Time to defund the CBC

Zachary Young · September 17, 2011

A libertarian still believes in the existence of a central government, but that its functions should consist only of those necessary to maintain peace and order (e.g. defense, policing/court system.) A libertarian will reject the left wing economic policies (higher taxes, more social spending) of the NDP, but will also reject the right wing social policies (e.g. anti-drug policies) of the conservatives.

Actually there is a split between libertarians of the anarcho-capitalist variety, usually influenced by the work of Murray Rothbard, and the minarchist variety, who essentially mimic the ideals of the classical liberals. I am of the former school of thought. I do not see how one can argue against a coercive monopoly on heavy industry, the post office, etc. but at the same time argue in favour of this monopoly for roads, the military, etc.

Zachary Young · September 17, 2011

Education is far too important to be left in the hands of the government.

g_bambino · September 17, 2011

[T]he CBC has no such "universal" benefit.

Nothing will have a universal benefit, if one believes the only benefits that matter are those that affect the individual directly. There are, however, indirect benefits. I have no children, but I gladly pay taxes that go into the education system because better educated individuals will make for a better society from which I benefit.

There's also a difference between saying the CBC has no, or a minor, universal benefit now and saying the CBC can never be of any universal - or, let's say broad - benefit. I'm the first to agree that the CBC has become bloated and lost much of its sense of purpose. That doesn't, though, mean I think the answer is to get rid of it.

[c/e]

Edited September 17, 2011 by g_bambino

CANADIEN · September 17, 2011

Education is far too important to be left in the hands of the government.

Education is far too important to be left at the sole mercy of the market.

Case in point in yesterday's Toronto Star. Perfect example of the consequence of no government, or a government not doing its job.link

CANADIEN · September 17, 2011

Nothing will have a universal benefit, if the one believes the only benefits that matter are those that affect the individual directly. There are, however, indirect benefits. I have no children, but I gladly pay taxes that go into the education system because better educated individuals will make for a better society from which I benefit.

There's also a difference between saying the CBC has no, or a minor, universal benefit now and saying the CBC can never be of any universal benefit. I'm the first to agree that the CBC has become bloated and lost its sense of purpose. That doesn't, though, mean I think the answer is to get rid of it.

The need for a State owned public broadcaster was evident 75 years ago. The lack of need today is evident. I still think the PBS model is the way to go.

segnosaur · September 17, 2011

[T]he CBC has no such "universal" benefit.

Nothing will have a universal benefit, if the one believes the only benefits that matter are those that affect the individual directly. There are, however, indirect benefits. I have no children, but I gladly pay taxes that go into the education system because better educated individuals will make for a better society from which I benefit.

Ummm... go back to post 300. That's where I already dealt with the issue. (I pretty much made the same argument in order to distinguish why publicly funded education is acceptable, but CBC funding is not.

Note also that I said "universal" benefit, as opposed to "direct" benefit. Also note that I put the word "universal" in quotes for a reason. (Basically, because I do recognize that there may be individuals who may never benefit directly, but the benefits are still wide-spread in society.)

There's also a difference between saying the CBC has no, or a minor, universal benefit now and saying the CBC can never be of any universal benefit.

So, is your argument "Its not useful to everyone now but it might be in the future"? If it doesn't have "universal" (or at least widespread) benefit now, how long should we wait until it does have a benefit before we say enough? One year? One decade?

I'm the first to agree that the CBC has become bloated and lost its sense of purpose. That doesn't, though, mean I think the answer is to get rid of it.

Well, if it really has "lost its sense of purpose", but the country is still surviving (and in some ways doing better than most other countries in the world) then maybe its not really needed at all.

g_bambino · September 17, 2011

[H]ow long should we wait until it does have a benefit before we say enough? One year? One decade?

Why would anyone answer that before anything's even been tried?

Well, if it really has "lost its sense of purpose", but the country is still surviving (and in some ways doing better than most other countries in the world) then maybe its not really needed at all.

See above.

Smallc · September 17, 2011

Not necessarily. He could be a libertarian.

An anarchist wants the elimination of all government.

Someone who believes that every tax dollar has been stolen doesn't want the elimination of all government?

cybercoma · September 18, 2011

The CBC is a crown corporation. It's employees are government employees. If they run the show, then clearly it is run by the government. I think what you guys are trying to say is that the CBC is autonomous from the PMO or Parliament. Which may or may not be true, I have no perspective on this matter, but it's just silly to say that a crown corporation is not run by the government. It is part of the government.

The government is more directly involved in healthcare than they are in the CBC, yet the doctors and nurses around this country are not government employees like they are in the England or Cuba. The employees of CBC are employees of CBC, not the government.

Zachary Young · September 18, 2011

The government is more directly involved in healthcare than they are in the CBC, yet the doctors and nurses around this country are not government employees like they are in the England or Cuba. The employees of CBC are employees of CBC, not the government.

Doctors are quasi government employees. They are government employees in the sense that lockheed martin employees in the state are government employees. Anyone who is a net tax recipient is part of the parasite class, and that includes doctors, nurses and the merchants of death, as well as politicians, welfare bums, etc.

g_bambino · September 18, 2011

Anyone who is a net tax recipient is part of the parasite class, and that includes doctors, nurses and the merchants of death, as well as politicians, welfare bums, etc.

Good grief.

jbg · September 18, 2011

This is the last straw, hiring duceppe for a morning show to spout his BS, is going to far. First we pay him to try and break up the country, now we pay him 140g's to retire from trying to break up the country, now IMO we are paying him a 100g's??? give or take to work for the CBC. This is a slap in the face for the country.

http://www.ottawasun.com/2011/08/16/watchdogs-question-duceppes-cbc-gig

Gee, I thought the CBC was a broadcasting company of the "Canadian" nation, not the pretend "nation" of Quebec.

cybercoma · September 18, 2011

Doctors are quasi government employees. They are government employees in the sense that lockheed martin employees in the state are government employees. Anyone who is a net tax recipient is part of the parasite class, and that includes doctors, nurses and the merchants of death, as well as politicians, welfare bums, etc.

Teachers too?

We should all just teach ourselves whatever it is we want to learn, right? How do you suppose the "free market" would react to such unpredictable education levels in the population?

WWWTT · September 18, 2011

Doctors are quasi government employees. They are government employees in the sense that lockheed martin employees in the state are government employees. Anyone who is a net tax recipient is part of the parasite class, and that includes doctors, nurses and the merchants of death, as well as politicians, welfare bums, etc.

Actually the CBC generates revenue from the private sector through advertising and selling programs and services.

Explain that one!

WWWTT

guyser · September 21, 2011

Doctors are quasi government employees.

BS

Unless of course you want to class every single person who may receive assistance , benefit from the govt is an employee, quasi or otherwise.

Mothers-baby bonus (is that still onging?)

TV station companies

welfare/EU recipients

Janitors at Hospitals

fellowtraveller · September 21, 2011

There's also a difference between saying the CBC has no, or a minor, universal benefit now and saying the CBC can never be of any universal - or, let's say broad - benefit. I'm the first to agree that the CBC has become bloated and lost much of its sense of purpose. That doesn't, though, mean I think the answer is to get rid of it.

I do not understand the notion that the CBC has any kind of universal benefit in 2011.

When it was formed in the Thirties, it was certainly a nation building tool and cutting edge technology which allowed Canadians to be linked for the first time. 'Linked' is probably the wrong word, since there was little interactive about CBC radio than or now.

It was a vehicle to inform.

That purpose is utterly lost today, and I suggest that increasingly the CBC is an instrument of division for Canadians rather than a tool of national unity.

I don't seek to get rid of it, I want the govt to stop paying for the entertainment of a few at the expense of all. If the supporters/viewers/listeners want to spend their own money to do whatever they want, no problem.

The switch from publicy funded public radio to privately supported public radio is what happened to the oldest public broadcaster in Canada- CKUA radio- and it has gone on to thrive.

Shwa · September 22, 2011

That purpose is utterly lost today, and I suggest that increasingly the CBC is an instrument of division for Canadians rather than a tool of national unity.

Cite please. IOW, do you have some sort of rational data you are basing your opinion on or just a feeling that the CBC is divisive?

fellowtraveller · September 22, 2011

do you have some sort of rational data

I confess it would be hard to qualify the 22 pages of this threasd as 'rational'. Same for the megathreads elsewhere here, and elsewhere elsewhere, but that is what passes for debate for Canadians on hot button issues like the CBC.

Shwa · September 22, 2011

I confess it would be hard to qualify the 22 pages of this threasd as 'rational'. Same for the megathreads elsewhere here, and elsewhere elsewhere, but that is what passes for debate for Canadians on hot button issues like the CBC.

So, in effect, what you are saying is that your opinion is based on a gut feeling and has no basis in the real world. Oh, other than debates on forums. LOL.

jbg · September 23, 2011

Cite please. IOW, do you have some sort of rational data you are basing your opinion on or just a feeling that the CBC is divisive?

Well the CBC, when it ran a forum, decided to ban the use of the words "Jew" and "Israel". My remarks wound up in the National Post in the March 10, 2004 issue (article available on PM request) and while I am not proud of the result, the fact is that for a supposedly neutral Crown Corporation it was hardly neutral.

Why am I now not proud? With the benefit of seven more years of age and experience, I realize that many people had many good times on that Board and the article helped end those good times. I may have opinions but I don't like to hurt anyone.

Shwa · September 23, 2011

Well the CBC, when it ran a forum, decided to ban the use of the words "Jew" and "Israel". My remarks wound up in the National Post in the March 10, 2004 issue (article available on PM request) and while I am not proud of the result, the fact is that for a supposedly neutral Crown Corporation it was hardly neutral.

Why am I now not proud? With the benefit of seven more years of age and experience, I realize that many people had many good times on that Board and the article helped end those good times. I may have opinions but I don't like to hurt anyone.

Do you have some evidence to cite that the CBC is supposed to be a "neutral Crown Corporation?" For example, who is to say that your anecdote isn't based on some sort of temporary contingency for one purpose or another?

Nah, forget the latter question. I'd be satisfied if you can simply answer the former.

fellowtraveller · September 23, 2011

So, in effect, what you are saying is that your opinion is based on a gut feeling and has no basis in the real world. Oh, other than debates on forums. LOL.

and this is where you post your hard evidence that the CBC is now a force for national unity.

No need to reference anything from 1936 or from the Friends of the CBC website.

Cite please.

Shwa · September 23, 2011

and this is where you post your hard evidence that the CBC is now a force for national unity.

No need to reference anything from 1936 or from the Friends of the CBC website.

Cite please.

LOL! Why would I cite in support of your false dichotomy?

I suggest that increasingly the CBC is an instrument of division for Canadians rather than a tool of national unity.

That is your quote dude. You haven't proven that the CBC is either.

If you would take a few minutes out of your busy life and find out what the actual mandate of the CBC is, you likely wouldn't foolishly post such patently false dichotomies and might gain enough of an understanding for an informative debate.

Seriously, all it takes is a few minutes.

Here, let me help you out: CBC Corporate Wesbite

November 15, 2019

What do you think the funding of the CBC should be? Should it be privatized?

Edited November 15, 2019 by PPC2019

QuebecOverCanada · November 15, 2019

Absolutely we should get rid of any financing of the CBC or any other media by the State. It has to be done quick and the CBC has to be investigated for unofficial electoral spending for the Liberals.