What is considered free speech and what our Fore Father did, is quite different. Our Fore Fathers belonged to an aristocracy. When rich plantation owners and business-men draft policies it’s for their own best interest. They aren’t thinking about the Slave, the Injun, the women, and the immigrant. James Madison the second President of the US, and his homeboy John Jay had these things to say, respectively:
- The primary function of government is to protect the minority of the opulent from the majority of the poor.
- The people who own the country ought to govern it.
Aristotle talked about this situation. According to that infamous yogurt-eater, in a perfect democracy “there will be a small number of very rich people and a large number of very poor people, the poor will use their democratic rights to take property away from the rich. Aristotle regarded that as unjust, and proposed two possible solutions: reducing poverty or reducing democracy.
In my opinion, rather than reducing poverty, we reduce democracy. One way is by exacerbating the divide between rich and poor. The proof is in the pudding. It’s been concluded, that for roughly 70% of the population in America – the lower 70% on the wealth/income scale – they have no influence on policy whatsoever. They’re disenfranchised.
Six days ago the conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court struck down aggregate campaign-contribution limits. Campaign-contribution limits violate free-speech.
Let me ask, who’s free-speech?