[templar]

Yet I can drive anywhere in the U.S., and in Canada, too. No "chaos."

So you're suggesting that there is no need for (uniform) traffic laws? You use an example of a very highly regulated activity producing no 'chaos' to suggest that no regulation is needed? Maybe we should get rid of all traffic lights and stop signs, that's just two of the thousands of regulatory devices, and see what happens. Get some common sense into your thinking.

BTW, this (use of the airwaves) is covered under international treaty. Has been for a long time. I don't see where the UN figures into the argument at all, and I don't see how arguing in favor of the wisdom of regulating the airwaves provides any 'logic' that gives the UN any part of this discussion.

[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?