3 ms·

For the same reason that Bob is allowed to purchase a pistol, but isn't allowed to organise with Joe and Frank and buy a functional tank with a 120mm cannon. I

by sofixa 2y ago

For the same reason that Bob is allowed to purchase a pistol, but isn't allowed to organise with Joe and Frank and buy a functional tank with a 120mm cannon. In the same way your freedom of movement doesn't allow you to walk over (like literally step on top of) other people. Rights aren't an absolute literal things. There are always limitations. Size matters. Organisation matters. Joe saying something is his free speech. Joe buying ads to say something is free speech. 50 people getting a billion USD to advertise how the gay alien lizards are controlling the sheople isn't the same thing because it has an outsized impact. An association of people isn't a human. In many languages there are even specific terms for "physical person" and "juridical person" (like a company, association, grouping, etc.). It doesn't get human rights. And of course, most importantly of all, it's trivially obvious that to preserve a democratic society there need to be restrictions on campaign funding, advertisments and everything around that. Otherwise you can have extremely rich people simply innundating everyone with their views, skewing people's opinions and getting the results they want instead.

zeroCalories 2y ago
> Rights aren't an absolute literal things. There are always limitations. I don't think anyone is arguing that rights are unimpeachable, you just need a VERY good justification. Even for freedom of speech, most would agree that threats, CSAM, or night time noise should be limited, even if they are direct violations of your right to speech. The problem with this issue is that you need to have a clear and unambiguous rule, that does not cause more harm than good. Let's look at your reasoning. > 50 people getting a billion USD to advertise how the gay alien lizards are controlling the sheople isn't the same thing because it has an outsized impact. What about a celebrity? Joe Rogan invites RFK onto his podcast to undermine democrats and spread conspiracies. He has effectively donated his time and platform to a politician. Is that okay under your principle? If it is, why is it different? > An association of people isn't a human. This is a pointless distinction because an association is comprised of people. But let's grant that(I would not grant it), would you say the same about other activist organizations? Most Jewish people support Israel, and even without big donors they can pressure politicians in an outsized way through their activist organizations. Should they be silenced? > And of course, most importantly of all, it's trivially obvious that to preserve a democratic society there need to be restrictions on campaign funding, advertisments and everything around that This is not trivially obvious. You need to demonstrate that the specific thing you're worried about is actually an issue. If we looked at some studies and they showed that money in politics is a fairly minor issue, would you abandon this pet-issue?

by sofixa 2y ago

zeroCalories 2y ago

> Rights aren't an absolute literal things. There are always limitations. I don't think anyone is arguing that rights are unimpeachable, you just need a VERY good justification. Even for freedom of speech, most would agree that threats, CSAM, or night time noise should be limited, even if they are direct violations of your right to speech. The problem with this issue is that you need to have a clear and unambiguous rule, that does not cause more harm than good. Let's look at your reasoning. > 50 people getting a billion USD to advertise how the gay alien lizards are controlling the sheople isn't the same thing because it has an outsized impact. What about a celebrity? Joe Rogan invites RFK onto his podcast to undermine democrats and spread conspiracies. He has effectively donated his time and platform to a politician. Is that okay under your principle? If it is, why is it different? > An association of people isn't a human. This is a pointless distinction because an association is comprised of people. But let's grant that(I would not grant it), would you say the same about other activist organizations? Most Jewish people support Israel, and even without big donors they can pressure politicians in an outsized way through their activist organizations. Should they be silenced? > And of course, most importantly of all, it's trivially obvious that to preserve a democratic society there need to be restrictions on campaign funding, advertisments and everything around that This is not trivially obvious. You need to demonstrate that the specific thing you're worried about is actually an issue. If we looked at some studies and they showed that money in politics is a fairly minor issue, would you abandon this pet-issue?