Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Astonishing support for authoritarian state

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The person has actually written

You are obsessed with whether things are tax-funded or not. I think your reference to tax-funded TV must refer back to your item on the BBC. It is not tax-funded. It is funded by a license fee which is an important distinction. It’s optional (if you don’t have a TV you don’t have to pay it) and it goes straight to the BBC which gives the BBC its independence.

So, commenter, lemme get this straight: If I were a Brit, I’d have to fund the Beeb just in order to even have a working TV and get the channels I want?

And the money goes straight to the BBC? – which could be using it for any purpose? Oh yeah, independence.

And the commenter does not think there is anything the matter with that? Hold that thought, people.

So it’s really like this: If I were a Jew, I’d have the right to go to shul—as long as I also contribute to the Church of England?

The Beeb could be supporting anti-Semitism and the Jewish person wouldn’t have the right to do a thing about it? Unless she could persuade some utter stupe Brit toff that anti-Semitism is a problem for her?

Meantime, she’d still have to pay if she wanted communications at all?

So … a forbidden thought from Canada: Why can’t the Jewish person just use all her media-directed money for what she thinks is worthwhile?

Look, we have similar ripoffs in Canada. There is now a big move to defund the Ceeb (Canadian version of the BBC).

And kick its fat [horse] onto the sidewalk (but you didn’t hear that from News, right?).

Skinny: In an age when even homeless people have cells, no one needs “public broadcasting” anyway. It is a relic of a former age, and now just a platform for authoritarian-directed views, and supported by people who think that way.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
In an age when it is possible to equip any human being with a transmitter/receiver, claims about the importance of “public broadcasting” are patently ridiculous.
I don’t see the logic of this. It would be ridiculous if the presence of the Internet provided a service which an independent non-profit broadcaster did not. Those services include: * high quality entertainment * educational and informative documentaries * independent and trustworthy news and current affairs All of which is adequately funded but free of both government and commercial control (and the pain of commercials). The internet is just piece of technology which provides a channel to these things. Some institution still has to provide them whether it is via the internet or broadcast.Mark Frank
March 21, 2015
March
03
Mar
21
21
2015
02:20 AM
2
02
20
AM
PDT
Anyone who has heard John Humphry's grill a department minister on the Today programme knows how much some MPs are afraid of the BBC. TV programmes that were developed and broadcast by the BBC: Monty Python, Dr Who, Faulty Towers, Strictly Come Dancing, The Voice, Spooks, Poldark, Waking the Dead, The Goodies, The Young Ones, Ab Fab and many others. The other (commercial) channels outputs are much, much more limited. And the commercial channels pander much more to current trends and tastes. The BBC also has excellent news and weather reports and a website you can all access. It covers Wimbledon, the Olympics and many sporting events of interest to British citizens. I would also like to point out the BBC has several TV channels (including a 24 hour news channel) and about 10 radio broadcasts. There is something for everyone. If you watch commercial TV then you are paying higher prices at the store to help the producers pay for the advertisements. Isn't it better to just pay upfront for things rather than be inundated by inane ads for things you may not even want?Jerad
March 21, 2015
March
03
Mar
21
21
2015
12:23 AM
12
12
23
AM
PDT
Our public broadcaster is the one who litters it with ads all while charging a licence fee. Our pay channels have almost no ads. For those that want to see government abuse of power just Google SONA 2015Andre
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
10:05 PM
10
10
05
PM
PDT
"At least you understand the basics. Good for you. Try to explain that to your materialist friends who can’t seem to get their head around the idea." Has any materials here said that there is no coercion? I certainly have not. I simply pointed out that your claim that the fees are being paid under threat of physical violence is a blatant misrepresentation of reality. It should be easy to prove me wrong. Just provide a handful of examples of UK citizens experiencing physical violence as the result of not paying the licence fee. These incidents will definitely be in the public record. And if you are going to broaden the definition of "physical violence" to receiving a fine, please think twice about the rationality of that spin.not_querius
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT
Seversky @ 63:
Is there coercion involved, Barry? Of course, there is. It’s a legal requirement. Law, which you make a living out of, is backed by coercion. Most forms of government are backed by coercion.
At least you understand the basics. Good for you. Try to explain that to your materialist friends who can’t seem to get their head around the idea.Barry Arrington
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT
AS @ 61:
That’s a very pessimistic belief.
No, it is neither pessimistic nor optimistic. It is a simple description of reality that you don't seem to be able to get your head around. It does not apply only to corrupt governments. All governments coerce. What do you think the word "govern" in government means? You should think about these things beyond a surface level before you comment on them.Barry Arrington
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT
AS @ 61.
Nor has it any bearing on the BBC who are independent of the UK government of the day.
The government forces levies a fee that forces people to support the leftist spewings of the BBC, and you think it has nothing to dowith the Jefferson quote. There really is no use talking to you.Barry Arrington
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT
I was born and raised in the UK. I worked at the BBC for over 25 years, although not in broadcasting or journalism. A few years ago, I came to the US, got married and became a naturalized US citizen. So I've seen both sides of the coin. Do I prefer to watch TV shows all the way through, without interruption, rather than chopped up into bite-sized 10 minute morsels floating in a sea of commercials? To repeat my previous comment, "Hell, yes!" Some of you may remember a US TV show called All in the Family which was regarded as groundbreaking in its day. That was derived from an earlier BBC TV sitcom called 'Til Death Us Do Part which was much rougher and edgier. That came from what is regarded as the Beeb's boundary-pushing Golden Age. It had independent funding, an influx of young, innovative talent and new ideas to try out. Most of all it could take risks without being reined in by company suits, PR flunkies and ad agency hacks all terrified of doing anything to offend an audience that were all potential customers. The BBC licence fee is, strangely enough, just that, a fee. It's not a government handout and it's not a tax. You have a licence to drive a TV set like you have a licence to drive a car or own a gun. Is there coercion involved, Barry? Of course, there is. It's a legal requirement. Law, which you make a living out of, is backed by coercion. Most forms of government are backed by coercion. Except maybe for anarchy or nihilism, and I doubt you're advocating those. The divine command morality of Christianity is coercion and you seem to think that's a Good Thing. As for all this grumbling about paying for stuff you don't want, I've got just one word for it - TANSTAAFL! "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch" Everything gets paid for by somebody, even the so-called free stuff. Commercial TV gets its money from the ads it broadcasts. The cost of those is built in to the price you pay for the goods they sell. One way or another, like it or not, we all pay. You wouldn't like paying for a TV licence? Tough. I don't like the huge tax-breaks organized religions get in this country. Some of the taxes I pay go towards featherbedding faiths I don't believe in. Too bad. I just have to live with it. As for broadcast journalism, the BBC helped set the standards. It's why the World Service was a byword for trustworthy news reporting, a reputation that government propaganda mills like Voice of America could only aspire to. Maybe truly objective coverage is an unobtainable ideal. So what? Doesn't make it any the less worth striving for and what can be achieved is still a whole lot better than the Palinesque partisan populism that passes for journalism in some quarters these days.Seversky
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT
News: "Andre at 56, that is why so many Canadians have invested so much time and energy and personal risk in attempts to simply remove the “public broadcaster.”" I am not a huge supporter of the CBC, but I am a limitless confused by your statement that there is "personal risk" in opposing the CBC. Could you elaborate?not_querius
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT
Andre at 56, that is why so many Canadians have invested so much time and energy and personal risk in attempts to simply remove the "public broadcaster." In an age when it is possible to equip any human being with a transmitter/receiver, claims about the importance of "public broadcasting" are patently ridiculous. Agreed: In any system, extreme weather warnings and similar notices from emergency services should of course have priority over entertainment, norts spews, crossword puzzles, and gossip. Not only is it reasonable to charge a small fee for explicitly security-related services, no one who is insurable should wish to turn them down. Indeed, the next thing, if we are ever relieved of the burden of the Beebs and Ceebs, is: Insurance companies will give a discount to policyholders who use such services.News
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT
#56 Andre
Those of you that think public and government funded broadcasters are independent are deluded.
That may be true of your country. It clearly isn't true of the BBC which frequently criticises the government - have you not seen Paxman tearing into MPs? There would be the most immense scandal if the government were found to be influencing content in the way you describe. It sounds like your government is simply not conforming to the rule of law. If so it is equally capable of influencing commercial channels.Mark Frank
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT
I will leave you with Thomas Jefferson: Being Canadian, I don't hang on every word spoken by Jefferson. Barry: "Coercion takes many forms, up to and including physical violence. It makes no difference that jackbooted thugs are not at this instant waiting outside your door." But that is not what you originally said. You said threats of physical violence AND coercion. You initially drew a distinction between the two and now you are saying that there is no distinction. Which is it? I am not actually disagreeing with the idea that the government probably shouldn't be in the TV business, especially the CBC version of it. But you can't have a fair and open debate about this (which you have not demonstrated any intention of having) when you use inflammatory language that, if not intentionally misleading, misrepresents the facts.not_querius
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT
In South Africa you have to own a TV licence even if you don't watch SABC. TV licence inspectors come visit often to check on you. Those of you that think public and government funded broadcasters are independent are deluded. We had major drama here during SONA when government tried to jam comms signals and when police entered our house of parliament and forcefully removed MP's the public broadcaster did not air it. None of our president's current scandals get any airtime on public TV. This government is using the broadcaster exactly like the apartheid government did. It is one big propaganda machine. And the quality of programs are appalling.Andre
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
#37 Florabama  
First, it does not matter whether you believe that a fee is not a tax (Bill Clinton would be proud of your parsing — but maybe the question depends on what “is” means, huh?). Anyway, whether a fee or a tax, it is still money taken by force without choice. Yes, one can throw out their TV just like one can choose not to pay the electric company and live in the stone age or choose not to pay the water company and dig a well and live in the stone age. Your argument is ridiculous on its face and reveals vacuous desperation in your excuse.
Now that is what I call a real insult! I don’t mind whether we call it a tax or not. The important point is the money is not under government control and therefore allows the BBC to remain independent of the government.
Second, whether the message is the message that government approves or not, is irrelevant, but I believe it is the favored government message — certainly in the U.S. where PBS, NPR only give one message — bigger more secular government and the leftist narrative. No one else need apply. I take note that you would be opposed if you disagreed with this message. Again, I ask, would you favor government funded ID/creationism programing? I am still waiting for your response to that question.
If the BBC started broadcasting ID creationist programmes I would object using the channels available to me. From time to time it does broadcast things I intensely disagree with.  I remember Juliet Stevenson trying to make the case there was a link between MMR and autism. That doesn’t mean I would want the BBC disbanded or my license fee back. It is part of what comes with having an independent broadcaster. Mark Frank
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
NQ and AS, I will say this one more time: The essence of government is coercion. Coercion takes many forms, up to and including physical violence. It makes no difference that jackbooted thugs are not at this instant waiting outside your door. If you don't understand the most basic of all basic fundamentals of government, then further argument with you is useless. I will leave you with Thomas Jefferson:
To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.
Barry Arrington
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
#52 SA It was a total misunderstanding, that's all. I thought she was confused (I still do). The addition "in your old age" is just an idiom. I wasn't even thinking about how old she was. I use the same idiom with my children sometimes. I should have thought more deeply about how things can get misunderstood over the internet.Mark Frank
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT
MF
I have never thought of old age as an insult.
A man makes a negative comment about a woman's old age ... and has never thought it would be an insult? I mean, seriously, Mark. That one I'd classify under basic etiquette.Silver Asiatic
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
"Why pay for public broadcasting in the age of the internet" Well as long as there are people viewing, it will be funded. I would assume a tv program would be held to a higher standard than much of the internet and therefore would be a more reliable source of information as well. Not to mention a tv show (hopefully) puts everything together clearly, concisely, and logically. Whereas surfing the net can be pretty overwhelming due to the amount of stuff that's out there.Curly Howard
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
Barry@41, I agree. It is big of you to admit that the government doesn't impose the fees under the threat of physical violence (as you originally stated) but that the threat is tacit, subtle, if you will. But, as a lawyer, I am sure that you are aware that any consequence of violating a statute, regardless of what it is, is useless unless it is backed up with action when violated. When people speed, they are fined; when they drink and drive, they lose their car; when they steal, they may be incarcerated; and when they kill, some of the more barbaric jurisdictions still have the death penalty. Your original claim was that there was the threat of physical violence to coerce the payment of the fee. I can provide you with numerous examples of the consequences I mentioned above being used. Even accepting your definition of physical violence (being arrested) do you have any examples of this occurring as the result of not paying the licence fee? I have not researched this so i don't know the answer. If there are numerous examples, then your original choice of word may be justified. But, if not, then they were unjustifiably inflammatory.not_querius
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
Clan Campbell at 39, welcome. You seem to understand the basic principle that eludes many: Why pay for a "public" broadcasting service in the age of the Internet (when everything is public if not protected as private)? The principal question commenters elude is why pay for "public" broadcasting in the age of the Internet? It's like paying for seawater in the ocean. Why?News
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT
"What a peculiar argument" Welcome to UD. The twilight zone of "peculiar" arguments.Curly Howard
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT
What a peculiar argument. Firstly, as various posters (most recently velikovskys) have pointed out, it's a fee. florabama`s attempt at satire "choose not to pay the electric company and live in the stone age or choose not to pay the water company and dig a well and live in the stone age." misses the mark. My brother has chosen to not watch broadcast TV for the past 25 years. I have relied on well water for the past 17. But we do make sure we pay the electricity bill, as we have an electric water pump... If you don't want to pay for a driver`s license, then don't drive a car. Secondly, all this "coercive-government" schtick is a libertarian anti-TAX argument. If you don't like how the government spends your taxes, then vote them out of office. Strange to relate, but the people who use this libertarian argument are more likely to complain about their tax dollars being used to fund NPR and abortions, but don't see why I could have a beef when my tax dollars are spent on drone strikes and executing people.DNA_Jock
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT
#38 SA
You’re almost always much more courteous than that so I think it came as a surprise.
Thank you. I was a bit surprised that it was taken as insult. I have never thought of old age as an insult. But I am happy to apologise if it gives offence.Mark Frank
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
AS, does the license fee have the force of law? Answer, yes. Then it is coercive. That is my point. Try to read for comprehension next time.Barry Arrington
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
MF @ 34:
The BBC provides two public goods . . .
Why, yes, government thugs always try to justify their thuggery by claiming it is for our own good.Barry Arrington
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
NQ @ 24. The government has a near monopoly on the use of coercive violence. Every statute and regulation that has the force of law is backed by tacit threat that if one violates the law or regulation government will use coercive means, up to and including physical violence when they place you under arrest and detain you against your will in a jail, to enforce that statute/regulation. This is not rocket science. Think just a teeny weeny bit past the surface and it is obvious. I encourage you to do that. (Think, I mean. If you want to do rocket science as well be my guest)Barry Arrington
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
florabama: Anyway, whether a fee or a tax, it is still money taken by force without choice. You are free not to pay the fee. Yes, one can throw out their TV just like one can choose not to pay the electric company and live in the stone age or choose not to pay the water company and dig a well and live in the stone age. Exactly, so just as you are forced to pay for your groceries,you pay for benefits of living in an ordered ,stable society by a percentage of your labor. You then get the voice in the society's decisions.velikovskys
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT
Denyse, I heartedly agree with you. As a British citizen it really smarts that I have to pay this 'STEALTH TAX' for an organization that doesn't speak for me. If I don't pay it I am breaking the law, so I do pay (begrudgingly.) The licensing scam cannot last very much longer (I hope). It does come to something that I find better things to watch on YouTube then I do on the BBC! Anyway here is a response from the BBC from my latest compliant to them.... { Dear Mr Campbell Thank you for your enquiry. With a TV Licence you're entitled to do much more than just watch TV at home on a TV set. You can also watch and record programmes as they're being shown on TV through your computer, games console, any digital box, DVD/VHS recorder, even your mobile phone. Although the revenue is used to fund the BBC, it is not a charge for BBC services. The licence is payment for a permission to install or use television equipment to receive or record television programmes. It is not a payment for service and is payable regardless of which channels are received. 'TV Licensing' acts as agent for the Licensing Authority, which is the BBC and does not set the level of the licence fee, which is determined by the Government. All TV Licence revenue collected is passed to the Treasury, who in turn fund the BBC. Under the Communications Act 2003, you need to be covered by a TV Licence if you watch or record television programmes as they are being shown on TV. This is the case no matter what device you use ? whether a TV, computer, mobile phone, games console, digital box or DVD/VHS recorder. If you want further information on how the BBC uses the TV Licence fee you can visit bbc.co.uk. I hope this information is helpful. Yours sincerely, ... } ... so it is not a service, it is not a tax, it is a privilege and I should be grateful! Is that a nice big smile as they rob me? ;-) Best regards, clancampbellclancampbell
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
MF
When you keep up this incessant stream of accusations of Darwinist trolls and the like you must expect the opposition to snap back occasionally
You're almost always much more courteous than that so I think it came as a surprise. Some Darwinists who post here are trolls - in my opinion. I'm surprised they're allowed to participate. A minimum level of sincerity (which you certainly have) should be required ... but it's not my blog, etc. Just venting.Silver Asiatic
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
@ 31,32 and 33, First, it does not matter whether you believe that a fee is not a tax (Bill Clinton would be proud of your parsing -- but maybe the question depends on what "is" means, huh?). Anyway, whether a fee or a tax, it is still money taken by force without choice. Yes, one can throw out their TV just like one can choose not to pay the electric company and live in the stone age or choose not to pay the water company and dig a well and live in the stone age. Your argument is ridiculous on its face and reveals vacuous desperation in your excuse. Second, whether the message is the message that government approves or not, is irrelevant, but I believe it is the favored government message -- certainly in the U.S. where PBS, NPR only give one message -- bigger more secular government and the leftist narrative. No one else need apply. I take note that you would be opposed if you disagreed with this message. Again, I ask, would you favor government funded ID/creationism programing? I am still waiting for your response to that question. As I said, I have no problem with propaganda. It is free speech. Just don't make me pay for your propaganda unless you're going to pay for mine, and you wouldn't do that.Florabama
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply