No sorry, it is fascism. It is the usurpation of private property rights by the government without edict. Happened in Germany, Italy, Spain and France.

What you are saying is I, the private individual have a right to speak, but if the Arbiter (the government) decides what I say is "Unfair" then I (the individual) must give over my property or its use to a third party (or the government itself) to correct an imbalance.

Speech isn't governance.

The purpose of speech is to hold in check governance. If the government can claim that any independent operator must provide a government favorable viewpoint, then you have destroyed free speech. It now becomes government talk.

It is very interesting to hear people who suppose they have a radical viewpoint, staunchly support what can only be termed Fascist economics and a sort of 1984 doublespeak. Although, fascism is a very radical ideology. So I guess no conflict there.

And you are quite right, allowing individuals their freedoms is not a good way to govern. It is merely a preferable way -- for those who are governed -- to live.

I find it hard so see how railing against stringently regulated industries, such as broadcast TV (either Cable or Network) proves that lassez-faire capitalism is not the answer.

Please tell me one, just one, media empire that does not benefit from government legislation and government regulation.

Or you can tell me how you wish the government would regulate in your favor and for your benefit.

Either way, it is the same answer. Pigs at the trough. You are just looking over the railing at the other pigs, and thinking how disgusting they are. Or perhaps, someone snuck in a mirror and you just haven't figured it out yet.

Why is government an involvement in a problem created by government always the answer. At&t, Comcast and all other single source providers are legislated Monopolies. Suck it up, socialist. This is what a well regulated society looks like.

Because I demand it. Wow. Do you think in the absence of an FDA that people would start taking drugs that would kill them. (I don't know Jebediah, mah' ma keeled near completely over when she downed that bottle of AZT the chiropracter prescribed for her corns.). or that there wouldn't be private agencies that would step up and do drug analysis, and since they had an economic incentive to maximize the cost/benefit of drugs, that this would not be done better, and in a much more cost effective way.

Let's do a little mind experiment. Perhaps we can have a government agency that approves code -- after all, bad code can endanger lives, and almost any line of code anywhere can be a source of danger -- and we can all submit our code to the government before it is production ready.

Do you think such a system would improve the quality of code?

"I don't think we're yet evolved to the point where we're clever enough to handle a complex a situation as climate change," said Lovelock in his first in-depth interview since the theft of the UEA emails last November. "The inertia of humans is so huge that you can't really do anything meaningful." -- Well if we aren't clever enough to handle it, we will perish. So what. Another extinct life form. Since Lovelock will be dead in 10 years or so, he has nothing to fear.

And you forgot how racist the Unions were. That the AFL was only integrated in 1935, by federal decree -- as a sop by Roosevelt, to help win over the previously Republican Blacks (remember Lincoln was a Republican and the south was staunchly Democrat). and all the "official" Railroad unions were closed to blacks -- except the porter's union which was all black. And no, I don't remember how badly most workers were treated by their employers, since my grandfather was kept out of the Shoemaker's union, and had to start his own shoemaking business. Perhaps you can enlighten me with some concrete story of employer evil.

Yeah. Private industry would be happy to poison us. That way we would all be dead and they would have no more customers!. Since most computer programmers refer to our "customers" as users, does that make us equivalent to drug dealers. Your error is assuming that when the government legislation equals protection, as opposed to harm. If you regulate what goes into foods, and force restaurants to work within dietary regulations, then you actual produce more McDonald's, who are able to work within a regulatory environment. All you have accomplished is to highen the cost of opening a hamburger joint, to compete with McDonald's. Regulation serves as a barrier to entry for worthwhile competitors, and the process whereby regulators create regulations that serve vested interests, is called Regulatory Capture. Yeah, they have terms for it, it is a quite widely understood process. As for you. Idiot would do or Government Worker. Sorry, I am repeating myself here.

Now if we can just see Europe and the Middle East Before civilization crept in. Or perhaps India, and China. Probably a lot of trees there thousands of years ago. Maybe we should just depopulate Europe. Make into into a great big foresty theme park. Or better yet, lets just depopulate the world and then we can all enjoy beautiful trees. You go first. I will make sure that everyone else drinks their kool-aid. I promise, I will drink mine too.