for it contains no element of violence or harm." ~ P. D. Ouspensky
Howard Stern"s the Immoral One???
Infinity Broadcasting was given a "proposed forfeiture" by the so-called 'FCC.' This was because Howard Stern did a show alleged to be "lewd and vulgar, and that it appeared to have been used to pander, titillate and shock."
Excuse me, but who's really in the wrong here?
Let's examine how both Howard Stern and the so-called 'FCC' do business using two objective standards:
1) Is the service provided voluntarily or violently; and
2) does the provider deliver the customers what was promised.
Howard Stern and his associates provide services to their customers on a mutual voluntary basis. As far as I am aware, Howard Stern has never used physical violence or threats of physical violence to get any of his customers. The people who pay Howard do so voluntarily, as do the people who listen to him. Just as important, people are free to not listen to Howard.
Howard Stern does not, to my knowledge, employ armed men to force people to listen to his show. If Howard did, I'm sure no reasonable person would argue that is a 'moral' way of doing business. I think rational people agree doing business at the barrel of a gun is, at best, 'immoral.' At the very least, most would agree it's not the way civilized people do business and certainly not the way they would want to become a customer.
Does Howard Stern provide the service or product he promises to give? Given the fact he is voluntarily renewed, I would say he does.
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the manner in which Howard Stern does business; it's 'moral,' civilized and honest. Howard does business on a voluntary basis and delivers what he promises.
Now let's look at the so-called 'FCC' and see if they are consistent with these two objective standards.
Like the United State government, the 'FCC' is just a group of men and women. The protection of 'Life, Liberty , and the Pursuit of Happiness' is a service they claim to provide. Do the men and women doing business as the United States government, including the so-called 'FCC,' provide their services on a voluntary, take it or leave it basis? Do you have a free choice whether you are a customer or not? Of course we aren't. Even if you don't want the service, payment is compulsory. Unlike Howard Stern, you cannot just 'turn off' the men and women doing business as the United States . I guess you can try, but not without risking getting killed.
Contrary to the way Howard Stern does business, the men and women doing business as the United States do employ armed men to make sure you pay. The so-called 'FCC,' the United States government, provide their services at the barrel of a gun; there is nothing voluntary about it.
Howard Stern allegedly did something that 'appeared . . . to pander, titillate and shock." Okay, and what's the intent of those so-called 'laws' providing for the 'forfeiture' of homes and prison sentences for people who do not pay for the wonderful services the men and women doing business as the United States provide? Isn't that to induce fear and terror?
Which is 'immoral,' something meant to 'pander, titillate and shock' offered on a voluntary basis you can turn off, or something imposed violently meant to induce fear and terror you cannot turn off without the risk of being killed?
Do the men and women doing business as the United States deliver what they promise i.e., protection of 'Life, Liberty , and the Pursuit of Happiness'? Remember 9/11? The truth is the men and women doing business as the United States government have no duty to protect anyone, and there is plenty of evidence of this.
'The constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the states to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.' Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616.
If your car gets stolen, can you sue the police department or the 'state' for failing to protect you? The men and women doing business as the United States government acknowledge no duty to protect anyone. If they do acknowledge an alleged duty, then how was it created? Duties and obligations are not created by violence but by voluntary agreement. Unless their 'protection' is offered freely on a voluntary, take it or leave it basis, there is no duty to protect. Remember, compulsory 'protection' is supposed to be a crime, not a legitimate way of doing business. I think it's called racketeering.
The men and women doing business as the United States government violently impose themselves on their pretended customers and don't keep their promise to protect. Big surprise: violent people not keeping their word.
The so-called 'FCC' fails both objective standards. Howard Stern does business on a voluntary basis and keeps his word, while the FCC does business violently and doesn't keep their word. Who is the 'immoral' one here? And this does not take into account the value Howard Stern creates as opposed to the so-called 'FCC,' which creates nothing of value it can voluntarily trade. You may hate Howard Stern and his show, but no rational person can dispute the fact he creates value people are willing to voluntarily pay for.
Stripped of guns and violence, the so-called 'FCC' is nothing more than a group of men and women with nothing to voluntarily trade and no way to force themselves on others. Compare that with the value Howard voluntarily creates and has created over the course of his career.
Just imagine the men and women doing business as the United States government on equal footing with Howard Stern. No guns, no violence or threats of violence to their pretended customers. Imagine if the men and women doing business as the United States government had to provide their services on a voluntary basis like Howard Stern.
But let's not leave out the 'morality' of those who support the so-called 'FCC' and/or file 'complaints' to it about Howard Stern. This issue is settled with the following question:
Do you have a right to pick up a machine gun to stop Howard Stern from voluntarily doing business with his customers?
Who's wrong here? Is it those who rely on violence to do business, those who, directly or indirectly, violently force their opinions on others, or those who create value and trade voluntarily?