German woman jailed over failure to pay broadcast fee

[dismal]

I don't find your argument even slightly convincing as governments are historically the greatest and most dangerous propagandists and distorters of information.

Governments are historically the most murderous attackers of people, therefore government should not be in charge of the military or police.
See how rational consistency works?

Also, you didn't bother to try to understand my argument. I pointed out that in non-democracies and without non-governmental press to keep it in check, government media is dangerous propaganda. But in a democracy, a voice that does not have corporate profit motives is a neccessary check on deadly (yes deadly) corporate propaganda and misinformation.
The studies that have been done testing the objective accuracy of news media in the US and UK have shown that publicly supported media is the most reliable, and its viewers the least misinformed about issues of clear objective fact.

But that aside: information about soccer?

Private companies can't be trusted to get the scores right or something? Have you ever seen television?

Sorry, no goalpost moving. Your statements have been that government has no business in the area of "TV broadcasting". I already said that it is broadcasting of factual information that is defensible if not critical for the public welfare, and that this doesn't support them broadcasting fiction or entertainment. However, soccer is something they are not creating the content of and thus less subject to propaganda influence. So, if were something they broadcast to raise revenue from sponsors to pay for informational broadcasting, then it could make sense. If they are forcing people to pay for others to watch soccer, then its bullshit.
Note that unlike yourself, I made a principled argument that distinguishes what could be included and what not.

It's not "goalpost moving" to ask you to defend government programming about soccer in a thread about government programming of soccer.

 

[ronburgundy]

Governments are historically the most murderous attackers of people, therefore government should not be in charge of the military or police.
See how rational consistency works?

Also, you didn't bother to try to understand my argument. I pointed out that in non-democracies and without non-governmental press to keep it in check, government media is dangerous propaganda. But in a democracy, a voice that does not have corporate profit motives is a neccessary check on deadly (yes deadly) corporate propaganda and misinformation.
The studies that have been done testing the objective accuracy of news media in the US and UK have shown that publicly supported media is the most reliable, and its viewers the least misinformed about issues of clear objective fact.

But that aside: information about soccer?

Private companies can't be trusted to get the scores right or something? Have you ever seen television?

Sorry, no goalpost moving. Your statements have been that government has no business in the area of "TV broadcasting". I already said that it is broadcasting of factual information that is defensible if not critical for the public welfare, and that this doesn't support them broadcasting fiction or entertainment. However, soccer is something they are not creating the content of and thus less subject to propaganda influence. So, if were something they broadcast to raise revenue from sponsors to pay for informational broadcasting, then it could make sense. If they are forcing people to pay for others to watch soccer, then its bullshit.
Note that unlike yourself, I made a principled argument that distinguishes what could be included and what not.

It's not "goalpost moving" to ask you to defend government programming about soccer in a thread about government programming of soccer.

The thread is not about soccer. Soccer is a meaningless detail. The thread and your posts have been about how you think there is zero defensible rationale for a democratic government to ever use revenues for "broadcast TV". You have made very general unqualified statements having nothing to do with soccer in particular.

 

[prideandfall]

Their soccer programming is a very small fraction of what the broadcast fee is spent on. You have several TV (ARD, ZDF, Dritte (regional channels)) and radio channels with diverse programming. Pretty much everybody would find something they intensely disliked about some of it (like for example original daytime soaps). Does that means nobody should have to pay their broadcast fee?
Now there can be a reasonable discussion if such broad approach to public broadcasting is still appropriate in the 21st century media landscape but she can't just unilaterally decide not to pay.

Construct an argument from principles for me that anyone ever should be forced to pay for TV broadcasting.

What you typed sounds more like an argument that no one should be forced to pay to me.

there is a law.
she broke that law.
according to you and derec and the other right wing SJWs around here, that means she should have been gunned down in the street by the cops.

plus, it's a WOMAN for fuck's sake!
a woman broke the law and is going to jail for it, i'd think all the D names around here would have altered the atmospheric pressure of the western hemisphere with how hard that would have made you.

what exactly is your problem here? that she wasn't executed by cops?

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Sieglinde Baumert began a six-month prison sentence in February after refusing to co-operate with the authorities trying to force her to pay the public broadcaster fee.


The 46-year-old from Geisa, Thuringia, found herself confronted with a bailiff and two police officers at her workplace one day.

...

She was marched off to a police station and then to jail in Chemnitz, Saxony – and a notice that she was being let go from her job followed soon after.

But the broadcaster fee refusenik, who stopped paying in 2013, believes that her cause is just.

She and other opponents of the fees argue that public TV channels ARD and ZDF and radio broadcaster Deutschlandradio are massively overfinanced and have overstepped the bounds of the “basic service” the law calls on them to provide.

“For example, I can't understand football at all,” Baumert said. “When I then read: one minute of the 'Sportschau' [sports news show] costs €40,000, then I ask myself why I should invest a single cent towards that.”

http://www.thelocal.de/20160404/first-person-ever-jailed-for-public-broadcaster-fee

Where in the great pantheon of statist virtues does sending someone to jail for not wanting to pay for government soccer coverage get justified?

Quick question:

Was she actually arrested and thrown in jail for not paying her fair share of soccer broadcast fees...
or was she actually arrested for not paying taxes and then blamed her intransigence on a programming dispute?

Is it acceptable to 'demonstrate' the unfairness of a law by breaking it? Because that seems to be a non-starter for the vast majority of the rightists - until it comes to taxes.

aa

 

[dismal]

Governments are historically the most murderous attackers of people, therefore government should not be in charge of the military or police.
See how rational consistency works?

Also, you didn't bother to try to understand my argument. I pointed out that in non-democracies and without non-governmental press to keep it in check, government media is dangerous propaganda. But in a democracy, a voice that does not have corporate profit motives is a neccessary check on deadly (yes deadly) corporate propaganda and misinformation.
The studies that have been done testing the objective accuracy of news media in the US and UK have shown that publicly supported media is the most reliable, and its viewers the least misinformed about issues of clear objective fact.

But that aside: information about soccer?

Private companies can't be trusted to get the scores right or something? Have you ever seen television?

Sorry, no goalpost moving. Your statements have been that government has no business in the area of "TV broadcasting". I already said that it is broadcasting of factual information that is defensible if not critical for the public welfare, and that this doesn't support them broadcasting fiction or entertainment. However, soccer is something they are not creating the content of and thus less subject to propaganda influence. So, if were something they broadcast to raise revenue from sponsors to pay for informational broadcasting, then it could make sense. If they are forcing people to pay for others to watch soccer, then its bullshit.
Note that unlike yourself, I made a principled argument that distinguishes what could be included and what not.

It's not "goalpost moving" to ask you to defend government programming about soccer in a thread about government programming of soccer.

The thread is not about soccer. Soccer is a meaningless detail. The thread and your posts have been about how you think there is zero defensible rationale for a democratic government to ever use revenues for "broadcast TV". You have made very general unqualified statements having nothing to do with soccer in particular.

The woman being sent to jail specifically objected to government programming about soccer. Do you think the government should force people to pay for soccer programming they don't want or not?

 

[bilby]

Governments are historically the most murderous attackers of people, therefore government should not be in charge of the military or police.
See how rational consistency works?

Also, you didn't bother to try to understand my argument. I pointed out that in non-democracies and without non-governmental press to keep it in check, government media is dangerous propaganda. But in a democracy, a voice that does not have corporate profit motives is a neccessary check on deadly (yes deadly) corporate propaganda and misinformation.
The studies that have been done testing the objective accuracy of news media in the US and UK have shown that publicly supported media is the most reliable, and its viewers the least misinformed about issues of clear objective fact.

But that aside: information about soccer?

Private companies can't be trusted to get the scores right or something? Have you ever seen television?

Sorry, no goalpost moving. Your statements have been that government has no business in the area of "TV broadcasting". I already said that it is broadcasting of factual information that is defensible if not critical for the public welfare, and that this doesn't support them broadcasting fiction or entertainment. However, soccer is something they are not creating the content of and thus less subject to propaganda influence. So, if were something they broadcast to raise revenue from sponsors to pay for informational broadcasting, then it could make sense. If they are forcing people to pay for others to watch soccer, then its bullshit.
Note that unlike yourself, I made a principled argument that distinguishes what could be included and what not.

It's not "goalpost moving" to ask you to defend government programming about soccer in a thread about government programming of soccer.

The thread is not about soccer. Soccer is a meaningless detail. The thread and your posts have been about how you think there is zero defensible rationale for a democratic government to ever use revenues for "broadcast TV". You have made very general unqualified statements having nothing to do with soccer in particular.

The woman being sent to jail specifically objected to government programming about soccer. Do you think the government should force people to pay for soccer programming they don't want or not?

She did NOT, however, only fail to pay the fraction of the fee that related to soccer. She failed to pay the fee at all.

Her stated reasons for her actions don't conform to her actions. The soccer thing is a red herring; she doesn't want to pay the fee at all. For ANY of the programming. This is not about soccer. It never was.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Governments are historically the most murderous attackers of people, therefore government should not be in charge of the military or police.
See how rational consistency works?

Also, you didn't bother to try to understand my argument. I pointed out that in non-democracies and without non-governmental press to keep it in check, government media is dangerous propaganda. But in a democracy, a voice that does not have corporate profit motives is a neccessary check on deadly (yes deadly) corporate propaganda and misinformation.
The studies that have been done testing the objective accuracy of news media in the US and UK have shown that publicly supported media is the most reliable, and its viewers the least misinformed about issues of clear objective fact.

But that aside: information about soccer?

Private companies can't be trusted to get the scores right or something? Have you ever seen television?

Sorry, no goalpost moving. Your statements have been that government has no business in the area of "TV broadcasting". I already said that it is broadcasting of factual information that is defensible if not critical for the public welfare, and that this doesn't support them broadcasting fiction or entertainment. However, soccer is something they are not creating the content of and thus less subject to propaganda influence. So, if were something they broadcast to raise revenue from sponsors to pay for informational broadcasting, then it could make sense. If they are forcing people to pay for others to watch soccer, then its bullshit.
Note that unlike yourself, I made a principled argument that distinguishes what could be included and what not.

It's not "goalpost moving" to ask you to defend government programming about soccer in a thread about government programming of soccer.

The thread is not about soccer. Soccer is a meaningless detail. The thread and your posts have been about how you think there is zero defensible rationale for a democratic government to ever use revenues for "broadcast TV". You have made very general unqualified statements having nothing to do with soccer in particular.

The woman being sent to jail specifically objected to government programming about soccer. Do you think the government should force people to pay for soccer programming they don't want or not?

Several channels are funded by the State, so if she doesn't like soccer there are other ones she can watch.

 

[dismal]

Governments are historically the most murderous attackers of people, therefore government should not be in charge of the military or police.
See how rational consistency works?

Also, you didn't bother to try to understand my argument. I pointed out that in non-democracies and without non-governmental press to keep it in check, government media is dangerous propaganda. But in a democracy, a voice that does not have corporate profit motives is a neccessary check on deadly (yes deadly) corporate propaganda and misinformation.
The studies that have been done testing the objective accuracy of news media in the US and UK have shown that publicly supported media is the most reliable, and its viewers the least misinformed about issues of clear objective fact.

But that aside: information about soccer?

Private companies can't be trusted to get the scores right or something? Have you ever seen television?

Sorry, no goalpost moving. Your statements have been that government has no business in the area of "TV broadcasting". I already said that it is broadcasting of factual information that is defensible if not critical for the public welfare, and that this doesn't support them broadcasting fiction or entertainment. However, soccer is something they are not creating the content of and thus less subject to propaganda influence. So, if were something they broadcast to raise revenue from sponsors to pay for informational broadcasting, then it could make sense. If they are forcing people to pay for others to watch soccer, then its bullshit.
Note that unlike yourself, I made a principled argument that distinguishes what could be included and what not.

It's not "goalpost moving" to ask you to defend government programming about soccer in a thread about government programming of soccer.

The thread is not about soccer. Soccer is a meaningless detail. The thread and your posts have been about how you think there is zero defensible rationale for a democratic government to ever use revenues for "broadcast TV". You have made very general unqualified statements having nothing to do with soccer in particular.

I created the thread. I think I know what it is about. It is about seeing if people can defend the government producing TV programs about soccer and jailing people who won't pay for them. Soccer is only a trivial detail in that it could be anything trivial or entertainment related. Now, if you wish to take a shot at this defense go ahead. But at least stop wasting time dodging the topic. You are free not to post if you do not wish to engage.

 

[ksen]

I created the thread. I think I know what it is about. It is about seeing if people can defend the government producing TV programs about soccer and jailing people who won't pay for them.

At least you admit your strawmanning. That's the first step towards recovery.

 

[dismal]

I created the thread. I think I know what it is about. It is about seeing if people can defend the government producing TV programs about soccer and jailing people who won't pay for them.

At least you admit your strawmanning. That's the first step towards recovery.

I'll put you down as a "no, can't defend".

 

[ksen]

Don't relapse already!

 

[ronburgundy]

Governments are historically the most murderous attackers of people, therefore government should not be in charge of the military or police.
See how rational consistency works?

Also, you didn't bother to try to understand my argument. I pointed out that in non-democracies and without non-governmental press to keep it in check, government media is dangerous propaganda. But in a democracy, a voice that does not have corporate profit motives is a neccessary check on deadly (yes deadly) corporate propaganda and misinformation.
The studies that have been done testing the objective accuracy of news media in the US and UK have shown that publicly supported media is the most reliable, and its viewers the least misinformed about issues of clear objective fact.

But that aside: information about soccer?

Private companies can't be trusted to get the scores right or something? Have you ever seen television?

Sorry, no goalpost moving. Your statements have been that government has no business in the area of "TV broadcasting". I already said that it is broadcasting of factual information that is defensible if not critical for the public welfare, and that this doesn't support them broadcasting fiction or entertainment. However, soccer is something they are not creating the content of and thus less subject to propaganda influence. So, if were something they broadcast to raise revenue from sponsors to pay for informational broadcasting, then it could make sense. If they are forcing people to pay for others to watch soccer, then its bullshit.
Note that unlike yourself, I made a principled argument that distinguishes what could be included and what not.

It's not "goalpost moving" to ask you to defend government programming about soccer in a thread about government programming of soccer.

The thread is not about soccer. Soccer is a meaningless detail. The thread and your posts have been about how you think there is zero defensible rationale for a democratic government to ever use revenues for "broadcast TV". You have made very general unqualified statements having nothing to do with soccer in particular.

The woman being sent to jail specifically objected to government programming about soccer. Do you think the government should force people to pay for soccer programming they don't want or not?

I already answered that two posts prior (see bolded above), and note that this woman may not be paying anything for soccer. The stations may actual make a profit on soccer via sponsors that they then use to help pay for other programming. I'll add that it is actually plausible that soccer (especially due to its international nature and extreme popularity across Europe) could serve a societal function that a goverrnment would have an interest in promoting. However, in an era where numerous commercial outlets would be happy to broadcast the identical programming, it seems illegitimate to use precious public revenues for that purpose.

Regardless, soccer isn't relevant to your repeated and far more general claim that no form of TV broadcast (including news and info important for public safety) is a legit thing for the government to be involved in.
Does your shifted focus to only soccer mean you no longer stand by that position?

 

[dismal]

To make things easier I'll ignore your evasions and sidetracks and focus on those tidbits that have some relevance to the actual point of the thread:

However, soccer is something they are not creating the content of and thus less subject to propaganda influence.

That something is less likely to have propaganda influence is not a positive argument that government should provide it.

So, if were something they broadcast to raise revenue from sponsors to pay for informational broadcasting, then it could make sense.

The business model here seems to be "send the people who don't pay for whatever you broadcast to jail". As such this is a rather pathetic argument. They could air whatever dreck they want given the power to imprison people who don't want it.

Someone who really thought about this might consider the possibility that people voluntarily being willing to pay for something creates incentives to produce programs for which people actually would be willing to pay.

If they are forcing people to pay for others to watch soccer, then its bullshit.

It seem on its face they are forcing people to don't want soccer programs to subsidize those who do. This seems a rather gratuitous and unnecessary use of force.

I'll add that it is actually plausible that soccer (especially due to its international nature and extreme popularity across Europe) could serve a societal function that a goverrnment would have an interest in promoting.

Do you have some evidence that soccer programs are being under-provided by the private sector? Or that government is better at providing them?

Given its "extreme popularity" I would think the private sector could handle providing all of the soccer programs people were willing to pay for. Do you have some evidence it does not?

Or are you just a fan of gratuitous force and completely unnecessary jail sentences?

However, in an era where numerous commercial outlets would be happy to broadcast the identical programming, it seems illegitimate to use precious public revenues for that purpose.

It's more than "unnecessary", it's immoral and wrong to imprison people over things the government cannot justify doing. The default state should be we are free to do with our property what we wish. There must be some compelling reason for government to use force and threat of prison to take our property and deploy it against our wishes. There is no compelling reason here.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Sieglinde Baumert began a six-month prison sentence in February after refusing to co-operate with the authorities trying to force her to pay the public broadcaster fee.


The 46-year-old from Geisa, Thuringia, found herself confronted with a bailiff and two police officers at her workplace one day.

...

She was marched off to a police station and then to jail in Chemnitz, Saxony – and a notice that she was being let go from her job followed soon after.

But the broadcaster fee refusenik, who stopped paying in 2013, believes that her cause is just.

She and other opponents of the fees argue that public TV channels ARD and ZDF and radio broadcaster Deutschlandradio are massively overfinanced and have overstepped the bounds of the “basic service” the law calls on them to provide.

“For example, I can't understand football at all,” Baumert said. “When I then read: one minute of the 'Sportschau' [sports news show] costs €40,000, then I ask myself why I should invest a single cent towards that.”

http://www.thelocal.de/20160404/first-person-ever-jailed-for-public-broadcaster-fee

Where in the great pantheon of statist virtues does sending someone to jail for not wanting to pay for government soccer coverage get justified?

It's a bit silly how it's formulated. She went to jail for owing money. She wasn't jailed specifically for not paying this tax. Same thing would have happened regardless of which tax she didn't pay. Or owing money for anything.

Another way to put it, let's say she went to a restaurant and ate dinner once a week there for 4 years and refused to pay all that time. And they kept serving her. It's the same amount of money about. It adds up. That's the kind of crime she was sentenced for.

If we think taxes should be optional this needs to be passed in an election by a parliament. Just deciding not to pay never worked for anyone.

 

[ronburgundy]

To make things easier I'll ignore your evasions and sidetracks and focus on those tidbits that have some relevance to the actual point of the thread:

You are the only one evading you complete inability to support your repeated assertion that their is no legit reason for government to ever broadcast any information on TV.
That is what the thread is about, and your current evasions are directly refuted by your own words.

That something is less likely to have propaganda influence is not a positive argument that government should provide it.

It is a argument against it being wrong for government to provide it beyond the economic impact. Propaganda has negative harmful value in a democracy, so even it costs zero revenue to do it, government should not do it. I was pointing out that while their are forms of TV broadcasts that the government should not do regardless of economic issues, Soccer is not among them and neither is providing factual information.

So, if were something they broadcast to raise revenue from sponsors to pay for informational broadcasting, then it could make sense.

The business model here seems to be "send the people who don't pay for whatever you broadcast to jail". As such this is a rather pathetic argument. They could air whatever dreck they want given the power to imprison people who don't want it.

That is not a business model. That is the model of all governments who enforce any laws. She is refusing to pay her taxes, pure and simple. The "model" is identical to that which all governments use to enforce taxation requirements.
This has zero relevance to my argument that programming which by itself would not be justified and should not be the main function of any government broadcasting could be justified if it does not add to the cost or even helps to fund the main broadcasting whose content is justified.

Someone who really thought about this might consider the possibility that people voluntarily being willing to pay for something creates incentives to produce programs for which people actually would be willing to pay.

If they are forcing people to pay for others to watch soccer, then its bullshit.

If that were true, then I would agree. But You have no evidence of that. Like I already said, these stations have corporate sponsors and I believe even some commercials. IT is quite plausible that the soccer costs her or any taxpayer nothing and in fact raises revenue from sponsors so that taxpayers have to pay less for the informational/news broadcasting on these stations.

I'll add that it is actually plausible that soccer (especially due to its international nature and extreme popularity across Europe) could serve a societal function that a goverrnment would have an interest in promoting.

Do you have some evidence that soccer programs are being under-provided by the private sector? Or that government is better at providing them?

Given its "extreme popularity" I would think the private sector could handle providing all of the soccer programs people were willing to pay for. Do you have some evidence it does not?

Or are you just a fan of gratuitous force and completely unnecessary jail sentences?

At least try to pretend you care about understanding what you are knee-jerk reacting to. I completely address what your ranting about in the very next sentence.

However, in an era where numerous commercial outlets would be happy to broadcast the identical programming, it seems illegitimate to use precious public revenues for that purpose.

I notice you predictably and now for the 4th time refused to address the request for support or admission of defeat for your repeated claims that not just soccer but any form of TV broadcasting is wrong for the government to engage in.

 

[dismal]

You are the only one evading you complete inability to support your repeated assertion that their is no legit reason for government to ever broadcast any information on TV.
That is what the thread is about, and your current evasions are directly refuted by your own words.

That something is less likely to have propaganda influence is not a positive argument that government should provide it.

It is a argument against it being wrong for government to provide it beyond the economic impact. Propaganda has negative harmful value in a democracy, so even it costs zero revenue to do it, government should not do it. I was pointing out that while their are forms of TV broadcasts that the government should not do regardless of economic issues, Soccer is not among them and neither is providing factual information.

So, if were something they broadcast to raise revenue from sponsors to pay for informational broadcasting, then it could make sense.

The business model here seems to be "send the people who don't pay for whatever you broadcast to jail". As such this is a rather pathetic argument. They could air whatever dreck they want given the power to imprison people who don't want it.

That is not a business model. That is the model of all governments who enforce any laws. She is refusing to pay her taxes, pure and simple. The "model" is identical to that which all governments use to enforce taxation requirements.
This has zero relevance to my argument that programming which by itself would not be justified and should not be the main function of any government broadcasting could be justified if it does not add to the cost or even helps to fund the main broadcasting whose content is justified.

Someone who really thought about this might consider the possibility that people voluntarily being willing to pay for something creates incentives to produce programs for which people actually would be willing to pay.

If they are forcing people to pay for others to watch soccer, then its bullshit.

If that were true, then I would agree. But You have no evidence of that. Like I already said, these stations have corporate sponsors and I believe even some commercials. IT is quite plausible that the soccer costs her or any taxpayer nothing and in fact raises revenue from sponsors so that taxpayers have to pay less for the informational/news broadcasting on these stations.

I'll add that it is actually plausible that soccer (especially due to its international nature and extreme popularity across Europe) could serve a societal function that a goverrnment would have an interest in promoting.

Do you have some evidence that soccer programs are being under-provided by the private sector? Or that government is better at providing them?

Given its "extreme popularity" I would think the private sector could handle providing all of the soccer programs people were willing to pay for. Do you have some evidence it does not?

Or are you just a fan of gratuitous force and completely unnecessary jail sentences?

At least try to pretend you care about understanding what you are knee-jerk reacting to. I completely address what your ranting about in the very next sentence.

However, in an era where numerous commercial outlets would be happy to broadcast the identical programming, it seems illegitimate to use precious public revenues for that purpose.

I notice you predictably and now for the 4th time refused to address the request for support or admission of defeat for your repeated claims that not just soccer but any form of TV broadcasting is wrong for the government to engage in.

Sorry, I see nothing in here suggesting government force and harsh jail sentences are necessary to address the chronic under-provision of private soccer programming in Germany.

 

[ronburgundy]

You are the only one evading you complete inability to support your repeated assertion that their is no legit reason for government to ever broadcast any information on TV.
That is what the thread is about, and your current evasions are directly refuted by your own words.




It is a argument against it being wrong for government to provide it beyond the economic impact. Propaganda has negative harmful value in a democracy, so even it costs zero revenue to do it, government should not do it. I was pointing out that while their are forms of TV broadcasts that the government should not do regardless of economic issues, Soccer is not among them and neither is providing factual information.

So, if were something they broadcast to raise revenue from sponsors to pay for informational broadcasting, then it could make sense.

The business model here seems to be "send the people who don't pay for whatever you broadcast to jail". As such this is a rather pathetic argument. They could air whatever dreck they want given the power to imprison people who don't want it.

That is not a business model. That is the model of all governments who enforce any laws. She is refusing to pay her taxes, pure and simple. The "model" is identical to that which all governments use to enforce taxation requirements.
This has zero relevance to my argument that programming which by itself would not be justified and should not be the main function of any government broadcasting could be justified if it does not add to the cost or even helps to fund the main broadcasting whose content is justified.

Someone who really thought about this might consider the possibility that people voluntarily being willing to pay for something creates incentives to produce programs for which people actually would be willing to pay.

If they are forcing people to pay for others to watch soccer, then its bullshit.

If that were true, then I would agree. But You have no evidence of that. Like I already said, these stations have corporate sponsors and I believe even some commercials. IT is quite plausible that the soccer costs her or any taxpayer nothing and in fact raises revenue from sponsors so that taxpayers have to pay less for the informational/news broadcasting on these stations.

I'll add that it is actually plausible that soccer (especially due to its international nature and extreme popularity across Europe) could serve a societal function that a goverrnment would have an interest in promoting.

Do you have some evidence that soccer programs are being under-provided by the private sector? Or that government is better at providing them?

Given its "extreme popularity" I would think the private sector could handle providing all of the soccer programs people were willing to pay for. Do you have some evidence it does not?

Or are you just a fan of gratuitous force and completely unnecessary jail sentences?

At least try to pretend you care about understanding what you are knee-jerk reacting to. I completely address what your ranting about in the very next sentence.

However, in an era where numerous commercial outlets would be happy to broadcast the identical programming, it seems illegitimate to use precious public revenues for that purpose.

I notice you predictably and now for the 4th time refused to address the request for support or admission of defeat for your repeated claims that not just soccer but any form of TV broadcasting is wrong for the government to engage in.

Sorry, I see nothing in here suggesting government force and harsh jail sentences are necessary to address the chronic under-provision of private soccer programming in Germany.

No one has ever argued there is a chronic under provision of soccer programming that the government should rectify, because it has zero relevance to the thread. What you do see in my post are arguments you are incapable of responding to because they expose your frantic back-peddling refusal to defend claims that you now realize are indefensible but lack the courage to admit it.

 

[dismal]

No one has ever argued there is a chronic under provision of soccer programming that the government should rectify, because it has zero relevance to the thread. What you do see in my post are arguments you are incapable of responding to because they expose your frantic back-peddling refusal to defend claims that you now realize are indefensible but lack the courage to admit it.

It is in fact my argument that there is no reason the government should use force and prison to provide things which would not otherwise be under-provided.

Why would you want the government to jail people if they don't pay for things that would otherwise exist in sufficient quantities? Just to quench your inner fascist? You get off on ordering people about?

 

[Malintent]

Broadcast fee is not a tax

Exactly.. nor do you have to pay it of you do not own a TV.

Unlike American Federal taxes for say, the interstate highway system, despite not owning a car.

 

[ronburgundy]

No one has ever argued there is a chronic under provision of soccer programming that the government should rectify, because it has zero relevance to the thread. What you do see in my post are arguments you are incapable of responding to because they expose your frantic back-peddling refusal to defend claims that you now realize are indefensible but lack the courage to admit it.

It is in fact my argument that there is no reason the government should use force and prison to provide things which would not otherwise be under-provided.

Why would you want the government to jail people if they don't pay for things that would otherwise exist in sufficient quantities? Just to quench your inner fascist? You get off on ordering people about?

For the Nth time, you claimed they should never provide "TV broadcasting". When I pointed out that includes factual information programming, you continued to claim that this doesn't meet the minimum standard of justification that other things do, which are legit roles of government. When I asked you to support your claimed principles that only support those things and not factual information programming, you refused and then moved the goal posts to pretend you were only ever talking about soccer.

Are you now willing to reclaim your assertion that no possible form or content of TV broadcasting is appropriate, and support it by saying that accurate and factual information would in no way be under-provided by a commercial marketplace?

Admit to this position in an unequivocal way that you cannot later weasel out of, and I will give you an argument why you claim is incorrect and commercial media would and does fail miserably to provide important factual information critical to public safety, liberty, and the benefits of a democratic system.