-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Phill <hallam@w3.org> wrote: <snip>
It is very strange the way that "Libertarians" are so able to turn all rights into property rights. Thus freedom of speech become freedom to have influence on the politicial process in direct proportion to wealth.
And what do you propose? Speech in proportion to ability to bitch??? <snip>
When the Web becomes as ubiquitous as the telephone we will still see inequalities of power, the homeless and the poor will still >be underrepresented.
Let me guess, somehow the government can cure this?
But that situation must be judged against our own where the political process can be bought and traded as if it were any other form of comodity.
It is not simply an issue of money, it is an issue of national security. If a foreigner were to control the majority of the media there would be a significant threat to the national interest. This threat has been realised in the UK with the comming to power of Rupert Murdoch. Fortunately his influence on the US political scene has thus far been minor. In his own country he has brought down the government more than once.
So what??? He gives us "The Simpsons" and "Married, With Children!" [IMO] Rupert has done more for humor than any humor-impaired liberal has ever done!
And as far as "prevent the political process from being owned by the rich" goes, there have been brief exceptions over the last 5000 years in which the less-rich have overthrown the rich, but campaign finance laws have >>almost never kept the rich or the politicians from helping each other out.
So??? I'm fighting them, are you???
In UK politicis the influence of an individual's money is limited to influencing one party. Even that is done behind closed doors. The other major parties both limit the size of individual contributions to a constituency party to a relatively nominal sum. $5000 is a huge sum in UK politics.
They probably bribe in accordance with the marketplace. Big deal.
I also don't believe freedom of speech should be limited by national boundaries.
Nor do I. But I only vote in one country. If we take the question outside >the US it would not on the whole be a good thing if the Prime Minister of Tobago (say) were provided with a campaign contribution of $1M by a foreign company with >an interest in strip mining the entire island. similarly it would be a bad >thing if Columbian drug lords were to make massive contributions to politicians >committed to continuing the prohibition on drugs.
They do, right now. Do you think the Libertarians have gotten any contributions from the drug-smugglers??? If so, please tell me what you are on and where I can get some. Otherwise, kwitcherbitchin. JMR -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Freedom isn't Freeh. iQCVAwUBMNesZ21lp8bpvW01AQGxjgQAscGA5sMXQWaXSqGrGMEhFlnYXUYUzoQH YsivCtTZTaIZYUfRoo4Myjx7B8MVpgykMOJC0PHLA+zWurW6AQ2W45ywLUceoQbF 0UF/JXZi2mhHI0xLwKV6E+GaWdaiuAdh6uKwLyND2S07bBGiPZ4hBG05+Xkm5s/d OJ6QcCwtsuM= =iPRn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Regards, Jim Ray http://www.shopmiami.com/prs/jimray "Thank God we don't get all the government we pay for." -- Will Rogers [Back when we paid for (and got) a _lot_ less government.] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- PGP key Fingerprint 51 5D A2 C3 92 2C 56 BE 53 2D 9C A1 B3 50 C9 C8 Public Key id. # E9BD6D35 <liberty@gate.net> IANAL ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Help Phil! e-mail zldf@clark.net or http://www.netresponse.com/zldf _______________________________________________________________________