|
ah shit, harmless, thanks for the support but I wish you hadn't fallen for the red herring like I did.
All that other crap aside:
explain how you can support RJ Reynolds spending whatever it wants promoting its product, but deny MoveOn from spending whatever it wants promoting its product?
please explain how you are classifying the former as a "good*" and the latter as not a "good"?
Are you basing this on your subjective interpretation of the content of the message?
do you believe our government should limit some speech over the airwaves based on content?
who should decide which content to limit?
specifically, should it limit political speech?
should it only do so once a particular group reaches a certain position of power (say, X amount of money to spend)?
why would this not be counter-intutitive, wherein the victor loses the spoils?
* by good I assume you mean commodity. please explain what you think a commodity is. You seem to think it has an objective meaning, rather than two things a buyer and seller can agree to trade in an open market.
Do you think a commodity can be an idea, a service, or must it only be a tangible "thing" as you understand things to exist?
I have to say that for an economist, you sure have an odd way of viewing commodities and market exchanges. When you argued that corporations don't purchase (and consequently own) employees' labor, I became very confused of your notion of commodities and free exchange.
Hopefully you'll answer these questions so we can make sure we are using the same definitions and assumptions.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann
"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
|