A proposal was made to repeal the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.

[Cow Poke]

? ? ?

...are you telling me that for the past 4 decades, when you voted, you wrote in "God" each time?

I'm not under the false belief that the fate of our nation rests in politicians. They tend to screw up way more than they fix. I usually choose the one I think will be the least destructive.


Oh... and... get a job!

[jordanriver]

Oh... and... get a job!

you got 23,460 posts here.

I got time for 1,212

Is your job posting?

[Cow Poke]

you got 23,460 posts here.

I got time for 1,212

Is your job posting?

I'm a highly efficient and productive person, capable of multitasking, and semi-retired, though still making money.



Get a job!

[Joel]

Very poor extension of your point.
Then people will buy elections either to further restrict the government from regulating their special interests or they will buy elections to change the government policy to be bigger in their interests (again).

The limits to power would probably have to be something rather difficult to change, like part of the Constitution.

The government needs to be powerful enough to bust trusts,

I disagree. Both in theory and historically, trusts/cartels/monopolies tend to be unstable in the free market and bust themselves as they get out-competed by growing competition. Unless they are propped up by a huge regulatory state like they have been. Not to mention this power has in practice been used mainly as a tool of cronyism. But this is starting to get off topic.

[Joel]

........ I think the solution is to take power away from the government (certainly not to give it more power)

take away ALL their power, send them home. What do we need "lawmakers" for anyway.
People vote for some politician to make some law or other.

Why not just skip that step and vote ourselves on some law or other, like ballot initiatives. One vote for you, one vote for me, one vote for Cruz, one vote for Rubio, one vote for Bernie, one vote for Barack , one vote for Charles Koch,

.etc.

That would be another solution to the problem of only the wealthy being able to get elected. I think we have the technology to do so, and probably cheaper than the current way of holding elections.
Another solution is the ancient Athenian model of appointing people to office by lot. (With various restrictions like requiring at least 10 years between terms in office.)
I really don't buy the idea that the only option is restriction of political speech.

[Adam]

For you, Joel, Libertarianism is perverted to mean billionaire cronyism.

[Cow Poke]

Absolutely false. I frequently give, and so does my Church, and of our own free will.

ok , same here, but I was not talking about that context.

Ya know, in my experience, it never seems to be the givers that are advocating "sharing" - cause we're already doing it. It's usually those who want "free stuff".

Get a job!

[Joel]

For you, Joel, Libertarianism is perverted to mean billionaire cronyism.

I don't know what you mean.

[jordanriver]

I really don't buy the idea that the only option is restriction of political speech.

I don't understand where that part comes in

[Joel]

I don't understand where that part comes in

Sorry, that wasn't intended as a criticism of anything you said. It was me tying what I was saying back to the topic of the thread, directed against those who were favoring restrictions on political expression.