HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to There are those who would claim...

Re: At this point in our discussion,
TB — (archived)

My philosophy is that a group of people has no more rights than one person does. As for the reverse, does it have any fewer? An interesting question. How would you apply this kind of thinking to MoveOn.org? NAACP? The NRA?

Is it about corporations having too much money? What about individual billionaires, like George Soros?

A much more important question, in my mind at least, is why are people sweating blood over corporations gaining the right to run political ads, and seemingly have no problems with government controlling almost every aspect of our lives? What happens to people in this country that inoculates them against creeping tyranny from the state, but raises every last hackle when a private entity threatens to step out of bounds?

Anyway, this controversy is a lot less about fundamental principles than it is about a political party trying to make sure a potential source of opposition is kneecapped.

I have never seen a "campaign finance law" from either political party that wasn't specifically engineered to empower friends of that party and neutralize its enemies.

The real solution is fewer restrictions, and more transparency.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (49 posts)

Related discussions