Should Federal Government fund NPR and PBS?

There is no contradiction so far as "the right" wants government to handle defense. Government is by definition a monopoly on the use of force, so whoever administers defense IS the government. The only valid function of government is to use force to protect individuals against the initiation of force by criminals and foreign invaders. Valid functions of government do not include feeding, educating, nursing, or otherwise providing for people or engineering society in anyway. By the way, it's not just the "right" who favor a largesse defense budget; the "left" is only marginally less bad in that respect.

Individual Liberty wrote:

Valid functions of government do not include ... educating ... people ... in anyway.

Thomas Jefferson was pretty convinced that an informed electorate was critical to a functional democracy. You could argue that includes a role for public radio/television.

Individual Liberty wrote:

There is no contradiction so far as "the right" wants government to handle defense. Government is by definition a monopoly on the use of force, so whoever administers defense IS the government. The only valid function of government is to use force to protect individuals against the initiation of force by criminals and foreign invaders. Valid functions of government do not include feeding, educating, nursing, or otherwise providing for people or engineering society in anyway. By the way, it's not just the "right" who favor a largesse defense budget; the "left" is only marginally less bad in that respect.

If you want to take a Hobbesian view towards government, then you shouldn't stop short on your conclusions. A government may very well wish to provide food, school, and health care in order to remain in power. Dictators could use repression and fear to stay in power or they could be benevolent and placate the people by setting up well functioning systems of education or health care or even food production. All of these things are "valid" functions that a government might employ to stay in power.

think about it wrote:

Thomas Jefferson was pretty convinced that an informed electorate was critical to a functional democracy. You could argue that includes a role for public radio/television.

Thomas Jefferson is rolling over in his grave right now. Jefferson was the fiercest opponent of government in the history of the world - he would have been horrified at the notion of public education or broadcasting in America, would have considered such things to be reserved for the tyrant governments of Europe. The fact that you would impute Jefferson to a position of support for anything even remotely resembling government programs to "inform" the public is proof that such things don't work, that you learned nothing of value in public schools and that you are NOT informed. Never speak the man's name again.

"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."

-Thomas Jefferson

If you want to claim that's not an endorsement of public education, please explain.

I am pretty sure that Jefferson helped found one of the single best institutions of public education in the world so you might not want to go making such outlandish claims without anything to back them.

Also to the extent that Jefferson opposed government it was because he was afraid that they would hinder his ability to run his huge estate run by forced labor. You know, afraid that he wouldn't be able to accumulate wealth while exploiting others. Which is somewhat ironic since he was one of the worst business men in history.

Here's another gem.:

"Above all things I hope the education of the common people will be attended to ; convinced that on their good sense we may rely with the most security for the preservation of a due degree of liberty."

And there's plenty more:

http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Quotations_on_Education

In fact TJ was one of the main driving forces behind the establishment of public education in Virginia:

http://www.william4idahorep14a.com/topics-1/public-education

I can not believe there is debate on this. Sesame Street could pay for the network alone. NPR brings nothing to the table. PBS is nice but everything it provides is covered by history, discovery, and nick junior.

James MacAvee wrote:

I can not believe there is debate on this. Sesame Street could pay for the network alone. NPR brings nothing to the table. PBS is nice but everything it provides is covered by history, discovery, and nick junior.

I dunno, Discovery has been sliding for a while now. If you tuned in tonight you could watch "Cash Car", "American Chopper", "Gold Rush Alaska", "Sons of Guns" or "Desert Car Kings". THC is a little better, but I doubt we can count on them to fill in the gaps PBS would leave behind.

You're probably right that public broadcasting could be self-sustaining without too much trouble though.

It strikes me as hypocritical and a double standard that the left argues that monopolies are bad for innovation and the consumer, yet they won't relingquish their monopolies in government ran programs. Why is a monopoly suddenly better for the masses if it's the government that runs it? Are monopolies good or bad? To the left I ask, well, which is it?

Government Is Good wrote:

Government needs to fund public broadcasting in order to transmit its message of goodness to the public. How can we have a proper, free exchange of ideas in this country if the government doesn't fund the best ideas?

Who decides which are the "best" ideas?

Ahem wrote:

It strikes me as hypocritical and a double standard that the left argues that monopolies are bad for innovation and the consumer, yet they won't relingquish their monopolies in government ran programs. Why is a monopoly suddenly better for the masses if it's the government that runs it? Are monopolies good or bad? To the left I ask, well, which is it?

How is either NPR or PBS a monopoly?

How is education a government monopoly?

Which government monopolies are you talking about? Defense? The courts?

4runner wrote:

How is either NPR or PBS a monopoly?

How is education a government monopoly?

Which government monopolies are you talking about? Defense? The courts?

Interesting to note that with all the methods of arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution, the government no longer has a monopoly on courts either. Defense may be the only one left, and they even use private contractors to do that, govt only has a monopoly in deciding how its used.

No. Nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government the power to operate a televsion or radio production company, therefore, they should not be doing it!

The Earl of Sandwich wrote:

No. Nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government the power to operate a televsion or radio production company, therefore, they should not be doing it!

Goddamn right on! Nothing gives them power to use asphalt on interstate highways either! or to fund NASA! or to buy M-16 assault rifles for the military! Long live freedom!

Section 8 of the Constitution gives them the power they need to use asphalt on interstate highways, fund NASA and buy assault rifles...if for no other reason than the defense of the country, which they are required to provide for. Don't just guess at what is in the founding documents, read them.

Good point, there is clearly no imaginable military application for a national broadcasting system.

well if they dont they should change the name. that is all.