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

[Joel]

Thanks for that.
But again, it doesn't put any restrictions on what can be said, only how and how often it can be said. Your own examples of how this might restrict speech are both concerned with style rather than substance. I see this amendment as being similar to laws in the UK and (I think) Australia which reduce the amount of spending on electoral campaigns in order to counteract attempts to 'buy' the election. They don't restrict political impression, they only restrict parties' ability to outspend the opposition on advertising.

As I pointed out to Adam, before, "The amendment itself does not restrict any influencing of elections. The amendment would give Congress the power to do so, however any future Congress sees fit." It seems like you here are making assumptions about how Congress will use that power, assuming bounds within which Congress will keep itself--bounds which are not imposed by the proposed amendment. In fact, we don't know what restrictions Congresses in the future might decide to impose, once given the power. In practice, legislators tend to expand their exercise of power as far as they can.


As for buying elections, I'd think the bigger problem may be politicians 'buying' votes by promising 'free' (i.e. taxpayer-funded) stuff. (Is that not worse than mere attempts to persuade by speech?) In both cases, I think the solution is to take power away from the government (certainly not to give it more power). If it had little power, it would be worth spending little on campaigning. And would have little power to buy votes with tax money. Then you don't need to restrict political expression at all (which in practice tends to restrict grassroots efforts and the little guy as much or more than it restricts the big guy or incumbant).

[Adam]

I think the solution is to take power away from the government (certainly not to give it more power). If it had little power, it would be worth spending little on campaigning. And would have little power to buy votes with tax money. Then you don't need to restrict political expression at all (which in practice tends to restrict grassroots efforts and the little guy as much or more than it restricts the big guy or incumbant).

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 government needs to be powerful enough to bust trusts, to keep evil private interests from being more powerful than the government and benevolent interests.
As I have said before, I USED TO BE a libertarian. Applied absolutely the principle stinks.

[jordanriver]

[QUOTE=Joel;283012]........ I think the solution is to take power away from the government (certainly not to give it more power).QUOTE]

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.

[Cow Poke]

take away ALL their power, send them home. What do we need "lawmakers" for anyway.

We need citizen legislators who will serve a limited term, then go back to their homes to live under the laws they created - no exceptions.

[jordanriver]

We need citizen legislators who will serve a limited term, then go back to their homes to live under the laws they created - no exceptions.

somehow I don't think they would have any problems living with the laws they created

[Cow Poke]

somehow I don't think they would have any problems living with the laws they created

So, how many of them do you think would want to buy their insurance from the government exchanges?

[jordanriver]

So, how many of them do you think would want to buy their insurance from the government exchanges?

With power, the haves can sew things up to secure their seat at the table and make it harder for new competitors to join. They'll have fine insurance

[Cow Poke]

With power, the haves can sew things up to secure their seat at the table and make it harder for new competitors to join. They'll have fine insurance

That has zero to do with lawmakers living under the laws they create. In fact, it appears you're suggesting they'll find a way around it.

[jordanriver]

That has zero to do with lawmakers living under the laws they create. In fact, it appears you're suggesting they'll find a way around it.

Loopholes for the rich?
Yeah you're right. What a far out idea

[Cow Poke]

Loopholes for the rich?
Yeah you're right. What a far out idea

I'm thinking, at this point, it boils down to you just being a greedy little have-nothing who wants those of us who actually work for a living to give you stuff.

Get a job!

[jordanriver]

I'm thinking, at this point, it boils down to you just being a greedy little have-nothing who wants those of us who actually work for a living to give you stuff.

Get a job!

No.
I am aware that nobody gives you anything.
Humans have always had to fight for a slice.
Europeans had to fight the natives to get this land.
Patriots had to fight to take the colonies from the Royalty.
Mexico didn't give Texas to the American/Texans.
...remember the Magna Carta. ....Canaan?


....I just offer a more peaceful solution. Ballots instead of bullets

[Cow Poke]

No.
I am aware that nobody gives you anything.

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

Humans have always had to fight for a slice.
Europeans had to fight the natives to get this land.
Patriots had to fight to take the colonies from the Royalty.
Mexico didn't give Texas to the American/Texans.

No, we cheated them out of it.

...remember the Magna Carta. ....Canaan?

Hmmmm... I don't recall that part in Canaan where the people voted that the rich had to give "stuff" to the lazy.

....I just offer a more peaceful solution. Ballots instead of bullets

So... the government that you don't trust - because the "haves" can always carve out loopholes... somehow you're naive enough to trust them to force me to give my stuff to you?

That's not a biblical model. The Lord loves a cheerful giver. You want to vote to extort money from me because you're greedy, and full of lust and you're coveting my stuff.

Get a job!

[jordanriver]

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.

I am talking about the land and the resources, and the division of it.

No, we cheated them out of it.

WHAT????????????

oh man, its hard to discuss with you. Nobody is talking about cheating the Mexicans. They had the land and the resources. They FOUGHT to keep it. The Texans FOUGHT to take it, the Texans won.

That's just how its done is what I was trying to say.

its HISTORY 101, you got to fight to keep what you got, and if you ain't got you got to fight to get. HUMAN HISTORY pure and simple.

Hmmmm... I don't recall that part in Canaan where the people voted that the rich had to give "stuff" to the lazy.

are you trying to be tricky here, pulling the context of one part of the discussion to dismantle a different sub-context.
I thought it was plain that in the context of Canaan , which was included with the context of taking American from its natives, and taking the Colonies from its previous English landlords and taking Texas from the Mexicans, that in this sub-context I was just giving examples of how humans acquire , their nations, land and its resources. This was not about people voting to take the Richie's stuff from them.
In Canaan the sword was used to take from the rich natives, not ballots. The Canaanites didn't get to vote.

.....I think they outnumbered the Hebrews thought didn't they? If it was voting to decide, the Hebrews would have had to go back , disappointed, and make more babies and try another vote later.

So... the government that you don't trust - because the "haves" can always carve out loopholes... somehow you're naive enough to trust them to force me to give my stuff to you?

hmmm, I thought I made it clear that the government that I don't trust would not be around anymore.
I thought I made it clear, "who needs 'em"

That's not a biblical model. The Lord loves a cheerful giver. You want to vote to extort money from me because you're greedy, and full of lust and you're coveting my stuff.

ah, that's another thing. I don't want to vote to take anybody's money. I would vote that everybody can keep their money.

and use it for kindling or stuffing or insulation.

...or toilet paper ...

...whatever you want to do with it.

Get a job!

oh i see, ....gee , that's a tough comment to reply to. What, do I have to reveal my name and personal info over the internet to prove I have a job, so you are are free to insinuate that I am just a bum and you can get away with that.

I thought you were a cop, so I thought you knew bums, the chronically unemployed,

....I don't think that crowd posts in forums like this, I believe they're busy posting pictures of twerking girls on their facebook and how pitbull owners are discriminate against, things like that. Certainly not theology, or evolution, or civics.


No CP, I have a job. I am salaried for a contractor and sometimes have easy week, sometimes 70 hour week. Longest stretch for me personally was 38 straight hours, filling in for people sick, and filling in because the company I work for occasionally forgets to hire replacements. I would have worked longer but the foremen of the factory I was filling in chased me home because they were afraid I going to run into something .

I need more help but that would cut into my employer's profits and the places I go to, their people are overworked also, same reason, not enough help.

....but wait, I suppose I could just be making this up, no way prove otherwise.


ok, oh well,

Lets just say, I would VOTE that EVERYBODY ABLE BODIED CITIZEN chips in and WORKS.

I would vote a rather harsh treatment of parasites.

I would vote that the LOCAL community of people who know each other vote to decide if one of their neighbors really is handicapped and cannot participate in the labor, not some disinterested social worker with a rubber stamp.

AND

if every able bodied citizen actually did chip in and help, would that not make the burden lighter for the overworked laborers we have now, (many hands make light work)


.....and in a money less society (once the last sheet of lincolns has been flushed down the potty) I guess the pencil pushing accountants will be available to help in the factory or the farm (no real strain, add a few million pairs of hands to the field, what? probably 40 or so minutes picking lettuce and strawberries, take the rest of the day off, like I said, many hands make light work, .....be like a field trip, shorts and sandals and sunglasses)


but the money's got to go, its evil. Its product is crime, planned obsolescence, Luddites, slavery, war....)

bad stuff, money, but good stuffing.

[Cow Poke]

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

I am talking about the land and the resources, and the division of it.

You mean when GOD does it? And you want to turn that job over to corrupt men?

WHAT????????????

oh man, its hard to discuss with you. Nobody is talking about cheating the Mexicans. They had the land and the resources. They FOUGHT to keep it. The Texans FOUGHT to take it, the Texans won.

Read some honest Texas history - it's not as glorious as you'd like, and there's plenty to be ashamed of.

That's just how its done is what I was trying to say.

its HISTORY 101, you got to fight to keep what you got, and if you ain't got you got to fight to get. HUMAN HISTORY pure and simple.

And you want HUMAN HISTORY to trump the Plan of God?


Get a job!

[jordanriver]

You mean when GOD does it? And you want to turn that job over to corrupt men?



Read some honest Texas history - it's not as glorious as you'd like, and there's plenty to be ashamed of.



And you want HUMAN HISTORY to trump the Plan of God?


Get a job!

? ? ?

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