Dear Leftist Pazioians,
I'm going to leave this post here for a bit so, if you feel so inclined, you may make comments, posts, etc. so that I might see them.
If you really want to have a conversation, I humbly invite you to let me know.
Heck, with the the help of this post I might actually remember to look at comments once in a while.
Sincerely,
Workshop.
4 comments:
Dennis Harry wrote:
"First off I never assumed you agreed with them, what I..."
Doug's Workshop wrote:
"I'll quote myself: Repeated rulings by the Supreme Court do, in fact, start to make a moral argument.
I believe that if YOU want to change the plain language of the Constitution, you need to advocate for an amendment.
Until then, the plain language of the Constitution clearly says "free speech shall not be infringed by laws." The Supreme Court has upheld that speech does, in fact, relate to money.
Therefore, if you say "we need to stop 'the rich' from giving money,' what you're really saying is you see nothing wrong with limiting free speech. I initially laid out how ridiculous this looks when applied to other rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.
If you wish to continue to look ridiculous in light of all this, you are free to do so."
My Response Yesterday:
Your suggestion that I advocate for an amendment to the Constitution is really just a red herring, I was asking you about your interpretation.
Free speech is limited in a number of ways. I don't wish to address them all here as I don't really have the time for it today. I will address your response further in my next post.
Doug's Workshop wrote:
"Dennis, I did respond.
And in light of every post I've made, where I advocate liberty to the fullest extent possible, you want me to answer an asinine question?
Yes, I agree the Supreme Court ruled this case correctly, because the First Amendment of the Constitution plainly says Congress can't limit free speech. Since getting a message out (even one you don't personally like) requires money, yes, you're going to have to suck up the fact that some people have more money than you and will spend it in ways you don't like. I'm with Justice Thomas on this: All arbitrary campaign finance laws should be swept away. I understand you don't agree, and that's fine. There are plenty of campaign finance laws still in place, including the limit on the amount an individual can give a candidate directly.
I don't think, after 40 or so years of campaign finance rules, there's been a decrease in corruption (heck, Leland Yee was just arrested for GUN RUNNING! Maxine Waters intervened with federal regulators when they started poking around in a bank she and her husband had substantial investments in. William Jefferson kept $90k from bribes in his freezer). Campaign finance regulations are infamously called "Incumbent Reelection Laws" for a reason. So perhaps, after finding out that something doesn't work, we should try something else.
Good luck with the continued debate. I've got a IT deployment coming up, so I won't be able to continue the conversation. Feel free to drop a comment on my blog. I've even set up a special post welcoming you."
My Response:
I do not think it is an asinine question, just a direct question. All the same thanks for answering what you believed to be an asinine questions.
Now I understand your argument. You don't agree the ruling because the Supreme Court ruled on it, which was the impression you were giving me, you ruled on it because you believe that it is the correct ruling.
You certainly are not alone, the principle that freedom of speech should not be restricted is a sound one. However, I believe that there is a strong public policy argument against allowing (practically) limitless contributions. If money equals speech then more money equals more speech or at least a greater ability to be heard than those with less money. Therefore, by allowing (practically) limitless contributions, you erode the one person one vote rule by drowning out those voices which cannot afford to be heard.
As far as your argument that the campaign finance rules don't work so they should be abolished appears to be logically flawed to me. People are still being murdered and we have laws against murder so should we then abolish laws against murder because some people choose to break those laws? I do not think so and I don't think you do either. It appears that you think there is a better way to restrain corruption. We can discuss that in your blog post, I will re-post my responses there later on in the day.
For the record I am really just playing devil's advocate here, I think the entire system works exactly the way it was supposed to work from inception. A Madison quote the Government "ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority". If that does not say it all I do not know what else does.
I just wanted to update the blog here with my responses to you from yesterday.
I would not go so far to say that I am a Leftist but I suppose I would have to understand your definition of Leftist to know for sure if my views fit into what you believe a Leftist to be.
At any rate, thank you for extending the invite to continue the debate further here on this forum.
Dennis, I'm glad you stopped by. I did respond to your last post over on the paizo forums, but can do the same here.
To start with, one decision of the Supreme Court isn't necessarily good or bad. But many decisions usually occur over the course of years, if not decades. And so it is with money equated to speech.
Furthermore, as I stated in one of my postings, of course money is equated to speech. I need to purchase advertising in order to announce a new product, or to advocate for a particular candidate. Media outlets don't do that for free. If your solution is to force media to carry coverage of a particular election or political activity, I'm sorry to tell you that you've confiscated their property without their consent. Eminent domain laws do not apply to airtime, so you'll have to pay them. Now the government is in the business of deciding who gets to air their campaign commercials.
I don't know about you, but if you want corruption, that's a perfect way to start.
My definition of a leftist is pretty simple. Was the Constitution written to limit the scope of government in people's lives?
If you answer "no," congratulations, you're a leftist. That means you think the Constitution tells us what the government can do to the people.
That's really the easiest way to tell if you're a leftist. Because that means the government can force you to buy health insurance you don't want, and it can force you to hire people you don't want, and it can force you to pay them a wage that is not based in the value they provide your company.
It can force you to support "free speech" you don't agree with, or it can limit free speech under the guise of "equality."
Post a Comment