Federal Government Takes Final Step to Suspend Constitution

[mattseh]

Censorship through discrimination is a key libertarian social process.

Everyone discriminates, which in turn leads to everyone censoring something. You don't allow things you do not agree with equal time to those things you do agree with.

Take for example, you blocking me on Skype. You don't give me equal time and access. You're censoring me.

I think that there is a difference between a society blocking information / an information source completely and an individual choosing to ignore it.

I believe there is also a difference between ignoring "the village idiot" (I'm not implying you) and say refusing him the right to publish a book, assuming he has the resources to do so.

 

[guerilla]

I think that there is a difference between a society blocking information / an information source completely and an individual choosing to ignore it.

Libertarians are not collectivists. They don't think in terms of society, except as the abstract label it is.

Methodological individualism. Only individuals act.

I believe there is also a difference between ignoring "the village idiot" (I'm not implying you) and say refusing him the right to publish a book, assuming he has the resources to do so.

I have no idea how this relates to the discussion. We're talking about covenants in an anarcho-capitalist society. No one has control over anyone else except where control was explicitly given.

 

[guerilla]

The outright censorship of any text is a symptom of paranoia, but more importantly, weakness and ignorance.

Not sure if serious.

 

[mattseh]

Not sure if serious.

Can you give example(s) where censorship of an opinion in book format would not be because of paranoia, weakness or ignorance?

 

[MSTeacher]

Libertarians...don't think in terms of society, except as the abstract label it is.

I'm a social creature and what is this

 

[guerilla]

Can you give example(s) where censorship of an opinion in book format would not be because of paranoia, weakness or ignorance?

You want me to prove a negative, when the original assertion was an opinion presented as fact?

 

[guerilla]

I'm a social creature and what is this

Define society.

 

[MSTeacher]

Define society.

 

[guerilla]

If you're asserting that such a thing as society exists, then prove it. Define society.

Otherwise, I will stick to my position that society isn't a meaningful concept, and I don't think you can credibly disagree if you can't explain what it is.

 

[Moxie]

Right. And who cares?

You cared enough to make a comment about an "Ayn Randian capitalist society" and someone cared enough to respond to it. This is often happens in these things called discussions.

Whatever is in the contract, is in the contract.

Yes, nobody in here has disputed this, yet for whatever reason you keep insisting on acting like people have. In case you haven't noticed real and theoretical contracts are all over the place, and humans often discuss the details of these contracts, whether or not they are a part of them.

If you sign a contract to play basketball for the Chicago Bulls, and as soon as they put you in the game, you start scoring on your own basket, you will be ostracized.

Yeah, but if a sports writer says the Bulls could protect the team by requiring all future players to sign a contract saying that they will not worship nature or be homosexual, then this will be controversial and a topic of discussion.

I suggest you do some reading on contract theory, specifically the notion of "good faith".

I suggest you read this :

False dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[mattseh]

This.

Please define

Guerilla, I am asking for examples where you consider it legitimate to censor an opinion, except for the three reasons I gave. It is entirely possible to give an example, but it seems that you are trying to squirm out of it. It is not impossible.

 

[guerilla]

Google them shits yo. If you want to disagree with commonly accepted terms and invent your own meanings for them, then you need to be the one offering up your versions of what these terms mean to you.

If someone uses a term, and wants to debate in good faith, it's not up to me to define their terms for them.

If you use a term, define it or don't use it. The burden is on the person making the assertion.

You cared enough to make a comment about an "Ayn Randian capitalist society" and someone cared enough to respond to it. This is often happens in these things called discussions.

All I did was quickly come up with an fictional scenario to illustrate my point, and people are actually treating it like a real situation.

I cannot do anything about that, because an Ayn Randian capitalist society doesn't exist. And I suspect, none of the people responding to this thread right now can articulate what Galt's Gulch was.

Yes, nobody in here has disputed this, yet for whatever reason you keep insisting on acting like people have. In case you haven't noticed real and theoretical contracts are all over the place, and humans often discuss the details of these contracts, whether or not they are a part of them.

I'm not debating the validity of the last sentence, but I have to tell you, I don't care what other humans do. I am increasingly a misanthrope.

YYeah, but if a sports writer says the Bulls could protect the team by requiring all future players to sign a contract saying that they will not worship nature or be homosexual, then this will be controversial and a topic of discussion.

Your controversies are not my controversies. You're welcome to discuss whatever you like, but I don't particularly care to participate myself.

Freedom of speech is only valid where there are property rights. If you're in my gated community, signing my covenant, your speech is limited by my tolerance and our agreement.

Guerilla, I am asking for examples where you consider it legitimate to censor an opinion, except for the three reasons I gave. It is entirely possible to give an example, but it seems that you are trying to squirm out of it. It is not impossible.

"Where I consider it" is an opinion. Do you want my opinion, or do you want facts?

I'm not here to promote my point of view. I am discussing facts. I don't think you guys give a shit about my opinion, and I sure as hell don't give a damn about yours.

 

[Kstanki2]

Not sure if serious.

I'm not satisfied with this (not that it's your duty to satisfy me).

Why is it a good idea to censor a text (and by text I mean any piece of information in any format) for the sole reason that you disagree with it?

Would you say that an allied soldier during WWII has no business reading Mein Kampf? A capitalist should never touch the Communist Manifesto? An American soldier in the middle-east should know nothing of the Koran? Atheists should never open a bible?

You aren't thinking for yourself if you're only paying attention to the things you want to hear.

Know your enemy was the point of my post- it's fine to disagree, but to ignore the sentiments of your opponent completely and ban them (the texts) from discussion is asking for defeat. All perspectives are necessary in order to reach an intelligent conclusion, even ones that are not your own.

 

[charlie.simm]

Freedom of speech is only valid where there are property rights. If you're in my gated community, signing my covenant, your speech is limited by my tolerance and our agreement.

I agree with guerilla in this case, it's one of those "let the market do its thing" situations.

If you want to live in guerilla's gated community, you have to accept the fact that he makes the rules. His property, his rules. The same way, he has to accept the fact that his rules can have negative consequences. For example, if he implements outrageously restrictive rules, people will simply choose other gated communities.

WickedFire is a good example because you can say whatever the fuck you want and that's one of the forum's main selling points. Let's assume that as of today, Jon would start implementing restrictive rules. It's his forum, he has every right to do that. But do you think the new set of rules would have positive or negative consequences? The consequences would obviously be negative.

It's kind of like the "freedom of speech" debate. If you accept freedom of speech as a concept, you have to understand that you have to accept all opinions and not just those you agree with. You can't just say something like "dude, freedom of speech ftw but those who say that I suck should go to jail" because it doesn't work that way.

When it comes to property rights, the principle is similar. It's his property, he can make the rules and if those rules are stupid, he's the one who will have to deal with the consequences.

 

[guerilla]

I'm not satisfied with this (not that it's your duty to satisfy me).

Thank you for acknowledging the latter. Many people do not. Because you did, I will try to satisfy you.

Why is it a good idea to censor a text (and by text I mean any piece of information in any format) for the sole reason that you disagree with it?

I don't know.

Would you say that an allied soldier during WWII has no business reading Mein Kampf? A capitalist should never touch the Communist Manifesto? An American soldier in the middle-east should know nothing of the Koran? Atheists should never open a bible?

No. For a couple reasons.

1. I don't personally care what they read, and

2. I don't have an opinion on what people put into their minds. Most of them are fucked up by their parents before they start reading anyway.

You aren't thinking for yourself if you're only paying attention to the things you want to hear.

Confirmation bias is always an issue, but I don't think I have the moral authority, and I don't have the aesthetic imperative, to tell other people what to read, and when to read it.

People may choose not to read. That's their call. It's their life.

Know your enemy was the point of my post- it's fine to disagree, but to ignore the sentiments of your opponent completely and ban them (the texts) from discussion is asking for defeat. All perspectives are necessary in order to reach an intelligent conclusion, even ones that are not your own.

While I am sympathetic to your point of view, you hopped into a discussion, and avoided all of the context prior to my post.

I never said you shouldn't read all kinds of stuff. The point I am making, is that in my house, if I don't want you to read the Communist Manifesto, then I have every right to expel you physically when you do.

 

[Kstanki2]

While I am sympathetic to your point of view, you hopped into a discussion, and avoided all of the context prior to my post.

I never said you shouldn't read all kinds of stuff. The point I am making, is that in my house, if I don't want you to read the Communist Manifesto, then I have every right to expel you physically when you do.

You are correct, I did not properly articulate myself or give the aspect of covenants and closed communities due attention.

You DO have the right to expel a person who breaks the rules of your domain, whatever rules they may be. If you don't want people doing jumping jacks in your home, by all means enforce it. If you don't want them reading Harry Potter, burn it. You are well within your rights.

My argument isn't that the leader of a private group (a household, organization, etc) doesn't have the right to ban texts, I'm arguing that it's very unwise, characteristic of ignorance and close-mindedness, an advantage to your foes, based on archaic and non-progressive principles, and that a free thinker would do well to avoid your group.

Libertarian principles allow voluntary societies to govern themselves more freely, thus making it easier for an irresponsible group to exist. If the Capitalist Club doesn't allow communists among them, that makes sense. If they don't allow communist texts to be discussed, then this society is unhealthy and possibly dangerous. If something goes wrong and this groups misguided ways turn harmful, the blame will not lie within the freedoms that allowed them to exist, it will lie within the members that chose to use those freedoms to enforce ignorance.

So in a way we are in agreement- private voluntary societies can do as they please as long as they don't harm anyone but themselves. However, a society who censors texts so aggressively is IMO on a slippery slope to harming others and should not be trusted.

 

[Moxie]

I don't care what other humans do.

So you don't care if humans pass SOPA, or send voluntary armies into warfare, or if wickedfire allows tracking pixels in sigs or if they get rid of the BST section, or if people start a movement trying to get ISPs to not allow "economics worshipers" to have access?

You're welcome to discuss whatever you like, but I don't particularly care to participate myself.

So instead of just not participating in a discussion about Derek Jeter's fielding skills, you instead would enter the discussion and respond to people as if they had claimed that Jeter is the best player or that the Yankees were the best team?

For example :

If you're in my gated community, signing my covenant, your speech is limited by my tolerance and our agreement.

Nobody here has said they disagree with this concept or has made arguments against it, yet you are still addressing it as if there was a black or white debate going on in here about it.

 

[Ready5]

The biggest positive thing I see now is that people are waking up to the reality of this. Those crazy conspiracy people were right all along! Now there is no denying it. It's right in our faces. The enemy is not foreign terrorists, it is you and I. It always was.

Someone earlier mentioned in this post about technology being a force multiplier. Well, the Internet is "our" force multiplier, so we need to use it while we still can. Alert as many people as you can to this before it is too late.

SOPA will be the start of the global elite taking control of the Internet to shut free speech down.

 

[guerilla]

So you don't care if humans pass SOPA, or send voluntary armies into warfare, or if wickedfire allows tracking pixels in sigs or if they get rid of the BST section, or if people start a movement trying to get ISPs to not allow "economics worshipers" to have access?

You're correct, I do not care about any of that. It's irrelevant to me.

So instead of just not participating in a discussion about Derek Jeter's fielding skills, you instead would enter the discussion and respond to people as if they had claimed that Jeter is the best player or that the Yankees were the best team?

For example :
Nobody here has said they disagree with this concept or has made arguments against it, yet you are still addressing it as if there was a black or white debate going on in here about it.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

What is it you care about, and are trying to accomplish by continuing the discussion? What specifically is your issue, presuming you still have one, with what I have said? If you don't have an issue, why are you still posting?

 

[Moxie]

You're correct, I do not care about any of that. It's irrelevant to me.

L O L

You've made hundreds of posts on here acting like you care about various issues that are related to what other humans do. Just in this week you made it obvious that you care about the way the press chooses to cover Ron Paul.

If Hoppe wrote in a book that in order to protect America, the Fox News covenant community must not mention Ron Paul's name - people would discuss this and I doubt you would enter the discussion and be like "Who cares? Fox News has property rights and that is just Hoppe's opinion.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Which words or sentences are confusing to you? You can understand economic theories but have trouble with relatively basic reading comprehension?

What is it you care about, and are trying to accomplish by continuing the discussion? What specifically is your issue, presuming you still have one, with what I have said? If you don't have an issue, why are you still posting?

DITTO

If I choose to raise questions about Derek Jeter's fielding skills and then you choose to obnoxiously insist that I'm arguing that the Yankees are the greatest team, and obnoxiously tell me I need to read the baseball rulebook, then guess what, maybe I would respond to this.

If you then reply again with a comment about Derek Jeter's right to swing the bat as hard as he wants, maybe I would then post again to point out that I was only commenting on his fielding, etc.