In the realm of stupid socialism, Frenchies subsidize music purchases

[Lewkowski]

It was implied that I wouldn't support the case you were making. Otherwise I wouldn't have outlined why it was a bad idea.

Nah I was just pointing out hypocrisy in supporting the status quo prior to the supreme court ruling that unfairly targeted business groups. But since you've made it clear you don't support any group giving money you are at least being consistent.

Excellent. However you have to understand that giving people money is not speech or a protected form of expression, and rights are inherent to people, not non-living entities like corporations, unions, or groups, and it would be best not to confuse laws, which can apply to both people and things, with rights, which apply to people.

Don't conflate two issues.

First what is speech.

Second is who gets it.

On the matter of the first, paying for newspaper ads, printed pamphlets, TV commercials and the like IS speech. The test is very simple. Would you be OK with the government banning someone from using said mediums to express their point of view? Again the source doesn't matter until we get to question #2. Answer the first one and we can have a discussion but if you conflate the two then your just glossing over an important distinction.

[Being]

Nah I was just pointing out hypocrisy in supporting the status quo prior to the supreme court ruling that unfairly targeted business groups. But since you've made it clear you don't support any group giving money you are at least being consistent.



Don't conflate two issues.

First what is speech.

Second is who gets it.

On the matter of the first, paying for newspaper ads, printed pamphlets, TV commercials and the like IS speech. The test is very simple. Would you be OK with the government banning someone from using said mediums to express their point of view? Again the source doesn't matter until we get to question #2. Answer the first one and we can have a discussion but if you conflate the two then your just glossing over an important distinction.

Who are you talking to?

[Illusions]

On the matter of the first, paying for newspaper ads, printed pamphlets, TV commercials and the like IS speech. The test is very simple. Would you be OK with the government banning someone from using said mediums to express their point of view? Again the source doesn't matter until we get to question #2. Answer the first one and we can have a discussion but if you conflate the two then your just glossing over an important distinction.

You've already messed this whole thing up by equating the actual use of a medium with paying to use it.

[Aimless]

There should be laws against promoting drunk driving.

[']['ear]

By "bribery", do you mean political contributions? If so, are you against billionaires "bribing" politicians? How about unions?

So you're for people bribing politicians?

You seemed to suggest billionaires shouldn't be able to contribute. Why is a corporation any worse than a rich person anyway? Do corporations not have interests?

So you think corporations should exactly the same rights as citizens?

I didn't say I supported it I asked if you would support it. To be clear my position is that there should be no limits on the most sacred form of speech there is - political speech.

So you think that our elections should be auctions?

[Loki]

So you're for people bribing politicians?

Illusions defined bribing as giving political contributions. So sure, I support the right of people to give political contributions. It's the only way to have multiple viewpoints represented.

So you think corporations should exactly the same rights as citizens?

As I recall, any right that is not denied in the Constitution lies with the states or people. Since I'm not aware of the Constitution banning political contributions from corporations, nor states doing so, I fail to see under what grounds corporations shouldn't be able to contribute (coincidentally, the Supreme Court agrees with me).

So you think that our elections should be auctions?

If only electoral victory was so simple as to be a function of campaign spending.

[']['ear]

Illusions defined bribing as giving political contributions. So sure, I support the right of people to give political contributions. It's the only way to have multiple viewpoints represented.

Are you saying that corporations and unions are people?

As I recall, any right that is not denied in the Constitution lies with the states or people. Since I'm not aware of the Constitution banning political contributions from corporations, nor states doing so, I fail to see under what grounds corporations shouldn't be able to contribute (coincidentally, the Supreme Court agrees with me).

So you're saying that we can execute corporations that commit felonies? Or put them in jail for 15 years, 8 with good behavior?

If only electoral victory was so simple as to be a function of campaign spending.

Are you saying that there is no correlation between campaign spending and victory?

[Nessus]

It's the only way to have multiple viewpoints represented.

Citation needed!

[Loki]

Citation needed!

Let's say you come up with a new ideology that's not supported by the state. You run for political office. Where do you get the money to run?

Are you saying that corporations and unions are people?

The way I see it, there has to be a legal reason before you could ban something. I.E. The burden of proof should be on the person who wants to ban something. I've yet to hear a convincing legal argument about why corporations shouldn't be able to contribute to campaigns.

So you're saying that we can execute corporations that commit felonies? Or put them in jail for 15 years, 8 with good behavior?

We can currently "ban" corporations that commit felonies, so the punishment isn't that much different to what happens to people.

Are you saying that there is no correlation between campaign spending and victory?

Nice leap in logic there. Of course having more money helps. But it's one factor out of many, and it's far from the biggest one. Are you going to ban unions from mobilizing on behalf of a candidate? After all, being able to send thousands of people door-to-door to campaign for a candidate is far more effective than running ads.

[Aimless]

Politicians are people. Should they or should they not be allowed to take/receive money from corporations?

[Loki]

What exactly is the difference between taking money from a corporation or taking money from individuals who work for a corporation (whose salaries depend on the profitability of said corporation)?

[Aimless]

Well that's partly what I'm wondering. I'll have to think about it.

In the meantime, how do we feel about important board-members of corporations running for important offices?

[Being]

What exactly is the difference between taking money from a corporation or taking money from individuals who work for a corporation (whose salaries depend on the profitability of said corporation)?

The exact difference is that money from corporations does not come from an individual.

[Nessus]

Let's say you come up with a new ideology that's not supported by the state. You run for political office. Where do you get the money to run?

This is getting into semantics, but after a certain threshold of support is reached, the gummint subsidizes some air-time and such for your political movement during an election cycle, but admittedly getting to that point and getting elected just on that would require a really good new ideology.

Let's say you come up with an ideology not supported by the big two. How much money do you guesstimate you'd need to get your view-point represented? By a representative, that is, not you buying individual votes from both sides of the aisle.

[Loki]

This is getting into semantics, but after a certain threshold of support is reached, the gummint subsidizes some air-time and such for your political movement during an election cycle, but admittedly getting to that point and getting elected just on that would require a really good new ideology.

No, it would require an ideology that's incredibly simple and doesn't need explanation. Is that the kind of ideology you want to dominate in the marketplace of ideas?

And do you really think the government would fund an ideology that undermines it (say fascism or communism)?

Let's say you come up with an ideology not supported by the big two. How much money do you guesstimate you'd need to get your view-point represented? By a representative, that is, not you buying individual votes from both sides of the aisle.

Depends on how dedicated you are to spreading it. Tens of millions would be a conservative estimate.

[Nessus]

So either really simple ideas, or ideas that appeal to the wealthy can spread easily.

Gee whiz!

(The government isn't one monolithic entity; I'm sure many of our currents MPs have large folders in the secret police's offices)

[Loki]

So either really simple ideas, or ideas that appeal to the wealthy can spread easily.

Either ideas that appeal to enough people to get enough funding without support from the rich, or be able to persuade a few really rich people. Don't get into the trap of thinking that all rich people are pro-business right-wingers. Just think Engels, Soros, Branson, Gates, etc,

(The government isn't one monolithic entity; I'm sure many of our currents MPs have large folders in the secret police's offices)

You didn't answer what happens to individuals who preach ideas that are not currently in fashion. Even if you could persuade the government to fund parties that oppose it, you'd have a hard time getting it to fund parties that the general public dislikes. The point is that there are a lot of different ways to get money from individuals. And individuals (even rich ones) have different ideologies, which means anyone persistent enough can raise funds to promote their idea. Meanwhile, how sure can we be that a government will fund the groups that seek to undermine it?