|
|
Rank: Polio Power!
Groups: Registered User, Server Admin
Joined: 6/14/2008
Posts: 666
Points: 1,416
Location: San Diego
|
Been thinking about this subject a lot, as the Tea Party claims it supports much of what I've always envisioned-a small government that restricts the freedoms of it's citizenship to the barest minimums, only restricting what is fundamental for a functional government (e.g. taxes-country has to have them to function, but lets see how minimal we can make it.)
But here's a sort of litmus test as it were, and I've contemplated trying to write something up as a mini-article to submit to a few different publications.
What about the FCC? This is a government run organization that takes tax dollars (or funds that could otherwise be claimed for taxes) to regulate and control what the citizens can do and see/participate in based upon government standards.
Isn't this the opposite of what the Tea Party is about? A government organization telling people how to act and behave and leveling stiff penalties if they don't comply.
Here's the disclaimers- I'm not presuming the Tea Party is somehow pro-FCC, but based upon the majority of the make-up of the Tea Party and affiliations with fairly conservative organizations such as the Family Protection Council (not sure if that's the exact name, apologies for inaccuracy just dumping this out not really researching extremely yet) I don't think it'd be a leap to think the Tea Party does favor some form of media regulation on decency.
Secondly, for purpose of this argument, I'm not discussing the role the FCC plays in regulating frequencies and all those technical issues, obviously some form of oversight is required just as the internet has an oversight on domain names, but content is not (as of yet) regulated beyond criminal issues (child porn, etc.)
Thoughts? Anyone from either side care to drop in? If this topic came up on the national stage (say it was discussed on one of those Sunday shows noone watches but every other news show sums up) what would the conversation be?
|
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User, Server Admin, Administration
Joined: 3/27/2008
Posts: 1,793
Points: 3,380
Location: Arizona
|
Republicans have been in power for 20 of the past 30 years. If the right really wanted small government, they've had the advantage in making it a reality. It's just the standard right-wing hypocrisy. They get people riled up against Democrats, claiming the dems are for big government, then do nothing to fight it when they've won the peoples' support.
|
|
|
Rank: Fecal Impaction For the Win!
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User, Server Admin
Joined: 11/27/2007
Posts: 1,625
Points: 2,067
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
|
It is my understanding that the Tea Party does not have an official part affiliation.
|
|
|
Rank: Polio Power!
Groups: Registered User, Server Admin
Joined: 6/14/2008
Posts: 666
Points: 1,416
Location: San Diego
|
Razor wrote:It is my understanding that the Tea Party does not have an official part affiliation. true, nor is there any "official" tea party in and of itself. However, unless I'm mistaken all Tea Party backed candidates ran on republican primaries for this past election. Additionally, as Rik pointed out, conservatives have overseen the age of government expansion 2 out of every 3 years. That the Tea Party only bloomed during Obama's presidency also gives credence to the notion that the Tea Party (whomever and whatever that title may encompass) tends towards conservative affiliations. That's also where I was bringing in the ties between organizations such as the FPC and the tea party. So what do you say Razor? Thoughts on how the tea party (regardless of any affiliations) would stand in regards to the FCC? Would they be pro-first amendment or favor government control of speech?
|
|
|
| Users browsing this topic |
|
Guest (2)
|