5 ms·

>Oppression happens when you sabotage their work/job/career/business just because their view. I would agree with you except for one thing: money is political

>Oppression happens when you sabotage their work/job/career/business just because their view. I would agree with you except for one thing: money is political power under our current system. If someone is allowed to use their market power to influence our democracy, it is perfectly valid to use market power to oppose that influence. It is a double edged sword.

ww520 10y ago
That's why we have election rules attempting to restrict money influence in the system for BOTH sides, or at least to make it a level playing field. Targeting people's personal money just because their view is an oppression. It is an easy slippery slope to go down. Income/money/work enable them to express their view. What's next? Their home certainly enable them to express their view. How about their food? If you want to take money out of politics, work on campaign finance reform. And enforce existing laws to stamp out any violation.
- clavalle 10y ago
  Thiel is donating millions to influence an election. I don't know where the slippery slope is but we're nowhere near the edge. If Thiel has used his market power to express his view, then so can the rest of the market actors can use the same power to express theirs. Individuals should be able to use all available information to decide to spend their limited resources supporting. Thiel has decided to send a very strong signal to the market. People and organizations that decide to associate with Thiel also provide information to the market. Should market actors completely ignore this specific class of information when making decisions? Knowing that resources that flow in Thiel's direction will be used to work against my preferred government policies, policies that may very well have a negative impact on my wellbeing, should I allow my resources to flow that direction anyway? It seems foolish and arbitrary to ignore that segment of reality.

ww520 10y ago

That's why we have election rules attempting to restrict money influence in the system for BOTH sides, or at least to make it a level playing field. Targeting people's personal money just because their view is an oppression. It is an easy slippery slope to go down. Income/money/work enable them to express their view. What's next? Their home certainly enable them to express their view. How about their food? If you want to take money out of politics, work on campaign finance reform. And enforce existing laws to stamp out any violation.

clavalle 10y ago
Thiel is donating millions to influence an election. I don't know where the slippery slope is but we're nowhere near the edge. If Thiel has used his market power to express his view, then so can the rest of the market actors can use the same power to express theirs. Individuals should be able to use all available information to decide to spend their limited resources supporting. Thiel has decided to send a very strong signal to the market. People and organizations that decide to associate with Thiel also provide information to the market. Should market actors completely ignore this specific class of information when making decisions? Knowing that resources that flow in Thiel's direction will be used to work against my preferred government policies, policies that may very well have a negative impact on my wellbeing, should I allow my resources to flow that direction anyway? It seems foolish and arbitrary to ignore that segment of reality.