From: map@svl.cdc.com (Mark Peters)
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: >>>>>Cablevision lies
Keywords: cable tv regulation
Date: 11 Sep 92 18:08:27 GMT
Reply-To: map@svl.cdc.com
Organization: Control Data Corporation, Silicon Valley Operations

In <3711@faatcrl.UUCP> jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan) writes:

>map@svl.cdc.com (Mark Peters) writes:

>>As I said in my original posting, you have something that cable tv
>>companies want (money) and they have something you want (cable tv).
>>This is a straight forward *trading* situation, but you want the
>>government to force the other side to accept a deal that they 
>>otherwise would not.  If this is moral, then it is equally moral 
>>for the government to force you to accept a deal that you otherwise 
>>wouldn't.  

>  You're right, to a point.  The cable TV owner has a right to earn a 
>profit as much as the viewer has a right to pay for what he chooses.

>  Where your argument fails is the fact that this is not a normal
>situation of trade since there is little room for bartering due to the
>lack of competition.  You usually have the option of seeking out more
>than one seller when you choose to buy a car, television, camera and
>so on and in some cases, even try to bargin a lower price in the 
>process.

>  You don't have the option here, the domain of the cable TV operator is
>a captive audience almost without exception.  By removing the ability for
>the viewer to barter for a lower price they have to pay what the operator
>wants, not what the market will bear since there is no market.

>  In those situations you need regulation to prevent the operator from
>doing the obvious, overcharging.

I'm sorry, but I think you have completely missed the point.  A cable
tv company is the *property* of some number of individuals, just as
your car is your property.  If I want your car, I have to meet your
terms; if you want my money (or something else) in return, you have
to meet my terms.  If I don't like your terms, or if you don't like
mine, then I don't get your car, and you don't get my money, and neither
one of us would dream of asking the government to force the other to 
relent.

To continue the example, even if I have no alternative source for
a car, it still wouldn't be proper for me (or the government) to
force you to accept my terms.  And if you have no alternative source for
what you want from me, resorting to force would be equally improper.

So, even if you have no options with respect to cable tv service,
this does not *in the least* justify having the government force cable 
tv company owners to lower their prices.  By the same token, the
government has no right to force you to accept the terms of any
cable tv company, nor to prevent you from going to alternate sources.
But this is precisely what the government is doing when it grants a
legal monopoly to any company.

The bottom line is that you are free to demand a million dollars
for your car, and I'm free to refuse to pay it -- but neither
one of us is free to take the others property anyway.  If you
think cable tv service is priced too high, then don't buy it --
and don't ask the government to use force to get you a better price.

>>Forcing a company to accept a lesser payment for a product/service is 
>>morally identical to forcing a customer to accept a higher price.  Both 
>>actions are immoral, and both are violations of individual rights -- and 
>>the government therefore should not permit (much less perpetrate) them.

>  Not in the least.  So long as the lower payment allows for a net profit
>after paying for taxes and operating overhead there shouldn't be a problem
>at all.

>  The rub is determining what is a realistic profit.  
>  [Stuff deleted for space]

You are right, the rub *is* determining what constitutes a realistic profit.
But the question is, who has the *right* to make this determination?
I say that right belongs *exclusively* to the owners of the company, not
to you or I.  Our only right in the matter is the right to refuse
to patronize a company whose terms we don't accept. 

What I said in the quoted paragraph above was exactly correct.  It
is immoral and a violation of individual rights to force either 
side in a trade to accept the terms of the other, no matter how
much one side might desire what the other has, and no matter how rare
that product/service might be. 
--
Mark A. Peters                              ****** ======================
Control Data Systems, Inc.                  ****** == "What a save!!!" ==
Internet: map@svl.cdc.com                   ****** == "What an idea!!" ==
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate