I’m not ready to give the Kochs and other right wing billionaires that much credit for being white knights. I would tend to share **wolfpup’s **more cynical view of their motivations.
However, what you are saying, what you are trying to suggest is their high-minded motivation, is in fact true. So whether or not the Kochs are primarily motivated by it is ultimately irrelevant.
Why is everyone focusing on political speech? It’s barely mentioned as an issue in OP; indeed OP describes a wide variety of citizens defying propaganda and trying to take the country back from vested interests and the usual politicians.
Influence of money in government is a big problem, but campaign spending is just one small part of that problem. The “revolving door” between regulators and regulatees shoud be outlawed. White-collar crimes should have consequences. Legislation should empower common people, not rent-seeking with little added value. Somehow improving campaign financing (plenty of possibilities require no constitutional amendment :smack: ) would be a good step but it’s hardly the be-all and end-all.
:eek: Businessmen motivated by greed will try to enhance their wealth. Scholars “greedy” for academic recognition will try to do valid peer-recognized research. Your bizarre reasoning seems to ignore the very nature of academics.
You mean with the same modest humility and acceptance that Republican Trogs see Roe v. Wade?
Are you going to offer the opinion that the Founding Fuckups mostly intended that the country be ruled by the economic elites, landowners in the South, businessmen in the North? That they never intended a nation devoted to citizen equality like wild-eyed revolutionaries like Thomas Paine fought for? That the American Revolution was a “bourgeois revolution”, intended only to supplant one unjust ruling class with another?
Well, then, you are almost certainly right. For whatever that’s worth.
There are a couple of interesting developments that might inspire optimism. One is the growing suspicion that sheer money is losing its definitive powers. Used to be, money could elect a Warren G. Harding, now it struggles to even nominate Jeb(!). Remember? How Jeb(!) cornered so much of the money he was the sure winner? How they spent upwards of $25 million to sway Iowa and New Hampshire and scored bupkis? Zero, zilch, *nada *damn thing? Laugh? Thought I’d surely die!
Well, used to work, didn’t it? Got Jeb(!)'s doofus of a brother nominated and “elected”. Sorta, kinda.
And the impact of the small donor? Signs, hints. Maybes. But how long will men steeped in the…ah…ethics and principles of business piss their money away if it gets them nothing? Whoever got rich writing checks?
Wonder how long it would take them to find a legal scholar to firmly assert that raising millions in campaign money from millions of small donors is unAmerican and unConstitutional?
Its not about money winning elections, it’s about money controlling the elected.
Well, yes, but isn’t that mostly about the incumbent’s desire to remain that way?
And this is as much jingoistic nonsense as what the NRA sells. Regulation doesn’t suppress freedom of speech. Some amount of regulation is what allows freedom of speech to function!
It is absolutely true that freedom of speech is essential to democracy so that all ideas are heard and considered by the populace who makes the decision. It’s a check to make sure that those in power cannot silence everyone else and thus control the populace that way.
But it doesn’t follow from this that elections need to be completely unregulated. That allows those with enough money to completely drown out the speech of others. And that sort of silencing is what freedom of speech is intended to solve!
This is why regulation exists in a democracy. They are limits created by the people to insure maximum freedom for all. But, for some reason, there’s a subpopulation of the country that can’t get this idea through their head. Any regulations take away their freedoms.
The entire point of democracy is that everyone has equal say. By letting everyone talk, you let them have their say. By giving those with more money more power to talk, you distort the marketplace of ideas. Rather than more money going towards fighting for the more popular ideas, more money goes towards fighting for the ideas that the richest people support.
And, yes, we have to balance this against the idea that we want freedom of the market. That’s why we can’t just say that everyone gets the exact same amount of money and call it a day. Again, it’s a balance. And it’s a balance that is weighted heavily towards those with money–yet that’s still not enough.
Your version of freedom of speech is the NRA version of the right to bear arms. It doesn’t mean “We need to make sure that we keep this important right, while balancing it against everything else.” To you guys, it means “This is the most important thing in existence and the world will be destroyed if we don’t keep on dismantling anything that could possibly conflict.”
Nevermind that there are multiple other democracies that get along fine without this bullshit. That frankly seem to have their representative system in better functioning order, rather than the deadlock we have.
They have reasonable restrictions that don’t take away freedom of speech but actually enhance its effectiveness. We have jingoists who seem to want freedom of speech to be the only law, and if democracy falls in the meantime, let it.
Freedom of speech has a single primary goal–to make sure that the voice of the people is not stifled. To allow ideas out there so that “we the people” can judge them. It has no legitimate bearing whatsofucking ever on limiting the use of money, even if the cronies on the Supreme Court have decided it does.
The only people that not being able to limit money helps are those who have all the money, which isn’t you or me or the vast majority of the country.
Stop turning freedom of speech into a thought terminating cliche.
Concur, but quibble. Even a democracy gets a deadlock when the people are evenly divided on an issue. An artificial deadlock, however, is a whole different monster. I doubt that vast numbers of the American people are fiercely opposed to Obama’s nominations for offices, just as for instance.
You may have good intentions. Your fellow liberals may have good intentions. I don’t trust those who are power hungry to continue to have good intentions.
I mean you may trust a Nixon or a Cheney with expanded government powers to regulate speech and press but the 19th and 20th century provide many examples of a government ought of control.
Where does the concept of freedom of speech imply that you get an equal say where that is understood to mean audience? Nowhere. Not only that it’s not said it would be impossible to put into practice. There are 300+ million in the USA. Not all will reach each other equally.
Because perfection is impossible does not mean improvement is. Maybe we cannot reach perfection, but we can do a damn sight better than we have!
Do the Koch Brothers wield more political power than your or I? It would be naive to say “No”. So, I’ll assume that you won’t. But to insist that the right to free speech must be immune from any regulation, then that is an inevitable result.
If it is wrong to have more political power by, say, force or violence, why is it OK to buy it? For cash, on the barrel head. If it is wrong for a white person to have more political power than a black person, how can it be just for a rich person to simply buy it?
Agreed, it must be carefully done. Human rights are to be respected, profoundly. But we have long recognized limits on free speech rights, this is simply another. It is good to respect, it is not good to worship.
You trust the government to regulate the press I don’t. Governments have been responsible for over 100 millions deaths in the 20th century. I don’t believe in ceding fundamental rights to ambitious individuals in government. I don’t care if the Koch’s have more access to the press.
You plan on limiting the right to assemble? The Democratic Party has more power,money, influence, and membership than the Greens is that fair?
It’s like there was a sale on excluded middles and you just went to town and bought the whole lot of them.
[ul]
[li]You seem to be saying that everyone should have equal political power. Are you?[/li][li]You seem to be saying that if someone has more political power than another, then the right to free speech must be immune from any regulation. Are you?[/li][li]You seem to be saying that power acquired by force or violence is the same as power acquired through cash in voluntary transactions. Are you saying that?[/li][/ul]
I tried to think of a way to interpret your flailing race example but it’s too incoherent to even ridicule.
Examine the previous post and the one it quotes. One post is very deliberately endorsing a perspective that recognizes shades of gray. The other is the silly sort of post we laugh at: “Clip your fingernails with a nailfile, next you’ll be chopping your limbs off with an axe.”
[QUOTE=Voltaire]
The best is the enemy of the good.
[/QUOTE]
Which is which? I ask all open-minded Dopers to forget that they think I’m an asshole and study the implications of the last post, and the implications of the excerpt it quotes.
I’m trying to understand this bizzare comment. Are you saying elucidator got all the middles, and you’re stuck with only blacks and whites?
I wonder what elucidator thinks of the old saying, “Never get into a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel”. Should the ability to buy ink be restricted since the media has an unfair advantage over the little guy?
Of all the possible interpretations available this is what you settled on? I can’t say I’m surprised but it is amusing none the less.
Let me help you out - there’s this fallacy called the excluded middle. elucidator used this fallacy so much it was like he bought them at a discount. Make sense? It’s difficult to understand, I know. To actually comprehend you’d have to be aware of the fallacy and the concept of buying things on sale.
Then there’s the introduction of the concept of what I am stuck with. It’s strange because it kind of makes me think you knew what excluded middles were, but then I didn’t mention anything about what was available to me, and the concept of being left with only blacks and whites if all the excluded middles were gone makes no sense since elucidator would be the one with only blacks and whites in that example - he excluded the middles you see.
It’s like you tried oh so hard to concoct a clever quip I feel like even thoigh you failed you should get some recognition for that. Good job! Keep trying, they can’t all be winners.
Well, you were mostly wrong with the other stuff, but this is so totally wrong, it borders on awesome! I’m not the guy arguing about the utter sanctity of free speech, such that even if it results in injustice, it must be sacred and inviolable.
“So, Senator Sanders, are you saying that the Dollar Almighty is the singlemost joy of Man’s desiring, that the sublime Church of Mammon is the foundation of all that is good and holy in America?”
About that wrong. Way past adaher wrong, lightyears beyond Bill Kristol wrong. Wow. Last time I was that wrong, I thought Jim Morrison was a poet! For about a week.
What is justice? It’s a lot easier to define free speech than justice. You can limit anything concrete in the name of something as insubstantial as justice.
When it comes to rights, the only thing that constitutes justice is government respect for rights.
Wow, that has got to be the most astounding oxymoron I have ever heard uttered on these or any forums.
Hey, dude, what do you think “government” is? You know, that “for the people, by the people” thing?
If you have reason not to trust a democratically elected government then maybe you should kick its members out on their asses through the duly enacted democratic processes and elect members and leaders that do represent your interests. Because the government truly is that democracy thing that was once touted as “the last best hope of mankind”. The government. The servants of the people. Not the billionaire Koch brothers, rogue lawbreakers, defilers of the environment, and self-serving self-enriching plutocrats, who spend billions convincing you – apparently successfully – that they, and they alone, are your friends.
Democracy is a means to an end, the end being liberty. If you use democracy to subvert liberty, such as by regulating the media, then we might as well just have a monarchy. Monarchy has proven to be the second least bad form of government, and thankfully our old mother country still has a monarch we can use.