❝❝My idea for campaign finance reform.

You can't contribute to a campaign unless you reside in the area affected by the campaign. No one from Phoenix could contribute to a city council election in Tucson, no one from California could contribute to a proposition in Nevada, and so on.

No anonymous contributions. A current public list of all contributions must be maintained.

Any unused funds must be returned proportionally to all contributors or to a specified charity. If someone contributed .01% of the campaign's funding, then they would receive .01% of any monies left over.

Violating any of these rules would render a candidate legally unable to serve in any public office until the end of term for the office they ran for. If they ran for Senate, violation would make them ineligible for six years. In the case of a ballot proposition, the election would be voided and must be held again.

---

Money is not speech. No matter what the USSC says.

If they want to spend money, they can do so in their own home. If they want to speak against someone, they can do that where ever and when ever. But someone in Idaho doesn't have to live with the aftermath of an election in Illinois.

---

It's part of my SUPER SECRET PLAN TO DESTROY THE POLITICAL PARTIES.

Don't tell anyone.

---

People forget that the party system wasn't created by the Constitution. Yet they essentially control the nomination process. Take the cash flow and war chests and political action groups away and the parties collapse.

All without arguing over if cash is free speech.

Oh, and banning corporate campaign contributions. And union contributions. And political "matching funds."

*grins*

---

Money isn't speech any more than money is press. Money is a tool, a way of keeping score, and power, but it is not speech.

If money was really speech, there would be no legal limit to campaign donations.

If someone has more money, does that mean they have a bigger right of free speech or a bigger right of the press? If that is the case, we might as well do away with elections and just hold auctions.

It's telling that prior to campaign finance "reform," no one thought otherwise. It's also telling that the CFR was used to restrict speech.

Just because the law says something doesn't mean it's so. I'm still convinced that anyone born with a penis is a male.

Under my proposal, there are two restrictions on donating money. You have to be a voter and you have to reside in the area affected by the election. These are the two restrictions that every other proposed form of campaign finance reform tries to do away with.❞❞

Tags: campaign finance reform ∙ contributions ∙ Phoenix ∙ Tucson ∙ California ∙ Nevada ∙ charity

Lauren Southern lets loose on organized libertarianism

Tags: clipping ∙ Brendan O'Neil ∙ Thomas DiLorenzo ∙ the resistance ∙ John McCain ∙ George W Bush ∙ Bill Clinton ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ Al Gore ∙ deep state ∙ Phoenix ∙ Washington D.C. ∙ Annapolis ∙ Keating Five ∙ maverick

❝❝You are aware that you just tried to shame me into keeping quiet and not offer a dissenting opinion, aren't you?

It's only shame if I accept the premise.

I did not deny that discrimination and oppression takes place.

Now, let's look at what I actually did.

I said people had tried to shame and shun me because of my sexuality, faith, and politics.

You know, like you tried to do.

I didn't proclaim my victimhood gave me the power to command others.

You know, like you tried to do.

It's only shame if I accept the premise.

I refuse to give blanket special privilege because of proclaimed victimhood.

If an individual wants help, I'll give what I think I can. If a vague class demands constant unquestioned deference because of some poorly defined list of potential offenses that may have been committed on alternate Tuesdays, I'll probably laugh.

The World needs heroes more than it needs victims.

I despise the politics of victimhood. That always ALWAYS means a hierarchy and oh so carefully deciding who has it worse. It's never about injustice, it's about injustice shown to a particular class. Injustice against other groups gets downplayed if not ignored entirely.

For example, I gave three reasons. You picked sex sexuality. Not just sex sexuality, but sexual politics as it applies to your letter salad. So heterosexual feminists don't rate high on your victim scale. And you treated all those carefully defined letters as One Monolithic Block, as if the needs and desires of the transfolks matched those of the gay bears.

You're not a hero because someone hurt your feelings or didn't give you what you thought you deserved. Heroes overcome adversity.

---

Yes, you did attempt to shame me. It's kafkatrapping, specifically invoking model A and model C. It was old when Alinsky wrote about it, under a different name of course. The goal of shaming is to morally prevent me from speaking or writing. It attempts to manipulate guilt of both the target and the spectators.

You're right, I don't know you. Nor should what you have experienced have any influence on my behavior. Unless you're expecting my guilty pity to overcome my beliefs and self-interest.

Even now you are ranking comparative victimhood as if that is what defines people. That is what intersectionality does, isn't it? It's all about the victimhood. Emphasizing the victimhood isn't going to do anything except create a pity party. It's not particularly healthy and it isn't a practical solution.

There are radical feminists who routinely try to shame and shun men all the time. Starting with allegations that America is a "rape culture" and that any PIV sex is rape by it's very nature.

You'll never get social justice because people don't agree on what it means.

You obviously don't know me or you'd know that I carefully think about everything I write. I pride myself on it. You have a problem in that my thoughts don't slavishly follow what you think is important.

I've seen people called heroes over hurt feelings. So have you. I've also seen people cashing in on the ordeals of others. So have you.

You chose to respond to my post. I had done you no harm. All I did was challenge your belief. You don't know who I am or what I've done. You don't know who I've helped or who I've hurt. All you know is that you think I should not be allowed to speak or write my opinion.

---

Pardon, but you're deigning to respond so you can prove a point. You're not doing me any favors and the act comes across a little hollow.

Yes, you did try to shame me. You're not the first or thirteenth or thousandth person to try. You don't get to set the terms of my shame.

Of course I want a better world. What I may not want is a better world on your terms. That's not because of my politics, it's because I'm human.

Yep, I did bring up self-interest because it's a major reason for people's behavior. You're not having this discussion because you're feeling selfless. You've convinced yourself you're doing it for the Greater Good.

Speaking of self-interests, one reason why private alternatives become better, cheaper, and faster is because of competition. A public program doesn't have the incentive to improve so it can keep and get more business. But that is a long subject well beyond the scope of this discussion. I will point out that if something is cheaper and more available, that means that more people can get it if they want it.

I'll also point out that the free market, voluntary transactions between consenting adults, has done more to raise people out of poverty than anything else in history.

Just so you know, I was born on the Navajo reservation and I've spent much of my life near it or the Hopi reservation. I've also lived in Phoenix, Tucson, Los Angeles, Provo, and Albuquerque among other places. I know about "people of color," but mine go beyond your definition.

And that brings us up to women, doesn't it? I knew my first strong woman from before I was born. Your issue here is not that I don't have empathy, it's that I don't have the empathy that you approve of. Actually the radical feminists I was talking about called themselves third and fourth wave. When I can, I regularly seek out people who disagree with me. No one person and certainly no one group has all the answers.

I didn't pass judgement on sexual assault and harassment. I said that power from victimhood is not a good thing and heroes overcome adversity.

You yourself cited the experiences of others to justify fighting injustice. So yes, you're cashing in and you know people who have done so.

You chose to confront my "hypocrisy" but you haven't proven it. It may not match your opinion, but that is a different issue.

By the way, asserting that I have a "privileged position" is kafkatrapping Model P.

Isn't it interesting how you can tell me that my ideas are flawed but you think I can't tell you the same?

Before you proclaim that US Aid is the answer to all the World's problems, you might ask yourself how much of it actually gets through the many corrupt levels of government? That's the essence of libertarianism you see. It's not that we don't care, we just don't see government as an effective way to deliver what needs to be done.

If I see a victim, I don't want them to stay a victim.

I didn't put the web addy up for you. ❞❞

Tags: shame ∙ shame game ∙ competition ∙ Navajo reservation ∙ Phoenix ∙ Provo ∙ Albuquerque ∙ Tucson ∙ Los Angeles ∙ kafkatrap ∙ victimhood ∙ social justice ∙ self interest ∙ empathy

Tags: House of Representatives ∙ DEA ∙ regulations ∙ Donald Trump ∙ impeach ∙ NSA ∙ Democrat ∙ email ∙ Middle America ∙ Donald Trump Jr ∙ media ∙ Muslims ∙ Islamist terror ∙ Islamists ∙ VISA ∙ war on cash ∙ Oympics ∙ IOC ∙ International Olympics Committee ∙ stadium scam ∙ Congress ∙ responsibility ∙ George Will ∙ Phoenix ∙ government ∙ private enterprise

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: special counsel ∙ clipping ∙ climate ∙ Robert Mueller ∙ Rod Rosenstein ∙ 2016 election ∙ Donald Trump ∙ critical infrastructure ∙ Obama Administration ∙ colluded ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ Clinton campaign ∙ Loretta Lynch ∙ Indiana ∙ voting machines ∙ hack ∙ Phoenix ∙ Bill Clinton ∙ ☆