Beware of “fairness.” Especially when it comes to basic rights, like freedom of speech. Freedom is better than fairness.

I’m referring to the Fairness Doctrine. It was something that the Federal Communications Commission used to impose on radio and television broadcasters in this land of the free. The doctrine was that anytime an issue was aired, both sides must be presented.

I guess nobody told the bureaucrats that a few issues might arguably have more than just two sides.

The Fairness Doctrine was repealed by Ronald Reagan’s FCC in 1982. Remember Reagan running for president, refusing to be silenced, saying, “I paid for that microphone”? The Gipper understood the importance of the right to speak freely.

Paul Weyich, chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation, points out in a recent column that when the Fairness Doctrine was repealed, many conservatives complained. They were afraid they’d be largely shut out of the mainstream media.

“What they didn’t understand,” writes Weyrich, “was that the FCC action paved the way for Rush Limbaugh . . . and the hosts of other syndicated radio shows.”

In other words, freedom allowed more voices to be heard by more people; it rejuvenated AM radio. Under the so-called Fairness Doctrine, stations couldn’t offer political talk programming any more exciting than a never-ending series of League of Women Voters debates.

Now Weyrich warns that the new Democratic Congress may seek to re-institute the unfair Fairness Doctrine. Don’t do it. Stick with freedom.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Can’t win ‘em all.

In 2005, the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision argued that it is constitutional for governments to grab private property even if not intended for strict “public use.” Governments could, if they wished, prefer one private use over another, call it “public,” and grab the property to give (or sell) to the favored party.

Widespread anger over Kelo led to legislation and ballot measures to rein in the eminent-domain abuse. Friends of property rights have enjoyed some successes, including several initiative victories this November. But there have also been setbacks. For example, the New Jersey Supreme Court has just ruled that it’s okay to seize land from those developing it in the name of holding on to the environment. And it doesn’t matter if development has already been approved by regulatory officials.

In the case before New Jersey’s high court, that was the situation. Michael Procacci Jr. had received approvals to build a couple dozen family homes in Mount Laurel. But within a month the town condemned the property, and used funds from something called a “Green Acres grant” to grab the land for itself.

Green Acres is a New Jersey state program to purchase and preserve “open spaces” for the enjoyment of persons from whom the spaces have not been stolen. Somehow I don’t think that after the government has just punched you in the gut, you’re inclined to amble around parks and lakesides with a blade of grass between your teeth and a song in your heart.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

I don’t think I could do without certain modern conveniences, like the Amish do. I need my Blackberry.

But we can still learn from the kind of self-sufficiency the Amish practice. Namely, their habit of doing entirely without government help of any kind. When somebody in the Amish community needs help, guess who helps them?

That’s right, other Amish people. Voluntarily.

But instead of applauding their independence, we seem to regard it as some kind of problem.

Or at least the state of Ohio does. They’re ordering counties in the state to do more to promote food stamps to the group. But county officials say that no matter what they do, the Amish won’t sign up, danged ornery cusses.

It’s also been reported that social workers have for years had a tough time persuading Latino immigrants to accept food stamps. Seems many struggling breadwinners are too proud to do that. This too is regarded as a “problem.”

For whom is not clear. Taxpayers are saving money, aren’t they? And a sense of pride is good, not something to be circumvented by bureaucrats. Who knows, maybe if people see that others can make it on their own, we won’t need so much welfare.

Maybe that’s the real problem. The recipients of food stamps aren’t the only constituency for welfare programs. We’ve also got the politicians and bureaucrats who administer them. To keep their own jobs, they need other folks to stay on the dole.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Congress has a problem. Intelligence. Yep. Specifically, finding someone to chair the House Intelligence Committee.

You see, California Congresswoman Jane Harman was the ranking Democrat, so one would expect her, with the Democrat takeover, to be the new chairperson. Plus, she’s a woman, which is equal to being a man, only better. And she’s even from California like Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

But Pelosi, um, (how do I put this?) [Sound of cats clawing and screeching] . . . doesn’t like Harman.

Next in line was Alcee Hastings of Florida. But Hastings came to Congress after being impeached as a judge for soliciting a bribe. Hastings’ past corruption wouldn’t make for good PR.

So, Pelosi instead chose Silvestre Reyes of Texas to serve as the new chairman. Reyes is not off to an auspicious start. Jeff Stein, a reporter with Congressional Quarterly, asked him some pretty basic questions about Al Qaeda and terrorism. Reyes didn’t have the answers.

Reeling, Reyes said, “Why do you ask me these questions at five o’clock? Can I answer in Spanish? Do you speak Spanish?”

“Poquito,”? Stein replied‚ ?meaning “a little.”

But Reyes didn’t know the answers in Spanish, either. And if you think this is a gotcha against the Democrats, Stein points out that several Republicans on the committee lack pretty basic knowledge of the subject matter.

Congress’s Intelligence problem would be funny, if it weren’t dangerous.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Arizona dairy farmer Hein Hettinga exemplifies what makes America great. Emigrate from the Netherlands. Exploit the freedom here. Find out how to make something better and cheaper. Please customers, make money, everybody happy.

So, got to find a way to stop the man, right?

Or so say many competitors in the hyper-regulated dairy industry.

If you’re a competitor watching this guy’s business grow and grow, you have two basic alternatives. You can either cheer and applaud, and say: “Gee, we’ve got to find a way to get out from under these regulations as well, so we too can compete better.” Or you can boo and hiss, and say: “Hey, no fair that he’s got more freedom than we do! We must find a way to make him wear the same handcuffs we have to wear!”

Hein got around onerous regulations by both producing the raw milk and processing it for store shelves. Because he bottles his own milk, he has been able to use a “loophole” in Depression-Era regulations to bring his product to customers more directly and cheaply. Competitors lobbied Congress to stop him. So now, in his 60s, Hettinga is battling to save his company.

Hettinga says, “They passed a law to kill one private dairy. . . . Big business shouldn’t be able to influence in this way. They went to the House and the Senate and said, ‘This guy has to be stopped.’ ”

Mr. Hettinga, you will get no argument from me.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.