How would you like people to take money from you? Even for charitable causes, I would object.
Perhaps Mr. Soros does give to charity. I don't know. I know his wealth and the business he creates provides jobs for many thousands of people, who in turn can give to charity.
The solution to poverty is work. Either start your own business or hire on. Poor countries are that way due to poor governments--usually dictatorships of some sort.
Charity is good for emergency aid and to educate people on how to support themselves. But as an on going way of supporting life, it is demeaning.
The problem of poverty (not income inequity--that's not a problem, as long as one's basic needs are met) has a combined cause of lack of opportunity (the whole country is poor and thwarts free enterprise--see Zimbwabwe) and lack of education. Both need to be solved.
However, GPL is VOLUNTARY and does not repudiate ownership of private property, as does Mr. Marx.
Mr. Marx's philosophy had the minor problem of assuming people would be altruistic and work for the common good. Capitalism assumes people are greedy and will work hardest for themselves. I leave the comparison of the economic success of the U.S. and U.S.S.R. to the reader.
Political systems succeed because their ideas succeed. The Republicans are based on business and conservative values, the Democrats, on the poor and progressive/liberal (pick one!) values.
Libertarians have been trying to sell their ideas since before Ayn Rand, but few are buying.
Tell us what ideas you wish to promote and then you must sell the ideas to the masses.
The American people are resistant to change. There have been few successful 3rd parties in our 231 years of our nation: Know Nothings, Bull Moose, Free Silver, American Independent Party and whatever Ross Perot's was. These 3rd parties are usually built around a charismatic personality who can galvanize a group to the cause: William Jennings Bryan, Teddy Roosevelt, George Wallace, Ross Perot.
So, if you want a smorgasbord, you'd better get someone to sell the ideas to the American people. I don't think they want a smorgasbord--I think they want things to stay the same, only get better, for them.
"Free Speech" means the freedom to express yourself. One way of expressing yourself is to contribute money to a candidate or political cause. If one supports a candidate or a cause, one should be able to give to it without incumbents opposing your opposition to them. If one limits contributions, by default one helps incumbents because they have a natural advantage (name recognition, franking privilege, etc. etc).
That said, bribery is a natural danger of politics, and I fully support all efforts to stop bribery short of stopping me from contributing to my candidates. I think "sunshine" rules that show who is supporting each political ad and where all the money a candidate or party receives comes from are the solution. It would be particularly interesting after each congressional vote or Presidential decision to publish the winners and losers, the who voted for and against, and who contributed to the politicians involved. That would be a good use of the media.
Slashdot Mirror
How would you like people to take money from you? Even for charitable causes, I would object.
Perhaps Mr. Soros does give to charity. I don't know. I know his wealth and the business he creates provides jobs for many thousands of people, who in turn can give to charity.
The solution to poverty is work. Either start your own business or hire on. Poor countries are that way due to poor governments--usually dictatorships of some sort.
Charity is good for emergency aid and to educate people on how to support themselves. But as an on going way of supporting life, it is demeaning.
The problem of poverty (not income inequity--that's not a problem, as long as one's basic needs are met) has a combined cause of lack of opportunity (the whole country is poor and thwarts free enterprise--see Zimbwabwe) and lack of education. Both need to be solved.
However, GPL is VOLUNTARY and does not repudiate ownership of private property, as does Mr. Marx.
Mr. Marx's philosophy had the minor problem of assuming people would be altruistic and work for the common good. Capitalism assumes people are greedy and will work hardest for themselves. I leave the comparison of the economic success of the U.S. and U.S.S.R. to the reader.
Political systems succeed because their ideas succeed. The Republicans are based on business and conservative values, the Democrats, on the poor and progressive/liberal (pick one!) values.
Libertarians have been trying to sell their ideas since before Ayn Rand, but few are buying.
Tell us what ideas you wish to promote and then you must sell the ideas to the masses.
The American people are resistant to change. There have been few successful 3rd parties in our 231 years of our nation: Know Nothings, Bull Moose, Free Silver, American Independent Party and whatever Ross Perot's was. These 3rd parties are usually built around a charismatic personality who can galvanize a group to the cause: William Jennings Bryan, Teddy Roosevelt, George Wallace, Ross Perot.
So, if you want a smorgasbord, you'd better get someone to sell the ideas to the American people. I don't think they want a smorgasbord--I think they want things to stay the same, only get better, for them.
"Free Speech" means the freedom to express yourself. One way of expressing yourself is to contribute money to a candidate or political cause. If one supports a candidate or a cause, one should be able to give to it without incumbents opposing your opposition to them. If one limits contributions, by default one helps incumbents because they have a natural advantage (name recognition, franking privilege, etc. etc).
That said, bribery is a natural danger of politics, and I fully support all efforts to stop bribery short of stopping me from contributing to my candidates. I think "sunshine" rules that show who is supporting each political ad and where all the money a candidate or party receives comes from are the solution. It would be particularly interesting after each congressional vote or Presidential decision to publish the winners and losers, the who voted for and against, and who contributed to the politicians involved. That would be a good use of the media.