From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Dec 12 2003 - 01:27:45 GMT
Hi Steve,
> > Steve wrote:
> >> Intellectual domination of society is strengthened when ideas are
> >> weighed on their intellectual quality rather than the amount of money
> >> supporting their spread. So I see MOQ justification in limiting
> >> impact of "voice" based on wealth because it may make room for
> >> "voice" based on intellectual quality. So, what you've called
> >> intellect's attack on free speech may be seen as a triumph of power
> >> based on intellectual quality over power based on wealth.
>
> Platt asked:
> > Am I correct in assuming that you think there's an inverse ratio
> > between money and intellectual quality, that is, a voice based on
> > wealth is prima facie evidence that the intellectual quality of that
> > voice is low? If so, what evidence would you cite?
>
> Steve:
> No, I don't assume that, nor do I assume that there is a direct
> relationship between money and intellectual quality. I think there is
> likely to be only a weak correlation, which is why I think selecting
> ideas to spread based on financial backing is not the sort of
> marketplace of ideas that we should foster.
Since both political parties are amply supplied with funds, and since
both would claim their views to be of high intellectual quality, I
don't see the problem.
> > Also I wonder who you would suggest as judges to establish the
> > "intellectual quality" of a political ad, or any speech for that
> > matter?
>
> I would suggest that individuals judge for themselves as I assume you
> would. I don't understand why you asked.
You say it's good for intellect to dominate society by weighing the
intellectual quality of campaign ads, so I'm just wondering you would
nominate among the intellectual elite to judge an ad's quality? After
all, intellect cannot dominate, control or have power over society
without laws to back up its views as to what's intellectually best.
> I'm interested in what you thought of my take on replacing equating
> speech and money with relating money and "voice" if you'd care to
> comment.
The power of government to limit any "voice," whether based on that
"voice's" wealth, association, occupation, race, age, sex, political
views, ethnic background, religious belief of whatever category you can
think of is expressly forbidden by the First Amendment. Once you open
the door to the idea that restrictions should be placed on wealthy
voices, what's to stop placing restrictions on other types of voices as
well?
Further, I don't buy the notion that the loudest voice is the most
influential. I agree with Justice Scalia who in his dissent from the
Court's ruling wrote, "The premise of the First Amendment is that the
American people are neither sheep nor fools, and hence fully capable of
considering both the substance of the speech presented to them and its
proximate and ultimate source."
I would guess that statement also reflects your belief that
"individuals can judge for themselves." Which is why I'm puzzled by
your support of restrictions on free speech.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Dec 12 2003 - 01:26:13 GMT