Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
You are confusing "freedom" with "influence". EVERYONE is free to donate money to campaign funds. Just that corporations are able to donate more.
If they're using a freedom that most other people can't, then yes they have access to more 'freedom'. They have more influence also, but that's only because they have that access to that freedom.
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
Also, just because someone has a lot of campaign funding does not mean that person is guaranteed to get elected. I could have all the funding in the world and still not get elected because I'm an asshole and only my mother would vote for me. Every politician has a company behind him. It's just a matter of which ones pick the right people to back.
Yeah, obviously not everyone gets elected. Those who do get elected, like you said, have companies behind them - which is the problem.
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
It's always better for people who are experts in a subject to make decisions on that subject. That is not to say that laypeople are barred from voting for anything because they don't have a degree, but perhaps the experts' votes count for more than the average person.
Better decisions would probably be made, yeah. I'm not disagreeing with that part. But in the scenario Pig is proposing, your average guy isn't voting on anything. It's no less oligarchic than the current situation - it doesn't fix the problem of power not being in the hands of the people.
You can't say that everyone has to have exactly the same amount of freedom (if we are treating freedom as a measurement of what you can do like you have been doing). Fitter people have more freedom to compete in events. More talented people have more freedom to do shows and talent acts. Clever people (and unfortunately wealthier people) have more freedom to get good qualifications. Richer people have more freedom to donate or spend money. Freedom is not the problem. The problem is the future of countries and their governments being treated as an investment by companies who care about profit. If someone donates then the donation should be treated as a donation and not an investment.
Good morning sweet princess
Originally Posted by protonitron
Freedom is not the problem. The problem is the future of countries and their governments being treated as an investment by companies who care about profit. If someone donates then the donation should be treated as a donation and not an investment.
But it's not treated as a donation. It's treated as a bribe. This is allowed because Justice Kennedy said so. His ruling is clearly the problem. He defends it by saying it's legal under freedom of speech because he applies freedom of speech to corporations.
The corporations' 'freedoms' is the problem. The bribeocracy is defended as constitutional. That's the problem.
Originally Posted by Ele
No. You've both missed the point of his ruling. His point isn't simply that freedom of speech means being able to donate money to political campaigns. His point is that this same freedom extends to corporations. They're allowed to give money because giving money is a part of their freedom of speech. Giving money = freedom of speech. What happens when you don't have money to give? You have less freedom. Contrary to your belief Pig, freedom is not a binary.
Freedom is binary, either you are free or you are not. There are no degrees of freedom.
Just because you are free to do X doesn't mean you have to, or that you physically can.
I think you have misunderstood the concept of freedom at some point.
Originally Posted by Ele
I'll rephrase your question and cut to the bottom line. Having a system where the people don't determine how they want to live is as bad as having a system where people don't determine how they want to live.
If they want to be influential in X topic, they need to pursue training first.
Originally Posted by Ele
You're telling me Aristotle would argue for a system in which the people don't determine how the want to live? That's not only absurd, it's ridiculous.
What? No I'm not telling you that at all.
I'm not sure how you randomly came up with that, but that's not at all what I said, go reread my post.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Freedom is binary, either you are free or you are not. There are no degrees of freedom.
By your reckoning countries are either free or not free. Clearly some countries are more free than others. Clearly this indicates degrees of freedom. Clearly all of the freedom indices out there that demonstrate this means nothing to you or you've overlooked them. Clearly, freedom is not a binary.
But we'll have to agree to disagree, since, clearly, there's no way you'll ever change your mind.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
If they want to be influential in X topic, they need to pursue training first.
So what? How does that make your system a system where the people have any say in decision making? It doesn't.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
What? No I'm not telling you that at all.
I'm not sure how you randomly came up with that, but that's not at all what I said, go reread my post.
You said his sentiments weren't valid because we live in larger communities. See, I'm saying, no matter the size of the community, he would certainly be against any system that divorces the citizens from decision-making - a system like yours, and a system like the current one.
