Scott's #followfriday recommendations

This post has been replaced with a page. Visit it here.

Drug Deals

John Stossel recently published a blog item positing that a "War on Drugs" inevitably begets a "War on Guns". He concludes that anybody who opposes gun control, to be intellectually consistent, must also oppose the "war on drugs".

I agree, and I do. In my opinion the "war on drugs" is a waste of resources. It has not only raised a furor over the armament of the drug gangs, it's led to avarice and corruption. Somewhere along the line, somebody came up with the bright idea of confiscating assets used during illegal activity. These assets are then generally auctioned to the public, creating revenue for the governments. The more they confiscate, the more revenue they bring in.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not calling for drug legalization. Like the author of a comment on Mr. Stossel's blog, I see where making drug use, sales, and distribution illegal can be useful--even helpful--for society. The question is how aggressive enforcement should be. I have a proposal (surprise, surprise).

Drug crimes should be like seat belt crimes: a secondary infraction. When a person causes an accident, robs someone, or murders someone, and drugs are involved, the drug charges would serve to make the penalties worse.

Localism: Fairness Lite, or Fascism?

Localism, as you probably know, is the name of a tactic the State Bureaucratic Apparatus (SBA) may try to use to curtail or eliminate the national syndication of radio talk shows. If you're not familiar with localism, here is a recent article about it from Broadcasting & Cable Magazine.) Since most successful shows of this sort feature conservative commentators, localism is viewed by conservatives as a method of squelching dissent to the collectivists and Progressives (represented by the Democrats). Localism would be enforced by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Why does the FCC have the power to grant, refuse, or revoke broadcast licenses for radio stations? I'm fairly certain the chief purpose of the FCC originally was simply to ensure that two broadcasters in one locality were not attempting to use the same frequency. Perhaps decency guidelines were also part of the original mission. With modern popular music recordings, though, that's pretty much out the window. The FCC has probably been construed to have much more power because of the "interstate commerce clause" doctrine.

There has been an attempt recently by a number of states to try to push the SBA back out of the lives of citizens, by eliminating the invocation of the insterstate commerce doctrine. Montana's "in-state firearm" law is one example. If a firearm is manufactured, sold, and used entirely within the state of Montana, this law exempts it from any federal regulation. Perhaps broadcasters can similarly use the concept of "local" to their advantage.

Radio stations, at least those not streaming on the Web, are local businesses. They serve a limited number of cities around their offices & studios; they accept advertising from other local businesses; they broadcast programming and advertising to a local market. Their product is made, sold, purchased, and consumed all within one local area. These are exactly the characteristics that localism intends to exploit for the SBA's purposes.

Wouldn't it be the pinnacle of localism for the radio stations to say, "The city or state has granted us the authority to broadcast on this frequency, simply because there are no other stations trying to use it. Our market is completely local, INTRASTATE, and therefore the FCC regulations do not apply to us."