money/effort is spent by profit-driven enterprises to create the "need/want" impulse. The oldest canard in business is that the "better mousetrap" will bring throngs of customers. Another issue: Profit-driven television (movies, probably even video games by now) features product placement to a nauseating level. I, for one, am glad to keep some segment of the entertainment spectrum more clear of that and am willing to have some of my tax money go to pay for it. I certainly pay a higher share of taxes supporting other government programs and policies, whether I agree with them or not. Third issue, and one that has probably been raised elsewhere in the thread: the idea that private/profit-driven is inherently better than public/nonprofit also fails the test. Haven't we seen enough of the bungling, ineptitude, and sheer incompetency (not to mention gross overcharging) by privately contracting our war in Iraq?
• Companies can spend as much money as they want trying to manufacture demand. Doesn't mean you have to buy into it (so to speak).
• But at the same time, a government is running a business that competes with a private corporation, even if it can do so much more efficiently, then they are interfering in that market and should stop. Why? Who gave the market rights? The market is no human, has no soul, doesn't even have life. The market can do somethings better than any human organisation - like make a huge complex economy function, albeit very ineffectively and often unfairly. But it works best when it is reasonably interfeered with, when it is regulated and directed. We interfeer with the market all the time - safety laws, minimum wage laws, pollution laws, zoning laws - there are good reasons we don't leave these things to the market, because a high quality of life just isn't profitable. The market exists to serve human needs, not humans to serve the market. You have just said that the BBC serves your needs better than any commercial service. Are you so wedded to your ideology that you would take something inferior, just because it was private?
• The market exists to serve human needs, not humans to serve the market. This is an assumption. If you start with a different assumption: say, that personal liberty ought to be maximized, then, yes, some people will argue that private business is morally superior to government intervention, even if it means an inferior product. This isn't so much ideological as it is philosophical. The BBC costs people money, but because it's a non-necessary government program, some people won't want to pay for it (for quite legitimate reasons). They won't feel that they're getting their money's worth. If you start with the assumption that liberty (on a certain interpretation of the concept) is the most important good, then they might have a legitimate complaint. They are being forced to surrender their resources (money, labor) to pay for something they don't want and don't use.
• Liberty isn't the most important good - human welfare is. Liberty is a part, but not the whole of human welfare, and other things can be prioritised above it. No society on the planet holds liberty as the highest value, or there would be no laws, and certainly no jails. Jails are a far greater imposition on liberty. So what if they committed a crime? Take theft for example - they put their brains and ability to work to gain something, who's to say it isn't theirs? Seems they earned it.
• Your first paragraph is simply a restated assumption and your second paragraph is just two bad arguments. The first part is an allusion to moral relativism ("what's right [or not] is what societies consider to be right [or not]"). The second part misunderstands the libertarian conception of liberty. Thieves and murderers and the like are jailed because they have demonstrated a willingness to infringe on the liberty of others (the ability to persue their plans/projects free of interference -- usually the reason libertarians give for accepting any government interference). Seriously, you want to argue that thieves deserve what they steal, that property rights have no validity? I'm no libertarian, but if I was, your arguments wouldn't do much to convince me.
• I was making no reference to moral relativism - I was talking about human welfare. Human welfare, like "commonwealth", means the well being of people. Certainly this will shift slightly from society to society but there is a basic core (well-fed, healthy, happy). Of course, maybe we are just coming from completely different points of view. I don't think property rights are rights - they are only priviledges. And it isn't just me - property can be taken away from you, be expropriated, have restrictions put on it. In Canada, all property is the Queen's. Similarly, I don't think you have a right to make a profit, you are allowed the priviledge because it serves society to have private business. When it doesn't serve society as well (ie. PBS, BBC), then the private sector doesn't have any inalienable right to not have public competition. They were both set up to serve needs the private sector wouldn't - they do it so well, the private sector wants to compete, but frankly, they still won't do as good a job, so I say tough luck. Same goes for public healthcare, subsidized housing (but your forcing rents down! boohoo!), and a myriad of other important services. But if you believe in absolute property rights, why should a thief have any less right to the property he has gained by his hard work and wilyness? Isn't that how people justify property and high wages? Seems to me he's earned it just as much as any advertising exec. People infringe on other people's liberty all the time - my friend's landlord won't let him have a cat. Stores insist on you wearing a shirt and shoes. Beggars are harrassed - they aren't allowed to "persure their plans/projects free of interference". When I talk to most libertarians, I find that what they want is for people like them to have no interference in their plans - they want roads kept up, but not public transit. They want to be free to deal and swindle - but think that anyone more forthright about their theft is a criminal.
• Sorry for the typos. It can be a special game to see who can find the most.
• The BBC costs people money, but because it's a non-necessary government program, some people won't want to pay for it (for quite legitimate reasons). They won't feel that they're getting their money's worth. If you start with the assumption that liberty (on a certain interpretation of the concept) is the most important good, then they might have a legitimate complaint. They are being forced to surrender their resources (money, labor) to pay for something they don't want and don't use. I didn't want quote out of context, and I didn't know where was best to snip, so I just took the whole thing. Sorry. You can say the same thing for most of the infrastructure that allows a developed nation to run; how do you draw the line between necessary and non-necessary? A hundred years ago, a sewage system wasn't necessary for most parts of England; even fifty years from now, I would bet that broadband internet access would be considered a basic neccessity for every household in UK. I would think that timely access to information is very, very necessary for a country and its people. Able-bodied people can feel resentful that their taxes are used to build ramps and elevators for the disabled; healthy people may feel they have legitimate reasons for not wanting to "waste" their money now to pay for the ill and injured in hospitals; non-drivers may feel they're not getting their money's worth because more is spent on upkeeping asphalt roads than pedestrian walkways. The government interferes in every aspect of life, Smo. The crucial difference is in the degree of interference. It's good that a minimum age is required before a person can sign a marriage document (though not good for the guy who wants a 4-year old bride); but it's not good if the government dictates what kind of person you can marry (by restricting race, nationality or gender).
• Alnedra makes a better argument.
• Yeah, I more or less agree. But I'm not sure the BBC is in the same class as roads and the like. You could set up a toll system in which only people who use the roads pay for them. You could do the same with the BBC, incidentally, by using a PBS-like donation system exclusively, or by using an HBO-like subscription model (the latter is, I think, a good argument against those who say that all for-profit TV is about ads and such). But, yeah, I think health care and education and all sorts of social goods are desirable, but that's because I start with the assumption that human happiness is more important than liberty, although I think an extensive dose of the latter is necessary for the former. But some people won't share that view. And this is not necessarily because they're ideologues or evil or whatever. Which is really all I wanted to say.
• Actually, Smo, only people who have televisions pay for BBC. It's supported by television licenses. Yes, if you want to watch television, you have to support it, but not if you don't watch television at all. So it's more like a road toll.
• Oh, and to be fair, libertarians wouldn't necessarily abandon the sick, the disabled, the poor, etc. They would still donate to charities, join co-ops -- probably more than now with less of their money eaten up by taxes -- but these would be voluntary acts. When the government takes care of these things, it's no longer voluntary. With all of that said, I suspect that very few people would really like to live in a libertarian society and that this is a case of the grass being greener. But, I don't know, I might be wrong. And to jb, I'll say: To me all rights are social constructions (agreed-upon "privaleges," if you want). So, while I agree that property rights are socially constructed institutions, I think basic human rights are also thus. The latter are more important, of course, but they're all socially created. On this, I think our beliefs are too heavily influenced by the rhetoric of the American founders. That said, I don't think any of this makes rights themselves any less important, but sometimes I think assertions of immutable natural rights are just a shortcut over actual justifications -- sometimes convenient, but still weak. On preview: I didn't know that, jb, and you're right that it makes it more like a road toll (not quite, however). Good to know, thanks.
• They would still donate to charities, join co-ops -- probably more than now with less of their money eaten up by taxes -- I'm not disagreeing with your other statements, necessarily, Smo. But I would take issue with this one. Because such methods are for providing handouts to the disabled, sick and poor, and not enabling them to participate in society competently despite any handicaps they may have. Some things are left to the government because they have to be ubiquitious and not always profitable. Public libraries and access ramps are in this category. They provide something which not everyone in society uses, but everyone contributes equally to, because voluntary contributions won't come near to covering the costs involved (unless you can show me a country that can, then I'll concede the point), and private organisations won't touch them because there's no way to turn a profit. I don't really see how TV licenses aren't like road tolls, except that you can't really be charged for the number of hours you watch; it's basically an annual subscription, tied (IIRC) to the number of TVs per household. So you use road = you pay; you have TV = you pay.
• Well, I don't know, you might have mini "government-like" associations pop up to help the less fortunate to participate in society. Sort of like a government, only voluntary. But I suspect that you're right, and that some people would fall through the cracks. Also, as someone who uses a public library extensively, I believe that some important and necessary services wouldn't exist without government help. But some people will bite the bullet and accept that -- as part of the price for their liberty (not me!) -- even though it might be them on the rotten end of the deal. If they can do this honestly, then I think that's worthy of respect. As for my opinion, if nothing else, I think we ought to be careful before we tell the government to provide a good or service we believe to be "worth the money" or in the interest of the "general welfare" because we're often biased in these decisions by our own preferences. Which brings me back to where we started with PBS (Hah!). Is it worth the money? I think so. But some won't. I can't think of a better issue to leave to the people to decide. (And I think the Republicans will lose, if they make it an issue).
• They tried that in the 19th century, Smo - poor relief was marginal and nasty, no other services were provided. Charity and self-help organisations were expected to provide the basic services. But they did find that many people and problems fell through the gaps. By the early twentieth century, there was a growing consensus that charities just weren't able to keep up with needs. By 1908, Lloyd George, a Liberal in the old "laissez faire leave it to the market" sense of liberal, somewhat reluctently introduced the first old age pension in Britain, to deal with the overwhelming problem of elderly poverty. After the war, unemployment insurance followed to deal with the masses of decommissioned soldiers into a recessionary economy. NHS was actually introduced after the second world war to answer the needs of the middle classes. Many poor people were served by charity hospitals, but the middle class weren't eligible, and yet found it harder and harder to afford health care. The government stepped in again to fill the gap. Last year, I took a really interesting course on social welfare and charity, from a professor with a very different point of view from myself. We often disagreed (most egregiously on contemporary issues, since he sometimes had his facts very wrong), but it was enlightening. There are things charities can do that governments can't, especially when it comes to providing individualised service - government service can too easily become one size fits all. However, they just don't have the coverage of government service. The best solution seems to have been one that was being pursued in Britain in the 1960s and 70s, a combination of good government coverage on basic services, with active volunteerism to provide further. However, when Thatcher came in, she cut back the former significantly and downloaded many of its responsibilities onto the charities - they couldn't handle being the primary service providers. And again, many people fell through the cracks, and quality of life in Britain deteriorated. Okay - PBS or BBC are both very different issues from basic social welfare, education and health care. And certainly, as publicly supported services, their continued funding will be determined by the elected government. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't argue with that government, and try to get the majority to support them if we believe they are good things - that's how all political issues work. And if they majority support, they go on. (Majority rules, unless it infringes on basic rights of a minority, of course.)