3 ms·

It is a voluntary transaction between 2 private parties. Either party can deny that transaction, but the government stepping in and preventing the transaction

It is a voluntary transaction between 2 private parties. Either party can deny that transaction, but the government stepping in and preventing the transaction seems like a very different thing. I suppose some would say it's part of thew government's right to regulate interstate commerce.

tedks 12y ago
Well, the government owns the radio spectrum that the communication goes over, so it's more direct than that.
- kasey_junk 12y ago
  "owns" in this sentence is problematic. It is a highly technical discussion so it is probably best not to dwell on it. But the government regulates the radio spectrum on behalf of the public, who own it.
  - tedks 12y ago
    "The public" is an abstract concept. If you try to use radio spectrum in ways the government dislikes, it will stop you with violence, so they own it for all intents and purposes.
    - kasey_junk 12y ago
      For that matter, the "government" is an abstract concept. So what? The point is, the "government" doesn't own anything. They regulate it. That is completely different than ownership, and in the case of radio spectrum the very concept of ownership is really hard to even reason about it.
      - vertex-four 12y ago
        What is ownership of a piece of land, precisely, then, and how does it differ from ownership of the radio spectrum? My understanding is that ownership of a piece of land simply means that you'll (or a proxy, whether private entity or Government, will) use violence (or threaten it) to keep other people from using it without your permission.
        kasey_junk 12y ago
        1) That is a very loose definition of ownership. For instance, I can threaten my next door neighbor to take over his deed. That doesn't make me the owner of the land. Ownership of anything is a social construct, without which the greatest warlord wins. 2) Even given the social construct of ownership, the enforcer of the social construct is not the "owner". If I pay a private security firm to guard my property, most people don't assume I've ceded ownership to them. 3) Even given those narrow definitions, the radio spectrum is much more nuanced than physical property. Radio waves literally travel around the world. I as a property owner can enact physical boundaries that have a fair chance of preventing trespass and providing an uninformed arbitrator to make a decent decision. When it comes to radio frequency, even the act of trespass is a highly technical and subjective topic.
        vertex-four 12y ago
        > For instance, I can threaten my next door neighbor to take over his deed. That doesn't make me the owner of the land. The thing is, the only reason you can't do that is that your next door neighbour will allow a proxy (the Government) to get involved (or rather, has already allowed so as part of the social contract we all "agree" to). If there wasn't someone stronger than you who has a vested interest in keeping things as they are, you decidedly could threaten your neighbour to take over the ownership of the land. "Non-violent" ownership is solely a thing because there's an entity, with more power and ability to be violent than anyone else, which has an interest in keeping it that way. > Even given the social construct of ownership, the enforcer of the social construct is not the "owner". If I pay a private security firm to guard my property, most people don't assume I've ceded ownership to them. That is why I specifically mentioned a proxy.

tedks 12y ago

Well, the government owns the radio spectrum that the communication goes over, so it's more direct than that.

kasey_junk 12y ago
"owns" in this sentence is problematic. It is a highly technical discussion so it is probably best not to dwell on it. But the government regulates the radio spectrum on behalf of the public, who own it.
- tedks 12y ago
  "The public" is an abstract concept. If you try to use radio spectrum in ways the government dislikes, it will stop you with violence, so they own it for all intents and purposes.
  - kasey_junk 12y ago
    For that matter, the "government" is an abstract concept. So what? The point is, the "government" doesn't own anything. They regulate it. That is completely different than ownership, and in the case of radio spectrum the very concept of ownership is really hard to even reason about it.
    - vertex-four 12y ago
      What is ownership of a piece of land, precisely, then, and how does it differ from ownership of the radio spectrum? My understanding is that ownership of a piece of land simply means that you'll (or a proxy, whether private entity or Government, will) use violence (or threaten it) to keep other people from using it without your permission.
      - kasey_junk 12y ago
        1) That is a very loose definition of ownership. For instance, I can threaten my next door neighbor to take over his deed. That doesn't make me the owner of the land. Ownership of anything is a social construct, without which the greatest warlord wins. 2) Even given the social construct of ownership, the enforcer of the social construct is not the "owner". If I pay a private security firm to guard my property, most people don't assume I've ceded ownership to them. 3) Even given those narrow definitions, the radio spectrum is much more nuanced than physical property. Radio waves literally travel around the world. I as a property owner can enact physical boundaries that have a fair chance of preventing trespass and providing an uninformed arbitrator to make a decent decision. When it comes to radio frequency, even the act of trespass is a highly technical and subjective topic.
        vertex-four 12y ago
        > For instance, I can threaten my next door neighbor to take over his deed. That doesn't make me the owner of the land. The thing is, the only reason you can't do that is that your next door neighbour will allow a proxy (the Government) to get involved (or rather, has already allowed so as part of the social contract we all "agree" to). If there wasn't someone stronger than you who has a vested interest in keeping things as they are, you decidedly could threaten your neighbour to take over the ownership of the land. "Non-violent" ownership is solely a thing because there's an entity, with more power and ability to be violent than anyone else, which has an interest in keeping it that way. > Even given the social construct of ownership, the enforcer of the social construct is not the "owner". If I pay a private security firm to guard my property, most people don't assume I've ceded ownership to them. That is why I specifically mentioned a proxy.