Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (47713)	7/6/2013 1:10:57 PM
From: TimF	2 Recommendations Recommended By Brumar89 i-node Respond to of 85487

FDR helped increased the control of "plutocrats". People can't control you just because they are rich, but they can influence the government, which can control you. The bigger government is (and FDR grew it by a lot) the more opportunity the rich have to exert control over ordinary people. Don't like walmart? Sure its the biggest retail company, but you don't have to shop there. Don't like Microsoft? Buy Apple computers. Don't like Apple? Buy MS or Google operating systems. But don't like the health insurance companies? Sorry the government says you have to buy from them. Don't like GM, or big banks? Sorry the government says you have to support them with your tax dollars. Big companies and rich individuals might be able to convince you to work with them, but their products etc., but they can't easily force you (at least if there is a minimal government that keeps them from hiring a bunch of thugs to force you to do what they want, basically acting a big like a non-democratic government themselves). Government OTOH forces people all the time, and can be and is influenced by special interests (including big corporations, and groups of rich individuals, but also things like unions) And have mandated public financing of campaigns for everyone. So now the plutocrats get to force you to pay for their campaigns. Get the money out of political campaigns. Not going to happen (public financing won't do it, and in fact puts money in to the campaigns), and not something to want even if we could make it happen. Limiting freedom of speech is not the answer. The answer to speech you don't like is more speech (against the ideas you don't like) not less. And yes limiting the ability to raise money for political speech is limiting speech. If your free to speak but not allowed to get the resources needed to get your message out your free speech is restricted.