level.eleven
Shooter
- May 12, 2009
- 4,673
- 48
Yes, now you are getting it. Their company, their rules. If I had you over for dinner and you started spouting hate, I would have you removed. You do understand that the 1a is prohibition against government action, and not that of individuals, right?
If you have a problem with "bosses" setting the rules for their business, you can always start your own. I sometimes visit a liberty oriented forum that is completely unmoderated. Let that sink in. Anything goes. It was the decision of the owner to set it up that way. The individuals funding the project are fine with that. Free market. In this case, the individuals funding the radio program no longer liked the content, so they withdrew their support. Free market decision. When a radio program can no longer be viable due to lack of sponsorship, it goes off the air. The message being delivered by the hosts are irrelevant - no one wants to pay for it anymore. Would your solution to this problem be to force the sponsors to continue their support of the program against their will? What would that be called?
Conversely, you have the ability to start your own radio program and say what you wish if you can secure the funding. You are the owner of this property, so now you get to set the rules. At this point, the only censorship you would have to be concerned about is that of the FCC (an alphabet soup I see no need for, honestly).
In your scenario, what actions would you authorize the government (the enforcement agency in play outside the free market) take to ensure that Dr. Laura stayed on the air?
If you have a problem with "bosses" setting the rules for their business, you can always start your own. I sometimes visit a liberty oriented forum that is completely unmoderated. Let that sink in. Anything goes. It was the decision of the owner to set it up that way. The individuals funding the project are fine with that. Free market. In this case, the individuals funding the radio program no longer liked the content, so they withdrew their support. Free market decision. When a radio program can no longer be viable due to lack of sponsorship, it goes off the air. The message being delivered by the hosts are irrelevant - no one wants to pay for it anymore. Would your solution to this problem be to force the sponsors to continue their support of the program against their will? What would that be called?
Conversely, you have the ability to start your own radio program and say what you wish if you can secure the funding. You are the owner of this property, so now you get to set the rules. At this point, the only censorship you would have to be concerned about is that of the FCC (an alphabet soup I see no need for, honestly).
In your scenario, what actions would you authorize the government (the enforcement agency in play outside the free market) take to ensure that Dr. Laura stayed on the air?