Schumer’s irrational defense of the “Fairness” Doctrine

In a recent interview, Charles Schumer irrationally defended the so-called “Fairness” Doctrine.  From Newsmax:

Democratic Campaign Committee Chairman Charles Schumer defended the so-called Fairness Doctrine regarding talk radio, telling Fox News: “I think we should all be fair and balanced, don’t you?”

I don’t know, Mr. Schumer, what do you think?  Do you think ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN were fair and balanced during the presidential campaigns?  Did you hear Dan Rather’s comments on the subject?  Have you heard the statistics on the subject?  Have you read Goldberg’s book?  My goodness, all you have to do is listen to NPR.  I wonder if that taxpayer-funded radio program always makes sure to have a conservative experts on to balance the liberal ones?  Not that I have ever heard (of course, I stopped listening to that slanted propaganda a long time ago).

Is it “fair and balanced” for a newspaper to endorse a candidate?

Mr. Schumer, are you proposing that all of these news outlets give equal time to all points of view?

Of course not.  And with the exception of NPR, which is government funded, we should not force the networks to be “fair and balanced”.  They are private businesses.  If they want to air Obama more than they do McCain, then let them do it.  I am not forced to watch (yet), and I do not.  On what moral basis do you believe that you have the right to force businesses to present viewpoints that they oppose?  Must a business present the disadvantages of its product, or the advantages of their competitor’s product?  Must a radio station give equal time to positions it believes to be false?

If I am a doctor, and I believe that my friend has cancer, but another doctor does not, must I give equal emphasis to the opposing viewpoint when urging him to get treatment?  Is it immoral for me not to do so?

And what do you mean by “we should all” be fair and balanced?  Do you plan to force individuals to always equally represent both sides when they are speaking to other people?  Is this what you do, Mr. Schumer?

I will grant that it is immoral to knowingly deceive, but to simply present a viewpoint you believe to be correct, is that immoral?  On the contrary, if I believe something of great moral or practical significance to be true, and yet when I am speaking to another person about it I do not reveal my own beliefs, but equally present both sides, then I am engaging in morally questionable behavior.  Do I not have the responsibility to tell what I believe to be the truth?

The Fairness Doctrine, repealed during the Ronald Reagan administration, would require radio stations to balance conservative talk hosts with liberal ones.

In a Fox interview Tuesday morning, the senator from New York was asked if he supported telling radio stations what their content should be.

“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air,” Schumer said.

“I am for that . . . But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

First of all, perhaps we should not regulate pornography on the air.  But making sure that a six year old does not turn on the radio and hear people having sex on the air is not the same thing as making sure they don’t turn on the radio and hear Rush Limbaugh.  If we apply Schumer’s “fairness” rule to porn, I suppose we should allow porn on the air as long as we balance it with abstinence education radio programs.

The six year old who accidentally hears Rush Limbaugh will not be harmed any more than he will be by listening to Obama’s left-leaning speeches.  Do we need to balance every Obama speech by with a conservative speech? 

In 2007, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., a close ally of Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, told The Hill newspaper: “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

Of course.  It is always wise to hear both sides of the story, but who are you, our parents?  let me interpret Durbin’s doublespeak for you:

“It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that Americans cannot think for themselves.”

Unfortunately, judging by the outcome of the recent election, Durbin may be right.  But even that does not give the government the right to force private businesses to air anything, much less unprofitable and unpopular liberal talk radio programs.

And of course, they will not apply this doctrine to the liberal media, only to radio, because their motive is to silence the conservatives.  This is standard operating procedure for socialists:  silence the opposition.  ”Oh yes,”  they proclaim, “we love freedom of thought and speech…  as long as it does not threaten our power.”

No doubt they will claim that the conservative hosts are “deceitful” or ”harmful”.  They will claim that these conservative viewpoints have were disproven by economists and scientists ages ago, and so they cannot be allowed to deceive the public.  That is what they will say.  But they lie. 

They lie, but they are right about one thing:  The American people have lost the ability to reason, and I do not doubt that the majority will not oppose the “Fairness” Doctrine.  Like the serfs they have become, they will whine for their government lords to protect them from the conservative “lies.”

The right to bear arms, and tyrannical governments

I was listening to a reading of the Federalist Papers this morning, and came upon this excellent passage bearing on the Second Amendment (though of course Madison was not referring to that amendment, which was yet to come):

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

-From Number 46, James Madison

If you do the math, it becomes clear that Madison was assuming that the militia included all of the people who were able to bear arms.  So the militia referred to in the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

was all of us.

So here’s how I read it:  Because a well regulated militia (the entire body of people able to bear arms) is necessary to the security of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  In other words, the people need to be armed, so that they can form a militia if necessary.  But necessary for what?  Mr. Madison continues:

It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

The purpose is clearly to protect themselves and their liberty from a tyrannical government.  It often seems that politicians think the purpose of the second amendment is so that people can hunt, or perhaps defend themselves from robbers, but that does not seem to have been the focus. In fact, the right to basic self-defense is so fundamental that it is likely the writers assumed it.

The focus is on defense against the federal government, should it turn to tyranny!

What are the implications of this?  First of all, if we are to have the right to defend ourselves against the federal army, we must have the right to bear more than single shot rifles and shotguns.  There can be no justification for prohibiting the possession of automatic weapons and even explosive devices.

The only reason that the government would prohibit such things is that, in the words of Madison:

…the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

Is there any other way to interpret Madison on this? 

Keep in mind that Madison was no anarchist, but advocating a strong federal government.

And yet Barack Obama wants to further restrict our freedom in this regard.