Re: NACLA on RCTV

[Jim Devine <jdevine03@xxxxxxxxx>]

David S wrote:
> >Just as it is easy money to predict without knowing any of the particulars....

michael a. lebowitz  wrote:
> The only thing predictable are david s's comments.

But _why_ is it predictable? I would guess that it's because, as a
self-styled "libertarian," David believes in what C.B. Mcpherson
called "possessive individualism." That is, each individual is seen as
the proprietor of his own person, property, and capabilities, while
owing absolutely nothing to society for them. In the case of  RCTV, a
corporation -- owned by (wealthy) individuals -- is the only
proprietor of its airwaves and owes absolutely nothing to to the
society that granted those rights.

In addition, so-called libertarians embrace John Locke's aggressively
expansionist attitude toward individual property rights. In his SECOND
TREATISE, Locke wrote that:

"We see in commons, which remain so by compact, that it is the taking
any part of what is common, and removing it out of the state Nature
leaves it in, which begins the property, without which the common is
of no use. And the taking of this or that part does not depend on the
express consent of all the commoners. Thus, the grass my horse has
bit, the turfs my servant has cut, and the ore I have digged in any
place, where I have a right to them in common with others, become my
property without the assignation or consent of anybody. The labor that
was mine, removing them out of that common state they were in, hath
fixed my property in them." (ch. 7, §27).

In this view, it is totally okay to grab commonly-owned resources
(such as TV airwaves) for oneself. Rather than realizing that common
resources were subject to precapitalist property  rights, Locke
asserts that they were "of no use." Grabbing the property does not
require any consent from others (the commoners, who used the commons
for herding, etc.) Then, it doesn't matter if others (the "servant,"
who Locke kindly equates with his horse) help the appropriator produce
wealth. "After I've taken it, it's mine." This is sometimes called the
theory of "absolute individual property rights."

(Usually the word "private" is used. This is inaccurate, because even
though ownership may be private, the impact is not, because
externalities, both technical and pecuniary, are ubiquitous.)

Thus, once RCTV got its broadcast license, it was that corporation's
property forever. It does not matter whether the license expired or
not. It does not matter if RCTV participated in a (failed) coup d'etat
against a democratically-elected and constitutional government. In the
"libertarian" perspective, it seems, individual property rights are
absolute, even if they are used for blatantly illegal purposes.

(It's interesting to imagine what would happen if FOX participated in
a coup in the U.S.... oh no, they did participate, in 2000. But they
were part of the winning side!)

As for "freedom of the press," I'm sure that the anti-Chavez,
anti-democracy, perspective will continue to circulate freely in
Venezuela. Among other things, RCTV still can "broadcast" over cable
and internationally. The US, I am sure, is actively broadcasting its
Party Line into Venezuela, perhaps via CNN.
--
Jim Devine /  "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your
own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.