Bernie Sanders exposes billionaires who are buying US government.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Well it is 'poly.

[Jaguar]

There are many ways you can spread your beliefs, all of which cost you something. Some explicitly cost money, others implicitly cost money by taking time, effort, or professional reputation.

I don't see fit to eliminate any of these. The right to free speech shall not be infringed. Senator Sanders should be ashamed of himself for not taking our rights seriously.

[Lorizael]

Free speech is great. The problem with allowing money to facilitate free speech and allowing free speech to affect the democratic process is that it gives more weight to those that have more money, and it's not at all clear why those with more money should have more of a say in the democratic process. Theoretically, a right to be governed justly could trump a right to free speech, but all of the solutions I've imagined for this problem are seriously crazy.

[Guynemer]

What he said.

[Jaguar]

All sorts of people get more "weight" than others. We're all entitled to speak freely. We aren't entitled to equal audiences. Matt Yglesias is smarter than me and writes better. Ellen Degeneres is more likable than I am. Google, god bless, has control of the most valuable advertising space ever, which they used against SOPA. I have no moral authority to say who can use what media to say what.

None of them has extra votes, though. Each person gets one vote.

Those are bedrock American principles. Senator Sanders should learn more about what America is all about.

[Lorizael]

To elaborate, money is important and useful. It's fungible, it's long-lasting (not in a physical sense), it can be invested, it can be measured, yada yada. And all that (and a whole ****load more, since I know next to nothing about economics) makes it a very good medium of exchange for economic activity in a market. But that doesn't mean it should be of any use outside of the marketplace. Government intrudes on the market in places, yes, but its role is to create conditions in which safe, reliable, productive economic activity can occur. It is, by this definition, beyond the scope of the market.

Two examples.

Example one: Gods are beyond the scope of the rules that govern the universes they create. Gods can create those rules, but they are not necessarily subject to them. In fact, making them subject to logic creates conundrums that can't easily be resolved (can God create a stone so heavy he can't lift it, etc.). (Edit: Someone here may say, then do you not think Congress should be able to pass legislation that affects the government? And that's a different, tricky issue. The best solution we've come up with so far is the system of checks and balances that pits different parts of the government against one another. Thanks, founders.)

Example two: The NFL rules committee is beyond the scope of the players their rules govern. If teams that operate within the NFL were allowed to use their players to influence the rules committee, then the teams with the most juiced up, most psychopathic players would get to decide what the rules are.

These are probably weird examples, but I think they demonstrate the point I'm trying to make. Money is useful for influencing markets. Something else should be used to influence governments, because otherwise illogical and destructive feedback loops can result.

Someone may point out that money is used by governments to deal with other governments, and that's a good point. The issues of diplomacy, trade, and globalization are, however, beyond the scope of the argument I'm trying to make.

[Kuciwalker]

Your attempt to segregate "speech" and "economic activity" is ridiculous. Literally millions of people are employed solely to produce speech. If we took your position seriously we would conclude that writing and selling books should be illegal.

[Lorizael]

You're making an is/ought fallacy.

[Kuciwalker]

No, I'm not.

Lori: X ought not to be true

Me: X being false implies a radical overhaul of our society that is absurd on its face. ergo X should continue to be true.

[Jaguar]

Example one: Gods are beyond the scope of the rules that govern the universes they create. Gods can create those rules, but they are not necessarily subject to them. In fact, making them subject to logic creates conundrums that can't easily be resolved (can God create a stone so heavy he can't lift it, etc.). (Edit: Someone here may say, then do you not think Congress should be able to pass legislation that affects the government? And that's a different, tricky issue. The best solution we've come up with so far is the system of checks and balances that pits different parts of the government against one another. Thanks, founders.)

Example two: The NFL rules committee is beyond the scope of the players their rules govern. If teams that operate within the NFL were allowed to use their players to influence the rules committee, then the teams with the most juiced up, most psychopathic players would get to decide what the rules are.

The whole point of our government is that we're allowed to influence it.

[Lorizael]

No, I'm not.

Lori: X ought not to be true

Me: X being false implies a radical overhaul of our society that is absurd on its face. ergo X should continue to be true.

Fine, then you're making an appeal to tradition fallacy.

The whole point of our government is that we're allowed to influence it.

Yes, we should be allowed to influence government. I just think that influencing it with money creates problems.

[Jaguar]

Bribery is illegal. Politicians can't be forced to make decisions with money. You have to actually convince voters to vote for what you want.

Mindbogglingly, you think this is the sort of thing that isn't protected under the constitution.

[Kuciwalker]

Fine, then you're making an appeal to tradition fallacy.

No, I'm not (read the post I actually wrote, not the one you wish I did), and appealing to tradition isn't a fallacy anyway.

[Lorizael]

If we took your position seriously we would conclude that writing and selling books should be illegal.

Yes, I've thought about that, too. As I said, all of the solutions I've imagined are crazy. Personally, I think that the dissemination of information is too important to be left to the market. Of course, you may believe that it's so important that it should be left to the market.

[Jaguar]

You can't stop markets from existing. It's like trying to contain the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park. I'm going to choose the people who provide a better product - the people who provide me with more interesting material. In return, I give them some small degree of political influence - the ability to influence my thought. There is no way to stop some people's speech from being more valuable than others'. Turning a market into an awkward barter of in-kind services doesn't stop it from existing.