Constitutional Amendments Say No
Some time ago, I asked the forum in the Friday Lulz tradition to imagine a world where money was excluded from the political arena. Few bit, most of those dismissed, probably for the same reason that people don't sit around dreaming of what the sky would look like green instead of blue.
Ah, it turns out (through NPR, of all places) that others ( Read more... )
Ah, it turns out (through NPR, of all places) that others ( Read more... )
So not every idea has equal merit but should nevertheless have "an equal playing field." The first question that comes to mind is why. Why should ideas having no equality of merit be arbitrarilly given "an equal playing field." What entitles ideas to this "equal playing field," if not merit?
The second question that comes to mind is who. Just who, exactly, is to provide this "equal playing field?" I would note that if you say "everyone," I would point out that taxes are collected disproportionately and the money will be spent disproportionally, so exactly how is that "fair." You are preaching disequality before the law and unfairness to actual human beings in support of "fairness" to ideas, a concept that mind boggling in the attempt to concretize it.
The third question is what. Just what is "an equal playing field?" I submit that such a concept is a floating abstraction that sounds nice when heard but cannot be objectively defined or put into actual practice, even if it didn't actually imply "unfairness" to real people.
You invoke "the marketplace of ideas" but even this is rendered a floating abstraction. Ideas are propagated by advertisement utilizing physical media. In limiting the spending upon physical media you are effectively arguing to shut down "the marketplace of ideas."
Reply
Yes, so that it can start without artificial disadvantage and rise or fall on its own merits in the marketplace of ideas.
Are you suggesting we rule out certain ideas by fiat?
Via ublic elections funded with public money gathered from EEEEEEK taxes.
"Ideas are propagated by advertisement utilizing physical media."
Paid for by money. More money in the current system = more speech.
In short Oligarchy.
Removing the ability of large concentrations of wealth to buy influence short circuits this process.
Interesting how often supposed minarchists defend Oligarchy.
Reply
You cannot invoke the inherent merits of any idea after you have handicapped some ideas relative to others. This is like saying that the "tyranny" of the superior athlete should not be allowed to determine the outcome of the race, so you handicap him, and then, after the race is run, claim that "the better athlete won on his own merit." Do you not understand what it is for which you are actually calling? You want to interfere with the free market, for example by imposing a tax only on the best selling burger on the market, and then claim that the "free market" determined which is the better burger. Such an idea is inherently self-contradictory.
Via ublic elections funded with public money gathered from EEEEEEK taxes.
So, any candidate, no matter what his qualifications or chance of winning is to have his potential campaign financed with public funds? If you say yes to this proposition, then you are essentially saying that a candidate whose ideas would otherwise fail in the "marketplace of ideas" is automatically going to be subsidized by having public funds spent on him. On the other hand, if you propose that public funding be restricted then by what means do you manage to do the restricting? You can't say an election because that is the very thing whose funding you're attempting to restrict in the first place!
Paid for by money. More money in the current system = more speech. In short, oligarchy.
Oligarchy? The problem here is not the oligarchy; it is the "archy" itself. What about the case where a large group of "Average Joes" assembles their funds to spread the message about a candidate they desire to represent their interests? Is that "oligarchy" to you? If it is, then I think its time we discussed "the tyranny of the majority." If that isn't "oligarchy" to you, then you have to justify the position that "some" money is more equal than others. Once you've reached that point, then you have to decide who gets to decide whose money is "more equal" than others. Once power is given to someone to make that determination, how will that person be held accountable? You've already given him the "authority" to determine who is allowed to spend what on an election. Either this power is effective, which will mean that he is able to use it to determine the spending on any election, including elections determining the officers or authority of those holding his own office, or else that power is essentially ineffective, and the supposed "authority" is cosmetic.
Interesting how often supposed minarchists defend Oligarchy.
In the first place, I am not a minarchist. I am an anarchist. In the second, the problem is not the ability of money to purchase power; the problem lies in the fact that there is unaccountable power available for purchase in the first place. Your proposed "solution" is no solution at all. It merely stacks up one more layer of guardians on top of the previous layers of guardians. Essentially, it is the egalitarianism which is at the root of the self-contradiction behind this solution. Egalitarianism, the desire to "equalize outcomes," can only be implemented by force by starting with a disequal proposition. When "Fred" is granted the arbitrary authority to make sure that "everyone is equal," or in this case, that all candidacies are equal, he has to determine that "Sam" and "Joe" are "equal." The problem with that is that this means that "Fred" will have to be "disequal" with respect to both Sam and Joe. There is no disembodied, disinterested, objective floating abstract god to play the part of "Fred." "Fred" will be part of the mix and there is no keeping "Fred's" interests out of the equation, provided that there were nothing inherently wrong in the attempt of "equalizing" Sam and Joe in the first place.
Reply
Leave a comment