Better Than Free Speech

I follow politics pretty closely. For most issues, I can give you a logical, decently well-informed opinion and I can defend why I think that way. Recently though, I've been thinking that there are some issues on which I don't have a strong opinion. These aren't issues I find unimportant, some of them are very important. It's not like I don't know anything about these issues, I've tried to learn as much as I can. But, at the end of the process, I can't pick a side. I have thoughts, inclinations, I could tell you which way I'd vote if you forced me. Honestly though, I can see both sides, and I don't have strong feelings either way.

Take gun control. I understand why people want much stricter gun control laws. Way too many people get shot in this country. Presidents have been shot, police officers, military personnel, not to mention ordinary citizens. Add to that all the robberies, sexual assaults and other crimes that happen under the threat of being shot. We know we have a problem with guns, and it still took me longer last month to locate and purchase a copy of Madden 10 then it would have taken me to find and purchase a gun. I don't blame anyone for trying to do whatever they can to start improving the situation, and I certainly don't blame Democratic law makers for trying to find a way to legally control guns.

Also, the second amendment argument Republicans make about gun control is stupid. The people who wrote the Constitution had no intention of making the second amendment about individual gun ownership. How do I know what the founders were talking about? Because they told us, they were talking about a well regulated militia. I know, the Supreme Court doesn't see it that way. What makes me smarter than the Supreme Court? I don't know, but I am. This doesn't necessarily mean we don't have a right to gun ownership, go read the ninth amendment, I'll wait. OK, moving on.

This where the Libertarian in me comes out. When people ask me if marijuana should be legal, I say of course it should. I don't smoke pot, because I'm not 16 years old and I have a job. But the fact that smoking pot robs some people of the ability to ever leave their parents' basement shouldn't ruin it for everyone else. Laws shouldn't restrict the rights of responsible people because of the actions of stupid people. The same argument can be made for guns, and I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't make it. A responsible adult can be reasonably expected to own a gun without killing anyone. You could argue that only misuse of marijuana makes bad things happen, while, unless way more people are buying guns to use as paperweights than I realize, the primary function of a gun is to injure or kill someone. That's a fair point, but I still think my general principle holds up (and, gun people, don't talk to me about hunting, I'm barely in your corner as it is, that isn't going to help).

The death penalty is another example. I don't think the state should kill people. I also don't know how the death penalty isn't considered cruel and unusual punishment and banned by the eighth amendment. If your definition of cruelty doesn't cover killing people, I don't know what to tell you, but if I ever have kids, you aren't babysitting.

At the same time, if a guy who kills a bunch of people gets found guilty, and if the state he does it in has the death penalty as an option, and the court decides to use that option on him, I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it, ya know? And if it brings the families of the victims some sense of peace and closure, then I'll lose even less sleep (I was already losing zero sleep, what's less than that, would I actually gain sleep?).

I feel this way about abortion too. This is a really hot issue, people on both sides feel strongly about it, but not me. I'm inclined to leave the choice up to individuals. Life begins at some point, we don't really know when, who gets to draw that line? I can't see doing anything other than letting people make that choice for themselves.

On the other hand, some people think life definitely begins at conception. They want the government to use its authority to protect fetuses that can't possibly defend themselves. That's a perfectly reasonable argument, and I don't have anything bad to say about the people making it.

I think you get the point. So recently I had an idea. I'd like to sell my opinion on these issues to the highest bidder. The NRA wants to pay me $50,000 to talk about individual gun ownership as a right? Sold! The catholic church wants to pay me $75,000 to be super pro-life guy? Not only sold, but because they do good charity work and I'm a nice guy, I'll do it for $15,000 and a guarantee that I'm going to heaven, just in case I'm totally wrong on the whole god issue and heaven is actually there. I mean, I wouldn't pay for afterlife insurance, but I'll take it for free if you're offering.

I don't think this would make me a bad person, I honestly believe both sides of these issues have a fair point, I wouldn't be saying anything I thought was total nonsense and I could advocate on either side without saying anything I thought was a lie. Sadly, we'll never get to find out if this would actually make me a bad person, because I'll never get to do it. You know why not? Because I'm not a politician.

See, opinions are certainly for sale. I already talked about how the Supreme Court, in yet another example of them being wrong and me being right, recently, and insanely, decided that campaign contributions are a form of speech. So, thanks to the concept of corporate personhood, which always gives me a headache when I think about it, we've basically legalized bribery. Politicians can take whatever amount of money they can get from industries they're supposed to be regulating. They can sell their opinions for top dollar, and you better believe they do. I can put my opinions up for sale too, but nobody will buy them, because, unlike politicians, I can't turn my opinions into useful actions.

This is the part where I'm supposed to give you an amusing and somewhat scary list of politicians and show you how they've successfully matched their voting records to the interests of their biggest donors. I'm not going to, because I don't blame the politicians. They're prisoners of a broken system. And it isn't like they're using the money to buy big houses and fancy cars, they just use it to keep their jobs. You can't get elected and re-elected without tons of money, and you can't get all the money you need from 10 and 20 dollar donations from regular people. The rules allow them to take huge donations from big corporate interests, and the system basically demands it.

On top of that, there's really nothing the rest of us can do about it. Should we vote for the candidates that don't take any corporate money? Sure, good luck finding one. If the Supreme Court sticks to the idea that campaign contributions are a form of free speech, Congress can't do anything about it even if they want to. We're basically stuck with it.

Well, I don't think it's fair. I thought we were all supposed to be equal here. All I get is free speech, it's useless, I can't get a dime for it. But politicians get something much better, their speech is incredibly expensive. Corporations spend millions of dollars on politicians' speech every election cycle, but I'm stuck here with this worthless free speech, and it sucks. After years of watching politicians think and say whatever people with money want them to think and say, I think it's time for us to stand up, hold our heads high and boldly say "we want in!"