>too bad for them. if you cant keep up, then shutup. its a
>free country, figure out a way to make some money. it isnt
>that hard.

what does wealth have to do with speech? nothing; i think the position that money equals a form of speech has been refuted to the satisfaction of everyone aside from complete idiots and/or self-interested millionaires. when does a right to voice an opinion come from the ability to, as you put it, "keep up"? not everyone shares your values-system where money matters more than anything. some people are not interested in making a lot of money - why should they be denied an equal footing in a political arena to those who are wealthy?

even people who are able to 'keep up': those who work and make enough money to get by, feel marginalized because nobody hears their voice. wealth should not be a proxy for access to government.


>the public still controls the fate of business. and the
>public still elects its officials. obviously the majority of
>this country could either care less or has bigger things to
>worry about. when it becomes a big problem, something will
>be done.

no, 'business' controls the fate of the public. big business has so much more influence than individual people that the public does not even know what it wants - it is told what it wants by big business. people who cannot see that ("libertarians") are idiots. government exists for the benefit of its people - thus the government must clear a space for people to exercise their freedoms. big business has occupied that space - it manipulates the 'free will' of individuals.

i'm not strictly anti-capitalist, but i am anti-laissez faire. the market does not work. government has to step in - even if government is inefficient, it has an important role that is better done inefficiently than not at all. government should stay out whereever it can, but in regulation of the market, it has to step in.