Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KMA-628
You argue that utopian ideas are incosequential and then interject ideas that require utopian thought (i.e. the media, any media, will report fairly).
What you are proposing isn't just a change to our political party system, but to our system as a whole. Freedom of the press meant no gov't controlled or sponsered media - A BBC-esque outlet would be just that.
|
Not true at all. First off, tell me where I said that the media had to be fair? I bet you can't quote me on it, 'cause I never said it. Secondly, I used the BBC of an example of a great, nonbiased news agency. I hardly think the BBC is utopian.
Freedom of the press would not be limited by a BBC-esque news agency. Anyone else would still be welcome to have their own news agency or report the news however they feel. No media organizations would be closed because of it. If anything, it would EXPAND the expressions of the press overall, so I really do not see how this could be limiting to the freedom of the press. We're not taking away anyone's rights to report the news here.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KMA-628
It's not that I don't agree with some of the basic ideas, it just seems that you are inserting evil to combat evil.
|
Please, save me the rhetoric. Are you angry that j-walking is illegal in most places, too?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KMA-628
If that is the role I wish to play, than yes, this idea eliminates my involvement. While some financial aspects of politics are not played above board, not all are. Eliminating them entirely, is kinda like cutting off your hand to spite your face. I could see a cap on donations, personal or corporate, but I see eliminating all of them as an infringement of my rights.
|
How is that any less of an infringement than putting a cap on it? That's still the governement saying "you can't do this". No donations just levels the playing field even more while completely eliminating outside influence. Even with a cap the election becomes somewhat of a popularity contest (based on popularity
before candidacy). Recent history has told us that private campaign finance and political donations are used on the part of both individuals and corporations to sway a candidate's, legislator's, or even and entire party's viewpoint. Therefore the right to private contributions should be given less importance than the more noble cause of the right to a fair election. Rights can conflict, you know.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KMA-628
As far as the "distint advantage" part: you don't think leaving the dissemination of information to the media is a "distinct advantage" to the person(s) that is more attractive to the media?
|
And here we find that freedom of speech is generally held to be more important than the distribution of accurate, unbiased information by the media, and thus we can do nothing about it... except perhaps charter a BBC-esque news agency.