6 ms·

> If the problem is that money can buy unlimited federal power, then you can limit the federal powers available for purchase without curtailing the freedom of t

> If the problem is that money can buy unlimited federal power, then you can limit the federal powers available for purchase without curtailing the freedom of the citizenry to engage in political speech as they choose. This is an excellent point.

Pyxl101 8y ago
Furthermore, it is not well-defined which speech is "political" speech, and which is not. What cause is it possible to advocate for that is not political in some way? If the business of politics and government is passing and implementing laws, then nearly any issue is or can be political in nature. If I advocate for regulating or not regulating the Internet, software, app stores, data privacy (a la GDPR), or basically anything else, then that can be construed as political.
- bmelton 8y ago
  If we're already in the business of protecting speech, then why does it matter whether a given speech is political enough to warrant protection?
squiggleblaz 8y ago
Actually it isn't. (a) The money has an outsized power to argue for an increase in available powers as I said upthread since I couldn't reply here. (b) Democracies seem to work better and more stably when votes make a difference. If there's a full house of people wanting to shift in a certain direction the democratic principle is that the shift in that direction should happen. Otherwise democracy becomes a sham and its institutions shed trust. This creates precisely the atmosphere for antidemocratic or unliberal people to gain power. If you can vote for someone who supports your views but they can't implement them while they're operating in the system, why not vote for someone who supports your views and is willing to ignore the system to get it. And what will all checks and balances do in that environment! If you like liberal government (in the traditional sense not the partisan sense), the most effective way to get it is to encourage liberal preferences in the electorate.
- bmelton 8y ago
  Your response assumes that without the federal government doing something, nobody will do it, but that misses the fact that we have 50 state governments and DC perfectly capable of regulating themselves. Past that, local elections already matter more in one's day to day life than federal elections, and those votes will have even more value as the role of the states grow.
  - squiggleblaz 8y ago
    It doesn't assume that - it assumes that if it's bad when the federal government gets involved with something, it's equally bad when the state government gets involved. For instance, this thread is about a state pursuing large tech companies on what can be described as free speech violations. But I've never seen anyone argue that it's okay for a state government to ban free speech, but it's not okay for the federal government.
    - bmelton 8y ago
      > it assumes that if it's bad when the federal government gets involved with something, it's equally bad when the state government gets involved Which in my opinion is a broadly false assumption, and ignores the very point of a federal republic, which is federalism. People in different states have different cultures, different norms, different geographies, different natural resources, different pastimes, different porn habits, different cuisines, etc. State legislatures are closer to their voting populace than federal legislatures, and thus, people's interests can be more directly reflected by voting more locally. I agree that a state trampling on your rights is functionally no better than if a federal government does so, but you have more recourse against a state government doing so, more opportunities for remedy, and more ways in which to steer the ship right where those violations are regular.
      - ethbro 8y ago
        How would you see greater recourse and more opportunity for remedy at the state level?

Pyxl101 8y ago

Furthermore, it is not well-defined which speech is "political" speech, and which is not. What cause is it possible to advocate for that is not political in some way? If the business of politics and government is passing and implementing laws, then nearly any issue is or can be political in nature. If I advocate for regulating or not regulating the Internet, software, app stores, data privacy (a la GDPR), or basically anything else, then that can be construed as political.

bmelton 8y ago
If we're already in the business of protecting speech, then why does it matter whether a given speech is political enough to warrant protection?

squiggleblaz 8y ago

Actually it isn't. (a) The money has an outsized power to argue for an increase in available powers as I said upthread since I couldn't reply here. (b) Democracies seem to work better and more stably when votes make a difference. If there's a full house of people wanting to shift in a certain direction the democratic principle is that the shift in that direction should happen. Otherwise democracy becomes a sham and its institutions shed trust. This creates precisely the atmosphere for antidemocratic or unliberal people to gain power. If you can vote for someone who supports your views but they can't implement them while they're operating in the system, why not vote for someone who supports your views and is willing to ignore the system to get it. And what will all checks and balances do in that environment! If you like liberal government (in the traditional sense not the partisan sense), the most effective way to get it is to encourage liberal preferences in the electorate.

bmelton 8y ago
Your response assumes that without the federal government doing something, nobody will do it, but that misses the fact that we have 50 state governments and DC perfectly capable of regulating themselves. Past that, local elections already matter more in one's day to day life than federal elections, and those votes will have even more value as the role of the states grow.
- squiggleblaz 8y ago
  It doesn't assume that - it assumes that if it's bad when the federal government gets involved with something, it's equally bad when the state government gets involved. For instance, this thread is about a state pursuing large tech companies on what can be described as free speech violations. But I've never seen anyone argue that it's okay for a state government to ban free speech, but it's not okay for the federal government.
  - bmelton 8y ago
    > it assumes that if it's bad when the federal government gets involved with something, it's equally bad when the state government gets involved Which in my opinion is a broadly false assumption, and ignores the very point of a federal republic, which is federalism. People in different states have different cultures, different norms, different geographies, different natural resources, different pastimes, different porn habits, different cuisines, etc. State legislatures are closer to their voting populace than federal legislatures, and thus, people's interests can be more directly reflected by voting more locally. I agree that a state trampling on your rights is functionally no better than if a federal government does so, but you have more recourse against a state government doing so, more opportunities for remedy, and more ways in which to steer the ship right where those violations are regular.
    - ethbro 8y ago
      How would you see greater recourse and more opportunity for remedy at the state level?