Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Taxpayer and TV rights

The NZ Herald says "The cost to the taxpayer of the bid for Rugby World Cup broadcasting rights will be "considerably" less than the $5 million speculated, Prime Minister John Key says."

So give one good reason why it shouldn't be nil?

This is a very popular event that many will want to watch, it presumably has some commercial viability for a broadcaster, New Zealand has four different free to air nationwide TV network operators that could do so (TVNZ, TV3, Prime and MTS), so for what conceivable reason should taxpayers be forced to pay to buy the rights to a sports event to be broadcast?

Oh, and doesn't this make the claim that National is about less government interference in your life rather vacuous?

Go on, look at your TV listings and find the long list of sports events and other events on free to air television that DIDN'T have you being forced to pay for it.

This whole issue has been a complete debacle, a waste of time and your money. The government should have had no more to do with this than it has had with other sports broadcasting rights over many years.

Yet the majority of you trust this lot to buy your healthcare, your kids' education and a retirement.

Why?

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yep we do leave education etc to the government and while it aint perfect it also aint bad. Where were you educated Liberty?
Good on MTV for being so proactive. I know there were a shitload of people out there willing it to fail. It has done quite the opposite and built a steady viewership. Good on John Key too. The man is pragmatic.
You ask why? Well as I said above most of us think we get reasonable value for our money. So why not libertaranism? I think for a lot of people it is simply that you lot come across as a cult. Really intense but at the end of the day a message of selling just about all state and local body assets is just never going to cut it. It is simply too looney and people know that. Your profile mentions life, liberty, happiness and private property. You can have those things in abundance without selling the family silver. You have lifted a good chunk of the first sentence of the second chapter of one of the greatest documents ever written but I'm not sure the founding fathers would have agreed with everything else you stand for.

libertyscott said...

Anonymous: The value of the education in the state sector varies from child to child, you can't assert it aint bad as it depends on the consumer.

I was educated at an independent school then a state school, got both worlds, saw good and bad in both.

How was MTV proactive? It didn't borrow money, it sought to make others pay for the rights?

I don't know if most people think they get reasonable value for money, not as if they have any choice is there? If people could choose to opt out there there might be better performance by the state sector - health care in particular.

I believe privatisation doesn't need to involve selling, but also giving shares to the public - actual public ownership. The family silver often costs more than it is worth, take Kiwirail. There is no point the state owning any commercial activities unless it can generate a commercial return, otherwise it ties up money that should be held by taxpayers in a poor investment.

However I take your point, state ownership doesn't necessarily mean denying freedom, as long as the taxpayer is never asked to pick up the tab.