[eno_]

I have argued for two things:

1) The government should not "own" or "license" the spectrum, and that, at most, the government should act as an agent for the people in extracting the most value from this resource.

2) That lower branches of government and private parties are perfectly capable of regulating things like roads, drivers, and related insurance requirements, and would be capable of regulating spectrum use if the FCC were abolished due to it not being an authorized function of the federal government.

Where in this am I proposing to allow people to disrupt communications? You are spouting all kinds of alarmism.

Think, for example, of the benefits of re-auctioning broadcast spectrum every year and remitting the funds to the people: It would smash the lamestream leftist media, and put money in your pocket. What conernative would oppose an idea like that?

[templar]

Where in this am I proposing to allow people to disrupt communications? You are spouting all kinds of alarmism.

"Also, private bodies cooperate on common resources all the time. Government isn't necessary to prevent a failure to manage a commons."

I don't know what to make of a statement that "government isn't necessary" other than that enforceable regulation isn't necessary. Government only makes itself present in public activities by regulation. And without any form of enforceable government regulation what's to keep any private citizen from doing whatever he likes, including disrupting communication if he so pleases (there would be no law against it)? You either agree that the government has the authority and responsibility to regulate airwaves or you do not. Which is it? I hold that it is a proper governmental function. So do the courts and the vast majority of American citizens.