Comments on: Predictable Responses http://pursuit-of-liberty.davidjmiller.org/2009/predictable-responses/ Promoting and Discussing Patriotism and Liberty Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:10:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: David http://pursuit-of-liberty.davidjmiller.org/2009/predictable-responses/#comment-2065 David Fri, 06 Mar 2009 17:18:35 +0000 http://www.Pursuit-of-Liberty.com/?p=1713#comment-2065 I would like to make it clear that I have never suggested that the newspapers are evil or nasty (let alone both). I simply think that they are making use of their dominance of the public discourse arena to further their economic interests while pretending that they are not considering their own benefit. There is nothing wrong with seeking your own benefit - that's the central premise of capitalism. This is not simply a question of government vs free market. The equation is not a free market equation because legal notice as a concept does not exist without government regulation. When government mandates that we publish legal notice there is no reason that government should be prevented from providing the means to fill that requirement. I have argued from the inception of this bill that if the newspapers were providing this service in a cost effective, consumer friendly way there would be no need for this bill. The fact is that the purpose of legal notice is best served when the legal notices can be accessed from a centralized source of information. The newspapers do not provide that on anything wider than local level, nor do they do it as cheaply as it could be done. If the newspapers were providing an easy way for people to access the legal notices from various papers I would not see any reason for the government to provide that service. Personally I don't see Sen. Urquhart exhibiting a victim mentality but even if he were I don't care one bit why someone is proposing this bill (or any other bill) - I only care that what the bill proposes seems to be good for citizens. I would like to make it clear that I have never suggested that the newspapers are evil or nasty (let alone both). I simply think that they are making use of their dominance of the public discourse arena to further their economic interests while pretending that they are not considering their own benefit. There is nothing wrong with seeking your own benefit – that’s the central premise of capitalism.

This is not simply a question of government vs free market. The equation is not a free market equation because legal notice as a concept does not exist without government regulation. When government mandates that we publish legal notice there is no reason that government should be prevented from providing the means to fill that requirement. I have argued from the inception of this bill that if the newspapers were providing this service in a cost effective, consumer friendly way there would be no need for this bill. The fact is that the purpose of legal notice is best served when the legal notices can be accessed from a centralized source of information. The newspapers do not provide that on anything wider than local level, nor do they do it as cheaply as it could be done. If the newspapers were providing an easy way for people to access the legal notices from various papers I would not see any reason for the government to provide that service.

Personally I don’t see Sen. Urquhart exhibiting a victim mentality but even if he were I don’t care one bit why someone is proposing this bill (or any other bill) – I only care that what the bill proposes seems to be good for citizens.

]]> By: jasonthe http://pursuit-of-liberty.davidjmiller.org/2009/predictable-responses/#comment-2064 jasonthe Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:59:47 +0000 http://www.Pursuit-of-Liberty.com/?p=1713#comment-2064 David, criticizing newspapers for asserting their opposition is altruistic while assuming that Sen. Urquhart's reasons are is a little naive. I'm surprised to see such a "free marketer" argue that government can do something better than private industry. :) I think it's also naive to assume that this will be a cheap endeavor for the state, as Urquhart promises. Things like this usually aren't, and based simply on the "victim" mentality the Senator has for how the media treats him, I think it's at least worth looking into his reasons, or who he knows that stands to benefit from it's passage before we pat ourselves on the back for fighting those evil nasty newspapers, what with all their money making as a private organization and such. David, criticizing newspapers for asserting their opposition is altruistic while assuming that Sen. Urquhart’s reasons are is a little naive.

I’m surprised to see such a “free marketer” argue that government can do something better than private industry. :)

I think it’s also naive to assume that this will be a cheap endeavor for the state, as Urquhart promises. Things like this usually aren’t, and based simply on the “victim” mentality the Senator has for how the media treats him, I think it’s at least worth looking into his reasons, or who he knows that stands to benefit from it’s passage before we pat ourselves on the back for fighting those evil nasty newspapers, what with all their money making as a private organization and such.

]]> By: David http://pursuit-of-liberty.davidjmiller.org/2009/predictable-responses/#comment-2063 David Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:43:02 +0000 http://www.Pursuit-of-Liberty.com/?p=1713#comment-2063 I also understand their opposition - I just wish they would not pretend that their opposition is simply altruistic. They should admit that the fact that this cuts into their bottom line is a big reason for them to oppose the bill. I also understand their opposition – I just wish they would not pretend that their opposition is simply altruistic. They should admit that the fact that this cuts into their bottom line is a big reason for them to oppose the bill.

]]> By: Obi wan liberali http://pursuit-of-liberty.davidjmiller.org/2009/predictable-responses/#comment-2062 Obi wan liberali Fri, 06 Mar 2009 05:12:23 +0000 http://www.Pursuit-of-Liberty.com/?p=1713#comment-2062 Interesting points David. Newspapers are struggling already with the online world. This legislation certainly would cut into their revenues, and in that regard, I understand their self-serving opposition. Best regards. Interesting points David. Newspapers are struggling already with the online world. This legislation certainly would cut into their revenues, and in that regard, I understand their self-serving opposition.

Best regards.

]]> By: David http://pursuit-of-liberty.davidjmiller.org/2009/predictable-responses/#comment-2061 David Fri, 06 Mar 2009 04:57:11 +0000 http://www.Pursuit-of-Liberty.com/?p=1713#comment-2061 I totally agree BenJoe - this is about saving money. As Sen. Urquhart said when he introduced the bill, people are still free to publish their notices in the paper, and in some cases it would make sense to do so, but they are no longer obligated to pay the newspaper rates when they have to publish a legal notice. Reach, I'll bet that his black mark was already earned - the only problem is that the newspapers also know that he has his own outlets to keep them honest. His blog may not have the readership of the Tribune or the Deseret News, but it's enough that they can't pick on him without being challenged. I totally agree BenJoe – this is about saving money. As Sen. Urquhart said when he introduced the bill, people are still free to publish their notices in the paper, and in some cases it would make sense to do so, but they are no longer obligated to pay the newspaper rates when they have to publish a legal notice.

Reach,

I’ll bet that his black mark was already earned – the only problem is that the newspapers also know that he has his own outlets to keep them honest. His blog may not have the readership of the Tribune or the Deseret News, but it’s enough that they can’t pick on him without being challenged.

]]> By: Reach Upward http://pursuit-of-liberty.davidjmiller.org/2009/predictable-responses/#comment-2060 Reach Upward Fri, 06 Mar 2009 00:10:42 +0000 http://www.Pursuit-of-Liberty.com/?p=1713#comment-2060 Nice fisking of the cry baby newspaper editors. I laughed as I read the St-Ex editorial and thought of your earlier post about SB208. I wonder if Sen. U. has picked a fight that will permanently earn him a black mark from the state's newspapers. I will watch for such bias. Nice fisking of the cry baby newspaper editors. I laughed as I read the St-Ex editorial and thought of your earlier post about SB208.

I wonder if Sen. U. has picked a fight that will permanently earn him a black mark from the state’s newspapers. I will watch for such bias.

]]> By: BenJoe http://pursuit-of-liberty.davidjmiller.org/2009/predictable-responses/#comment-2059 BenJoe Thu, 05 Mar 2009 23:23:15 +0000 http://www.Pursuit-of-Liberty.com/?p=1713#comment-2059 Great post! The problem with this argument is people think this is anti-media! It is not! This has nothing to do with peoples opinion about newspapers in general. This is about saving money and having access to legal notices. Great Job! Great post! The problem with this argument is people think this is anti-media! It is not! This has nothing to do with peoples opinion about newspapers in general. This is about saving money and having access to legal notices.

Great Job!

]]>