My appoligies to not getting back to either of your concerns sooner. And I'm going to keep my defense to one comment, as I think they overlap.
I'm very, very scared of your attitude that if capitalism doesn't provide it, then it isn't needed. If that it taken to its extreme, then life would be very, very nasty. At first I wanted to use the word "society", but then I remembered that such an attack from an unrestrained free market would destroy society. Take Thatcher making museums adapt to market forces. Admission rates detered visitors, then the museums lost money. It was a loose-loose situation for everyone but HM Treasuary. The market doesn't always work. It some cases, including the media, it can be very, very dangerous.
I prefer to take the classic liberal approach - starting with Smith, but closest to my posistion in Mill - that there are some areas in the economy which the state must opperate, not because it can, but because it should - because the free market will not provide them.
I'm not opposed to a free press at all. I do think there should be regulations on ownership to ensure that the press is free, though, from both corporate and governmental tinkering. It should serve the public interest - I know (I think he's your father) has problems with my use of this term (public service), but isn't the role of the government, even to libretarian thinkers, to serve the good of the people? In a healthy democracy, citizens must be well informed. The same goes for capitalism. The market can not function if consumers are not informed. And how can they be informed properly if those who have the most to hide control information channels? The same goes for state control of the media.
Apologies for getting confused on the eliteism - although the competition must be taken into account whenver this is discussed. There is some "this is what is good for you", but I think, in general, learned people beleive that education and culture are good - for the indivudial and soceity. That's the BBC's role - to spread knowledge and culture. And it does a damn good job. It's liberal only in the sense of Mill et al.
Finally, what other news organisation in the world would be as frank as the BBC has in discussion its own problems and the debates over its future?
I have much more to say on this, but I know both of us have little time, which is a shame. The BBC isn't perfect, but I'll take it over the more irrational elements of the press - on both the left and right - any day.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re:
Date: 2004-02-24 07:34 am (UTC)I'm very, very scared of your attitude that if capitalism doesn't provide it, then it isn't needed. If that it taken to its extreme, then life would be very, very nasty. At first I wanted to use the word "society", but then I remembered that such an attack from an unrestrained free market would destroy society. Take Thatcher making museums adapt to market forces. Admission rates detered visitors, then the museums lost money. It was a loose-loose situation for everyone but HM Treasuary. The market doesn't always work. It some cases, including the media, it can be very, very dangerous.
I prefer to take the classic liberal approach - starting with Smith, but closest to my posistion in Mill - that there are some areas in the economy which the state must opperate, not because it can, but because it should - because the free market will not provide them.
I'm not opposed to a free press at all. I do think there should be regulations on ownership to ensure that the press is free, though, from both corporate and governmental tinkering. It should serve the public interest - I know (I think he's your father) has problems with my use of this term (public service), but isn't the role of the government, even to libretarian thinkers, to serve the good of the people? In a healthy democracy, citizens must be well informed. The same goes for capitalism. The market can not function if consumers are not informed. And how can they be informed properly if those who have the most to hide control information channels? The same goes for state control of the media.
Apologies for getting confused on the eliteism - although the competition must be taken into account whenver this is discussed. There is some "this is what is good for you", but I think, in general, learned people beleive that education and culture are good - for the indivudial and soceity. That's the BBC's role - to spread knowledge and culture. And it does a damn good job. It's liberal only in the sense of Mill et al.
Finally, what other news organisation in the world would be as frank as the BBC has in discussion its own problems and the debates over its future?
I have much more to say on this, but I know both of us have little time, which is a shame. The BBC isn't perfect, but I'll take it over the more irrational elements of the press - on both the left and right - any day.