Comments on: The Battle for Media Freedom: A Conflict of Cyber-Visions

By: Did Antitrust Really Make a Difference in Major High-Tech Cases?

Did Antitrust Really Make a Difference in Major High-Tech Cases? — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:47:26 +0000

[...] recent book on antitrust and high-tech markets. As I noted there, the crucial, ‘conflict of visions‘ issue comes down to an appreciation for dynamic competition and technological evolution over [...]

By: medyum

medyum — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:37:43 +0000

Frankly, the one time I tried to read one of his books (I believe it was one that claimed to expose economic “fallacies”), I was gritting my teeth. I put it down after one chapter, saying, “This is trash.” His columns (which I sometimes glance at because they are occasionally printed in a local paper) are bad enough.

By: helmetonsale

helmetonsale — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 08:07:44 +0000

Having a helmet that is too loose will not support your head as well as it should in an accident.Without a helmet, you can't even think of taking a risk of a fast ride.HJC helmets are very popular in USA or even more countries.Different helmet manufacturers have their own special features but some important features are present in almost all the helmets,these have become necessity and are required for the comfort and security of the rider.Helmetsonsale subcategories into HJC CS-R1,HJC daggar helmets,IS-MAX solid helmets,Full-face helmets,CL-33 Open face helmets and so on,Now you can pick upon any one of your favourite and appropriate helmets.

By: Militant Libertarian » The Battle for Media Freedom: A Conflict of Cyber-Visions

Fri, 30 Jul 2010 03:38:47 +0000

[...] by Adam Thierer, TechLiberation [...]

By: The Battle for Media Freedom: A Conflict of Cyber-Visions | Strike-The-Root: A Journal Of Liberty

Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:06:57 +0000

[...] of Cyber-Visions Submitted by Cheryl Cline on Thu, 2010-07-29 03:00 in Free Speech The Battle for Media Freedom: A Conflict of Cyber-Visions Average: 0 Your rating: None Login or register to post [...]

By: The Battle for Media Freedom: A Conflict of Cyber-Visions | Bastiat Institute

Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:03:26 +0000

[...] Battle for Media Freedom: A Conflict of Cyber-Visions Posted on 29th July 2010 by Cheryl Cline The Battle for Media Freedom: A Conflict of Cyber-Visions Read the original article Here [...]

By: Nonymous 4

Nonymous 4 — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:27:51 +0000

Oh also I would like to point out that I totally agree with the point you bring up from Nozik, that liberty inevitably means some inequality, but that if you extrapolate that trend over time you end up with a large group of people who have a lot more than some, as wealth and power are known to concentrate, aka "spend money: make money" aphorism. So how do you respond to that? Left to itself this is what MARX and many others say causes financial crises, and in a truly free market would lead to catastrophe and eventual recovery and restructuring. Which is the free market way of saying wealth redistribution. That or in a sufficiently libertarian society someone will find a way to turn a profit by going after consolidations of power supported and funded by people are less well of en mass. Which is essentialy wealth redistribution.

So why is it unreasonable when some groups bring up these issues in an era where the income of the top 2% of wealth holders income has more than doubled when in the same time the middle class has only grown 50%, well behind increases in cost of living?

Your own subheader states "Opportunity, Not Outcome, Is What Matters Most" clearly opportunity is stifled when individuals in the wealthier percentages of the nation have so much money they are richer than some nations and the rest of the nation finds it harder to meet basic needs? I myself am totally supportive of maximizing opportunity and a fan of the journey being more important than the destination and similar sentiments, but we must recognize that if what we seek, a free fair a just society, is not the out come at all, then there is something wrong with the means.

By: Nonymous 4

Nonymous 4 — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:03:41 +0000

I've really liked this site for a long time but I was surprised by the divisiveness presented in both the article and the responses to Brett's comments. I have fully support many of the arguments you lay out about why we shouldn't take certain actions in the promotion of media and cyber/internet freedom as well as the whole, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" theme. However, it seems like you haven't read any Marx yourself. It seems like you don't really care what its actually about. It seems that your also unaware that Marx had a profound respect for capitalism. It seems that you are unaware that Stalin and Lennin were not Marxist. It seems that you do not understand that any political ideology can become tyrannical, and that an example of a basically fascist interpretation of Marxism is no reason to reject Marxism, let alone groups that barrow from Marxist schools of thought. It seems you read a lot into groups like Free Press too. It seems like you don't really support them being able to express their own ideas. I, as a student of Marx, am probably reading a lot into this as well, but I would just like to state that being a Marxist, if that is what you would label me as a student of his work, does not mean I would ever promote some kind of single party system, and that I think Marx himself would agree with many of your goals, but probably dismiss you for the kind of offensive argumentation presented here.

Just my thoughts. Much love for the cause, and you as a person, but not this article.

By: Brett Glass

Brett Glass — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 09:32:02 +0000

By: Berin Szoka

Berin Szoka — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 08:51:50 +0000

So, Brett, which of his books have you read, exactly?

By: Brett Glass

Brett Glass — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 05:20:11 +0000

It's easy to put out a book a year if you don't care about quality. And my opinion of Mr. Sowell is widely shared. Type his name and then "crackpot," "hack," or any similar word into any search engine.

Frankly, I've thought some of the things you've written have been much better than his output. I just hope that the blog posting above isn't a sign that PFF is drifting in his direction -- that is, toward becoming dogmatic and partisan.

By: Brett Glass

Brett Glass — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 01:18:46 +0000

Adam, I most certainly do have a job in the wireless ISP industry. In fact, I founded that industry.

Right now, because my assistants are off for the rest of the day, I'm on tech support duty. Which makes me feel like the Maytag repairman because our networks run so well. Gives me time to get online and engage in online banter.

What surprises me is your intense overreaction to my statements regarding Tom Sowell. You've always been civil to me before. My remarks must have touched a real nerve to cause you to be so abusive -- in public, no less! -- above.

By: Adam Thierer

Adam Thierer — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 01:04:44 +0000

Coming from a raging lunatic like you Brett, that's tall praise for Thomas Sowell. You are such a pathetic little man that I feel sorry for you. Do you realize that people on BOTH SIDES of the net neutrality debate sit around laughing about your antics on Twitter and in blog posts like this? There isn't anyone in this field who takes you seriously. Not one.

Incidentally, do you really have a job in the wireless ISP industry? If so, how do you get by Tweeting and be a blog stalker all day long?

Grow up, punk.

By: Brett Glass

Brett Glass — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 00:58:37 +0000

Berin, Thomas Sowell was a joke even I first encountered him at Stanford, my alma mater, many years ago. Completely intellectually bankrupt, there is no level of twisted logic or just plain falsehood to which he will not stoop so as to support his party and its agenda. His columns, which happen to appear in our local newspaper now and then, are the source of much laughter even among conservatives and libertarians here in Wyoming (an overwhelmingly “red” state). He makes Beck and Limbaugh look like serious, contemplative thinkers by comparison — which is funnier all the more because he pretends to be one — prolifically publishing paper after paper and book after book full of total drivel.

It's beneath PFF to associate itself with such crackpots. Next you'll be saying that the earth is flat and embracing “intelligent design.” Please don't go that way.

By: Berin Szoka

Berin Szoka — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:44:46 +0000

Ah, Brett, since you have such a strong opinion about Sowell, I take it you've read most of his 31 scholarly books on law, philosophy, economics, political science, intellectual history, sociology, race, class, education, etc. Or perhaps just the two great works discussed by Adam above, A Conflict of Visions and Vision of the Anointed. Which did you read first and where did you detect Sowell's "unabashed Republican party hack[ery]?" Was it perhaps in Chapter three of Conflicts, entitled "Visions of Knowledge & Reason?" I, too, often hear Republican candidates on Glenn Beck spouting off about the epistemological foundations of their views on tax, immigration, and regulatory policy! And, like you, I'm sick to death of it!

Clearly, Sowell is just supplying intellectual fodder for his GOP paymasters! Yup, just another in a long line of black pseudo-intellectuals who can think of nothing better to do than shill for the Republican party by producing fake scholarship with pretentious titles intended to conceal their shallow right-wing hackery at the rate of one major book a year every year of their adult lives.

It's a good thing we can rely on you to debunk such frauds and their chicanery! I look forward to reading your next work on the epistemological foundations of the conceptions of justice that undergird policy debates. Make sure to send us a review copy and we'll give it the same attention we've given to the dozens of other lengthy tomes you've produced in your lengthy and prolific academic career.

By: Brett Glass

Brett Glass — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 20:36:15 +0000

This article gets off on the wrong foot by quoting Thomas Sowell, who is not a visionary at all but rather an unabashed Republican party hack. Like McChesney on the left, Sowell isn't intellectually honest; he just wants his team to win.

PFF would do much better to cite the ideas of someone who actually was visionary and not just playing for the interests of a power-hungry gang.

By: Berin Szoka

Berin Szoka — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:44:00 +0000

Clearly, Sowell is just supplying intellectual fodder for his GOP paymasters! Yup, just another in a long line of black pseudo-intellectuals who can think of nothing better to do than shill for the Republican party by producing fake scholarship with pretentious titles intended to conceal their shallow right-wing hackery at the rate of one major book a year every year of their adult lives.

It's a good thing we can rely on you to debunk such frauds and their chicanery! I look forward to reading your next work on the epistemological foundations of the conceptions of justice that undergird policy debates. Make sure to send us a review copy and we'll give it the same attention we've given to the dozens of other lengthy tomes you've produced in your lengthy and prolific academic career.