From: map@svl.cdc.com (Mark Peters)
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: >>>>>Cablevision lies
Keywords: cable tv regulation
Date: 10 Sep 92 19:30:49 GMT
Reply-To: map@svl.cdc.com
Organization: Control Data Corporation, Silicon Valley Operations

In <Sep.9.10.20.27.1992.10670@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:

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

>>over a certain geographical area.  Competition against these companies
>>is *illegal*.  It is *this* type of company that doesn't "... give a
>>damn ..." about customers.

>Competition w/ these companies isn't actually illegal.  Its just that
>every way in which one could compete is illegal.  I know that that
>is a subtle difference, but without that difference, it would be
>illegal to make video signals available over the telephone lines, because
>it would be in competition with cable. 

Until the government decided to give its permission for telephone
companies to transmit video over telephone lines, it was in fact
illegal to do so.  And this is my primary point -- this is supposed
to be a country founded on the unalienable rights of man, but in
fact, all we have in many cases are permissions, not rights, which
can be revoked at the whim of government bureaucrats.

>>A cable company (and any other company) has a moral *right*
>>to whatever profits it can make -- so long as it is done without 
>>coercion.  Government granted monopolies are immoral and a violation
>>of everybody's rights (and ought to be illegal) because they *do*
>>involve coercion.

>I realize that competition is the best solution to the "out-of-control"
>cable industry.  However, until that is technically feasible, I 
>advocate regulation to keep prices down.

The existence or non-existence of competition is completely irrelvant 
to the issue -- this is a *moral* issue, not an economic one.  Every 
individual has the moral *right* to make a profit by voluntary exchange 
on a free market, and government regulation violates that right.

>If there are no market forces to keep prices down, then I believe
>the government should regulate them.  No gun is required, by the way.

The absence of market forces is *caused* by government regulation of
the industry.  These regulations (and all other laws) are, in fact,
enforced at the point of a gun.  If a cable company owner tried to
charge prices that were higher than the government imposed limit,
he would be thrown in jail and/or fined -- and both actions require
the use (or the threat of the use) of guns or some other means of
physical force.

>>I'm shaking in my shoes because I can't believe that our universities
>>produce (or employ) people who so openly and unashamedly advocate the 
>>enslavement of businessmen.  I take that back; I can believe it -- but
>>it still scares the hell out of me.

>First of all, no one is advocating the enslavement of businesspeople.
>I am merely advocating regulation of a monopoly until market forces
>can properly take over the job.

But don't you see that what you advoate *is* slavery?  You want the
government to *force* cable tv companies to satisfy your desire for
lower prices.  But what about the desires of cable tv company 
owners?  Are they not relevant?  You apparently think that you have
a right to force other people to satisfy your desires -- why does
this alleged "right" not apply to cable tv owners also, i.e., why
don't they have a right to force *you* to pay *higher* prices? 
The answer to both questions is that there is no such thing as a
right to force a person to satisfy somebody elses desires.

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.  

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.

>Fourth, when you were interviewing for your position, did they give you 
>a little quiz asking you about your political beliefs? Of course not.
>Because that is illegal. They don't do that here at Rutgers either.  
>I was hired based on my ability to do a job, not because of my political ideas.

When I realized that you were probably an employee and not a student,
I should have deleted my "...shaking in my shoes..." paragraph rather
than merely adding the "(or employ)" parenthetical.  I don't believe
that universities should exclude non-capitalist individuals from
employment consideration, even though what I wrote can legitimately
be interpreted in that way. 

--
Mark A. Peters                              ****** ======================
Control Data Systems, Inc.                  ****** == "What a save!!!" ==
Internet: map@svl.cdc.com                   ****** == "What an idea!!" ==
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate