From: "Kurt Buff (Volt Comp)" <a-kurtb@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 95 16:00:09 PST
To: Bill Stewart <hallam@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Political Cleanup program [NOISE]
Message-ID: <c=US%a=_%p=msft%l=RED-06-MSG951219153443UD006800@red-01-msg.itg.microsoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Let's try this again, shall we? My mailer didn't act the way I wanted it 
to...
___________________________________
>I happen to believe in freedom of speech, especially political speech,
>and if you're not allowed to spend money broadcasting your speech or
>printing your messages, you don't have much freedom of press or speech.

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.
_____________________________________
Not so strange really. All rights, correctly understood, *are* property 
rights. What most don't understand is that rights are protections from the 
initiation of force by others. What this means is that you (anyone) don't 
have the right to the property of others. You have the right to offer 
mutually satisfactory exchanges, or even solicit outright gifts, but what is 
yours is yours, and it shouldn't be subject to extortion or theft by others. 
This includes your time, cash, and any other tangible assets you may own.
_______________________________________________
I began work on the web in '92 because I saw its potential as a political 
tool 
which did not have the bias of wealth. It has the potential to create a new 
kind 
of political dialogue. 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. 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.
________________________________________
The problem with the political process now is that the government and its 
beneficiaries (which includes both the large corporation and the welfare 
class) have over time arrogated to themselves the power to steal (via taxes 
and regulation) our lives and our livelihood from us. The poor and the rich 
will always be with us, but they shouldn't be special clients of the state 
at the expense of everyone else.
_____________________________________
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.
_____________________________________________
The only reason foreign money might be a threat to us is again that the 
government arrogated to itself the power to regulate our lives. The reason 
and interest for lobbying the government, whether through the press or 
through other, more direct, efforts is that the government *can do 
something* about whatever happens to be at issue. Take away the ability of 
the government to act, and there won't be any money spent lobbying it. I 
submit we'd all be better off.
________________________________________________
>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.

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.

>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.
_______________________________________
See my above comments. Only if the PM of Tobago could steal the land from 
its owners could he permit the island to be strip-mined. And only if the 
government has the power to prohibit drug possession would the Cali cartel 
be interested in making campaign contributions. No power to do something, no 
money offered to do it.
____________________
		Phill


Kurt
[Speaking only for myself, of course]