Felix wrote: ↑
May 20th, 2019, 8:30 pm
As I said, it's capacity for political and economic influence grows, so its rights have grown in the sense that they possess a greater force of action.
Well, that is not a "sense" of the growth of rights. It is, as I suggested earlier, a confusion of rights with powers. Having a right to speak does not imply having the ability to speak, or to speak effectively. A "right" is a moral
pseudo-property; it only means you rightfully possess x
(a property right), or may rightfully do y
(a liberty right). Which in turn means that your acquisition of x
harmed no one, or your doing y
harms no one, and therefore that no one may morally interfere with your possession of x
or your doing y
(as long as you continue to harm no one). One's ability to speak or speak effectively may well grow, but the right to do so does not change.
The practical effect of it's speech does increase, especially when laws such as the Citizens United law are enacted, which equates money - monetary spending - with free speech.
That's true. The practical effect of speech varies with the speaker, for all speakers. Some are more articulate, more eloquent, more persuasive, or just louder than others. The CU decision was based on the First Amendment, which guarantees free speech. It does not guarantee "equal speech." Free speech means every speaker may speak as often and loudly as he wants, to anyone willing to listen. It takes no account of the abilities of different speakers to speak effectively or persuasively.
Money does not equal speech, but it is necessary for virtually all speech directed to persons not in the same room with you. Merely sending a personal letter requires purchase of a postage stamp; speaking to someone on the telephone requires an account with a carrier. Printing newsletters, buying radio or television or newspaper ads, renting an auditorium all cost money. So restrictions on the amount of money that can be spent on speech are burdens on speech; it hobbles the free exercise of that right.
Again, you are speaking of rights in the abstract sense while I am speaking of their practical operation in the real world, which can and usually does vary greatly from your academic depiction of it. If you can't distinguish betwen the two, further conversation with you on the subject is futile.
The "practical operation of rights in the real world" differs for every right of every agent. That is because agents are not equal, in any material way. Some are healthier, stronger, more beautiful, more talented, more creative, more intelligent, more ambitious, more diligent or driven than others. Not to mention that they all have differing interests and goals. So the "practical operation" of their respective rights will differ as well. As long as their exercise harms no one those differences are morally irrelevant.