NationStates

In another thread, someone mentioned (possibly sarcastically, but I'm not sure) a national publishing house bound by the principles of government - free expression, etc, to counter coordinated suppression of individuals rights by corporations.

It got me to thinking. Why not?

We do this in certain ways already (albeit badly) - people have the right to an attorney, and if they cannot afford one, the government must provide one. I'm thinking we could start rolling out such things in a nonpartisan "avenue of last resort" for people to use.

For example - none of us own a TV station. But what if there was a government TV station that all they do is accept applications for citizens to put on their own noncommercial piece about a subject or area that is of interest to them, and they feel need to be shared with the general public? Ok, some of it is going to be insane, but some might be bringing broader issues to the public fore.

We could do the same with a government alternative to youtube for hosting video.

For right to protest, we could have an organization that helps with permits and navigating the requirements to have a legal protest.

We could also provide a gun manufacturer of last resort, for those who wish to exercise their rights but are too poor to afford a weapon.

And we could provide attorneys for constitutional cases of a civil nature, for those who have had their rights violated and do not have the money to pursue a constitutional case.

For those facing IRS audit, we could pay for them to have an enrolled agent or CPA to handle their case if they meet certain income requirements (i know that's a little recursive, but we can recoup at the end if needed).

Anyway, just some thoughts of things we could do so that people aren't forced out of their rights based on low income or lack of a platform.

Thoughts, NSG?

Since I believe corporations have far too much power compared to any government around the world I think this is fantastic idea.

And besides with most cases corporations have MORE power than governments so this is an excellent counter balance.

It might be a useful stopgap in preventing market exploitation, but I would think there would be have to be robust and political meddling-proof funding mechanisms for all of these - the example of civil rights attorneys brings me to mind how overworked and underfunded most public defenders' offices are.

This isn't a bad idea on the face of it, but the details are definitely going to get very messy.

Valrifell wrote:This isn't a bad idea on the face of it, but the details are definitely going to get very messy.

Seconded. Good idea in principle, but the devil's in the details. Funding, organisation, oversight, etc.

I suggested nationalizing Facebook, Twitter, and Google as an option on a different thread, but issues of snooping and privacy would arise. Otherwise, it sounds like a good idea in principle.

This sounds like big government to me. The good kind.

On the face of it, it sounds like a pretty good idea.

Implementation might not be the best, but at least on principle I don't have any opposition to this.

Galloism wrote:In another thread, someone mentioned (possibly sarcastically, but I'm not sure) a national publishing house bound by the principles of government - free expression, etc, to counter coordinated suppression of individuals rights by corporations.

It got me to thinking. Why not?

We do this in certain ways already (albeit badly) - people have the right to an attorney, and if they cannot afford one, the government must provide one. I'm thinking we could start rolling out such things in a nonpartisan "avenue of last resort" for people to use.

For example - none of us own a TV station. But what if there was a government TV station that all they do is accept applications for citizens to put on their own noncommercial piece about a subject or area that is of interest to them, and they feel need to be shared with the general public? Ok, some of it is going to be insane, but some might be bringing broader issues to the public fore.

We could do the same with a government alternative to youtube for hosting video.

For right to protest, we could have an organization that helps with permits and navigating the requirements to have a legal protest.

We could also provide a gun manufacturer of last resort, for those who wish to exercise their rights but are too poor to afford a weapon.

And we could provide attorneys for constitutional cases of a civil nature, for those who have had their rights violated and do not have the money to pursue a constitutional case.

For those facing IRS audit, we could pay for them to have an enrolled agent or CPA to handle their case if they meet certain income requirements (i know that's a little recursive, but we can recoup at the end if needed).

Anyway, just some thoughts of things we could do so that people aren't forced out of their rights based on low income or lack of a platform.

Thoughts, NSG?

What are you, some kind of socialist or something?

The question isn't so much what the government controls as who controls the government. That control clearly lies with corporate interests, and until that changes don't expect governments to make more than token gestures towards protecting individuals from those interests.

You talk about providing guns to those who can't afford them, but even in the US the right to own a gun isn't like the right to legal representation. It just means the government won't stop you owning a gun. In the same sense you have the right to own a Ferrari but it doesn't mean anyone needs to buy one for you.

I can't help thinking that a protest that needs to ask the people it's protesting against not only for their permission but for their organisational help is going to be a pretty lame protest.