Quote:
Originally posted by onetime2
I've put no words in your mouth. You pointedly said that so long as the money doesn't end up in their pockets you don't see it being a problem.
The government has a responsibility to keep the political process free from unfair representation the current rules allow those with larger pocket books to freely garner more power and influence.
|
I "pointedly" typed that I didn't see a justification for restricting one's right to political speech.
You
interpreted that I didn't have a problem with that. You also
interpreted that I believe that unless money goes directly into someone's pocket, then they won't be influenced.
Both of those interpretations were incorrect assumptions you made based off your caricature of my belief system. Just rely on what I type instead of arguing against what you think I believe.
I'll lay it out for you more clearly so you don't continue to stumble:
1) In our society, I don't see any justification for limiting one's political action, short of barring people from directly paying candidates to return favors. I'm not even sure there is a justifcation to limit buying people, but our value system has grown to denounce that.
2) The people with the most money get to purchase political power and influence. As far as I know, this has always been the case. This doesn't equate to unfair represenation. If people want more power and influence, they are free to make more money and purchase it. Those who have worked hard in life should be free to spend their money how they want--including purchasing more power and influence.
3) In our society, I would rather we provide for opportunity and rights to level the playing field as much as possible than restricting others' rights.
4) I have a big problem with all of this. I don't think it's morally right. I think that some people will never be able to gain wealth and its accompanying power and influence due to their lack of the means of production. I think that everything is, and ought to be, for sale in a capitalist society. That's the definition. To undermine that is to create further structural inconsistencies that serve to undermine its legitimacy.
In short, don't claim to be one thing and do another. I would rather we were consistent than inconsistent because then we have to continue to layer on regulation after regulation that doesn't make sense. Then we have to create a justification for our acions--like we are doing now.
5) I'm not a capitalist because of the problems I have identified above. But at least I don't claim to be a capitalist and then refuse to act like one becaue I don't have money or power. I don't think I can claim to support capitalism only when it suits me. I don't think you should either. I think you should support capitalism with all its benefits and warts, or not support it at all.