4 ms·

> "nobody needs" is a protest that doesn't matter to anyone except people interfering in other's personal business. At a certain point, no, it really isn't. W

> "nobody needs" is a protest that doesn't matter to anyone except people interfering in other's personal business. At a certain point, no, it really isn't. When a single individual has enough money to influence public policy where I live, I would definitely say that's too much money. It becomes my business when someone who votes with their dollars gets more votes than I do with my actual vote.

achillesheels 5y ago
So you are against the ability to speak unlimitedly? And who is to say your judgments are superior or that this individual’s public policy is necessarily inferior? People who have the ability to move things tend to move more things. I don’t see this as explicitly wrong, but natural. On the other hand, efforts to give masses of people disproportionate political rights have led to more murder in the last century than any in civilized record. And I would include American imperialism in that judgment.
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  > So you are against the ability to speak unlimitedly? And who is to say your judgments are superior or that this individual’s public policy is necessarily inferior? Yes, I am absolutely against unlimited free speech to the extent that it undermines democracy. I will say it explicitly here: no single, private citizen, whether as an individual or through some corporate proxy, whether that's some PAC or Amazon.com, should be able to influence public policy to the extent that they are able to today. As for your straw man about my judgement being superior, I did not say that. I said that voting with ones dollars should not be more powerful than voting with one's votes. I believe in 1 person = 1 vote. So, in fact, I am claiming that my view on public policy is no better than someone with millions or billions of dollars. But, what do I know? After all, I am actually_a_dog on the internet. ;-)
  - achillesheels 5y ago
    I apologize if it came across as a straw man. After all, what is the purpose of voting if it is not to affirm a gradient of action in the determination of society, presumably for promoting the well-being of each other? And I would wager that an individual who requires transacting in foreign markets as an effect of their properties will have more information and therefore more determination than yourself, a dog who has no concept of civilized record. :P Thus I do not find it abysmal that such individuals have more representation in the determination of public policy. I in fact have stipulated that blind dogmatism of democracy is actually harmful - which the American Republic was cognizant of. (As to the point of how such personas with the need to be political to preserve their wealth and how it effects your locality, I am an advocate of laissez-faire whereby oligarch penetration in human communities is not possible because federal legislation was never intended to regulate neighborhoods.)
LegitShady 5y ago
I don't support corporate involvement in public policy and politics. I don't think they should be able to donate to political causes or politicians. PACs and dark political money are an enemy of democracy. But I don't think you should get a say in someone else's income just because you think they earn to much. That's none of your business.

achillesheels 5y ago

So you are against the ability to speak unlimitedly? And who is to say your judgments are superior or that this individual’s public policy is necessarily inferior? People who have the ability to move things tend to move more things. I don’t see this as explicitly wrong, but natural. On the other hand, efforts to give masses of people disproportionate political rights have led to more murder in the last century than any in civilized record. And I would include American imperialism in that judgment.

actually_a_dog 5y ago
> So you are against the ability to speak unlimitedly? And who is to say your judgments are superior or that this individual’s public policy is necessarily inferior? Yes, I am absolutely against unlimited free speech to the extent that it undermines democracy. I will say it explicitly here: no single, private citizen, whether as an individual or through some corporate proxy, whether that's some PAC or Amazon.com, should be able to influence public policy to the extent that they are able to today. As for your straw man about my judgement being superior, I did not say that. I said that voting with ones dollars should not be more powerful than voting with one's votes. I believe in 1 person = 1 vote. So, in fact, I am claiming that my view on public policy is no better than someone with millions or billions of dollars. But, what do I know? After all, I am actually_a_dog on the internet. ;-)
- achillesheels 5y ago
  I apologize if it came across as a straw man. After all, what is the purpose of voting if it is not to affirm a gradient of action in the determination of society, presumably for promoting the well-being of each other? And I would wager that an individual who requires transacting in foreign markets as an effect of their properties will have more information and therefore more determination than yourself, a dog who has no concept of civilized record. :P Thus I do not find it abysmal that such individuals have more representation in the determination of public policy. I in fact have stipulated that blind dogmatism of democracy is actually harmful - which the American Republic was cognizant of. (As to the point of how such personas with the need to be political to preserve their wealth and how it effects your locality, I am an advocate of laissez-faire whereby oligarch penetration in human communities is not possible because federal legislation was never intended to regulate neighborhoods.)

LegitShady 5y ago

I don't support corporate involvement in public policy and politics. I don't think they should be able to donate to political causes or politicians. PACs and dark political money are an enemy of democracy. But I don't think you should get a say in someone else's income just because you think they earn to much. That's none of your business.