Paul Dirks:

Two things happened pretty much in tandem under Reagan. The fairness doctrine was repealed and media ownership regulations were relaxed. Of these two, I think the latter did more harm.

And I think this is a nonsensical statement. They did different, overlapping and interacting, kinds of harm, the root cause of which is entirely separate from each other. Your attempt to oversimplify their impacts and possible remedies is surprising to me, given your usual acuity of insight.

The big thing that you are overlooking with respect to the assassination of the Fairness Doctrine is the direct consequence in the rise of rightwing talk radio--and the major role that it, in turn, played in bringing the GOP to power in 1994. (Gingrich himself--whose ego rarely tolerates sharing the limelight--feted Limbaugh during the GOP's celebrations on taking over.)

The other big thing you are missing is that media consolidation was already well under way before Reagan. Ben Bagdikian's first edition of The Media Monopoly was published in 1983, when Reagan's work had hardly begun. Of course Reagan made things much, much worse. (That was his specialty, after all.) But the problem was already well advanced by then.

I think that judicious use of antitrust legislation could have the same beneficial effect that the fairness doctrine would, with the advantage of being content neutral.

While I agree whole-hearted that anti-trust action is called for, I find this claim preposterous. First off, this is like saying that shrinking the X-axis will shrink the Y-axis, when the two are completely orthogonal. Second, it won't be content neutral, as you yourself are arguing. Third, why should we want it to be content-neutral in the first place???

As I said, your customary acuity seems to have temporarily deserted you.

L.W.M.--

In years of yore when a large slice of my online time involved fighting off pre-pubescent cyber-libertarians, no site was more dear to me than Huben's Critiques Of Libertarianism, except possibly Talk Origins. (And his site, after all, was/is a one-man show.) It's only since the theft of the 2000 election that my use of his site has dropped to near-zero--though through no fault whatever of him or the site.

I'm tickled pink that you've brought me goodies from old favorite haunt I haven't seen much of in recent years.

Thanks.

What's more, George Lakoff has explained why there is an internally sound moral logic behind this POV, which derives from conservative "Strict Father" morality (thereby undercutted the libertarians' incessant claims not to be of the right.)

As Lakoff explains it, Strict Father morality is based on a fear-based view of the world, and the need to be strong in order to withstand the evils that lurk in it. From this POV, competition is good, since it teaches discipline and strength, and punishes weakness. Thus, by everyone competing in a free market, everyone becomes disciplined, strong and moral.

Similarly, any sort of welfare is evil, since it "rewards" weakness and undermines the strength that's necessary to resist evil.

Of course, the real world looks nothing like this. But that's the logic of the model.

I took your initial subject line to heart, which is why I hope you'll see I've treated you less antagonistically than some others have. But I still think you've got a good deal more homework to do.

For one thing, we don't really need to compromise with elite conservative defectors when we've got the great mass of people on our side. (I've spent years looking at long-term polling data from the General Social Survey, which is a great source of myth-busting information.) And how can anyone legitimately argue against fairness???

L.W.M:

the American Libertarian party was birthed in a suburban living room in the 70's over cocktails, so that has to tell you something. It's a kind of cult, like Scientology, or the Church of the Subgenius.

Please! The Church of the Subgenius is much more sane than the other two.

L.W.M.:

[Me:] "And how can anyone legitimately argue against fairness???"

They make careers out it. In fact, I think it's something all bullies learn on the playground.

legitimately (emphasis in the original).

[Me:] "Please! The Church of the Subgenius is much more sane than the other two."

I can never tell if this a gag. Can you?

It has to be. But I prefer to remain agnostic. It's much more fun that way.

I studied Goedel in college in 1977. Two years later, Goedel, Escher, Bach was everywhere. I remember visiting my girlfriend's parents in D.C., seeing it wall-to-wall in a bookstore, while "One Way or Another" blasted out of somewhere--a record store, or maybe a boutique. The incompleteness theorem and the tritone. Was that fast enough from esoteric to pop???

So naturally, clueless liberals like DCLaw1 will never understand:

Buying and selling pornography is good!

Looking at it, or paying taxes on it is bad!

(Sex without paying for it is very bad!)