No, I didn't get why you post such an absurd comment or why you used guns to make the point when we aren't banning speech.
You are attempting to ban speech. Specifically you are attempting to ban it beyond an arbitrary threshold.
The effect will occur. Your argument that it doesn't is lacking any credibility. Will the law be violated? Sure, just like laws against theft and murder are violated. But it wouldn't change the fact that MOST people would abide by the law, which is the point.
The effect will certainly not occur - and my argument has the credibility of
having already happened. We can say with the perfect vision of hindsight that I am, in fact, correct on this. Which is why you chose to
cut that point out of my reply when you responded
The idea we can't legislate because the law might be violated is absurd.
Agreed. That is why the "you'll just push them into illegal abortions!" argument is invalid.
I'm not arguing to make it more difficult, I'm arguing to set a limit. Big difference.
Oh. So what If I were to not donate to a candidate, but instead donate to a group of like-minded individuals who believe in pooling their resources to benefit the public mind, and believe that the best way in which the public mind can be benefited is that it be adequately educated concerning the dangers of Candidate X, who just so happens to oppose my preferred Candidate Y? What if I were not even to donate in the context of an election, but rather to a cause that does political lobbying, such as the Sierra Club? What if I were to stand up my
own advocacy organization, as Bill and Melinda Gates have done? Am I not exercising more speech than those who do not do this?
No, I am not. I find it funny someone who isn't making sense tries to tell me what I'M arguing.
:shrug: it is not my fault you are self contradicting, first seeking equal speech, and then admitting that you are fine with unequal speech; insisting that exercising a right is the same as having a right, and then admitting that not exercising a right does not mean that you do not have it.
Nonsense. It's simple mathematics.
Let's say one family has only $500 they can spend in a year and another family has $20 million they can spend. If there are no limits, the first family's donation is a minute percentage of what is spent between the two families. If the limit is $750, then that $500 is 33% of what is spent.
This creates a far more equal situation of speech.
So you are not
actually in favor of equal speech, you are in favor of limiting the speech of others down to where it is closer to the speech of the lowest common denominator.... which is pretty much what I described with Joe Schmoe. You wish to limit my speech to something more in line with his capability to come up with disposable cash.
Unfortunately, the concept is the same - the ability and willingness of my family to spend more on pro-life causes does not mean that
either Bill Gates
or the homeless bum on the street are having their
right to do so limited.
Additionally, it is worth noting, what happens here is not that the family's both spend $500 on political speech. What happens here is that one family spends $500 on political speech, and another spends $100,000 on lawyers and $1.9 million on political speech.
The ability of a right is not removed if a person chooses not to use it. It IS removed it they are denied using it.
Precisely correct.
And being able to only spend $500 compared to $20 million is, in essence, being denied from using it.
Precisely incorrect, just as being able to spend only $500 compared to $750 is not being denied from using it. Nobody is
denying anyone without $20 million from donating it. No one is
restricting them. They are restricted only by themselves.
Are you really trying to claim my position is faulty because of a 100% equal standard? That's asinine.
I agree, it would be asinine, which is why I so strongly opposed your defense of Equal Speech earlier.
I am happy to see that you have decided to abandon that standard for one that feels better to you, even if it is logically incoherent.
Not once have I said it has to be 100% the exact same amount of money.
...What does "equal" mean, in your world?