Free Speech vs Hate Speech

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
7,042
so whats stopping me from taking your stuff you bought at the free market
Social cohesion and trust could be one pressure that deters you from doing so, as you would lose trust from any other self-respecting citizen that would recognize you as a thief/threat based on our interaction.

Laws that recognize property rights are also a consideration though I'm no expert in this regard at all. Side note: Interestingly in the phrase, "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" - apparently "happiness" was substituted for property by Thomas Jefferson in the US Declaration of Independence as one of the three unalienable rights. -
Also, if you drive dangerously then surely you lose the moral authority to condemn dangerous driving. If you condone theft (and by committing it you condone it), surely you lose the moral authority to condemn theft against you (And those you love). So do unto others... I guess?

Also by being malevolent you're surely just encouraging a dangerous environment for yourself and your loved ones as you've condoned malevolence itself.

Ultimately nothing is stopping malevolence though. Even God, if you're so inclined, allows it until judgement day. There is an idea about the benevolent view of the universe, as it enables life (and the link thereof), but I wouldn't be able to expand on this idea without more study on my part. There is also Universally Preferable Behavior as an argument, but few people seem to have respect for the character that proposed it and there are many critics.
 
Last edited:

saturnz

Honorary Master
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
13,943
Social cohesion and trust could be one pressure that deters you from doing so, as you would lose trust from any other self-respecting citizen that would recognize you as a thief/threat based on our interaction.

Laws that recognize property rights are also a consideration though I'm no expert in this regard at all. Side note: Interestingly in the phrase, "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" - apparently "happiness" was substituted for property by Thomas Jefferson in the US Declaration of Independence as one of the three unalienable rights. -
Also, if you drive dangerously then surely you lose the moral authority to condemn dangerous driving. If you condone theft (and by committing it you condone it), surely you lose the moral authority to condemn theft against you (And those you love). So do unto others... I guess?

Also by being malevolent you're surely just encouraging a dangerous environment for yourself and your loved ones as you've condoned malevolence itself.

Ultimately nothing is stopping malevolence though. Even God, if you're so inclined, allows it until judgement day. There is an idea about the benevolent view of the universe, as it enables life (and the link thereof), but I wouldn't be able to expand on this idea without more study on my part. There is also Universally Preferable Behavior as an argument, but few people seem to have respect for the character that proposed it and there are many critics.
yeah no I'm done, you can't stick to a point
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
7,042
yeah no I'm done, you can't stick to a point
What??? You asked an insanely deep and open ended question that relates with morality itself, what in the blue f*** were you expecting?

Jissus boet, get a life - lol.
 

saturnz

Honorary Master
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
13,943
What??? You asked an insanely deep and open ended question that relates with morality itself, what in the blue f*** were you expecting?

Jissus boet, get a life - lol.
the context is property rights, morality is not the issue here- neither is driving a car, were we talking about driving cars? no thats once again, your strawman
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
7,042
the context is property rights, morality is not the issue here- neither is driving a car, were we talking about driving cars? no thats once again, your strawman
Where do you think rights and laws come from? Morality informs them. Hence if you're going to ask me how to justify a certain law or a certain right, that is a very difficult thing to do.

You asked me what stops you from stealing my stuff... I could've just said my fist? But that is hardly a good answer no? What gives me the right to defend myself or my property then?

It's only if society recognizes these things that it works.
 
Last edited:

saturnz

Honorary Master
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
13,943
Where do you think rights and laws come from? Morality informs them. Hence if you're going to ask me how to justify a certain law or a certain right, that is a very difficult thing to do.

where do morals come from?

is that another deep question thats going to open another pandora's box now...

You asked me what stops you from stealing my stuff... I could've just said my fist? But that is hardly a good answer no? What gives me the right to defend myself or my property then?

It's only if society recognizes these things that it works.

a society... so how does individualism relate to how a society operates, what if you are an individualist and I'm a communist, then what?
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
7,042
where do morals come from?

is that another deep question thats going to open another pandora's box now...
Some say their religion, and I suppose that's the end of it. Others, like myself, don't really have that luxury. But those others, like myself, also get to question.

Anyway I'm not sure how much I will be posting from here on as I'm going away for a while. Have a lovely vacation if you are, and all that good stuff :)
 

saturnz

Honorary Master
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
13,943
Some say their religion, and I suppose that's the end of it. Others, like myself, don't really have that luxury. But those others, like myself, also get to question.
if morals are going to inform laws as you say, I would think a less vague answer would be more appropriate

I disagree that laws are informed by morals, they may seem so superficially, but even the courts have identified that this may not necessarily be the case
 

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
23,809
if you ignore what I have to say, and don't remember what I have to say, then don't expect me to explain anything of substance to you
But I just quoted what you had to say. As usual, you just deflect.
 

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
23,809
I think I have demonstrated to a certain extent how capitalism and the principle of freedom of speech within the ideology of democracy do not work together.
No you haven't. You got capitalism totally wrong; therefore you cannot even begin to demonstrate anything relative to another concept.
 

kolaval

Expert Member
Joined
May 13, 2011
Messages
4,396
Tell them if they don't like it they shouldn't watch it. Easy really.

This idiot is just giving it unnecessary marketing. Where it could have gone mostly unnoticed.
So no free speech from them then?
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
7,042
a citation as opposed to what you think would be helpful

this is not the point, the point is that if perceived public platforms are privately owned, you cannot use that platform with the expectation that your freedom of speech is protected on that platform.

you've missed the point completely and by way of example I will repeat my previous point. Can you exercise your personal sovereignty in someone else's space? do you go to someone's house, insult them as you please and then tell them you are simply exercising your freedom to expression?
If you follow the Austrian school then I'm even more perplexed re: free will thread. Not saying you do as you didn't claim that, I'm just saying it might perplex me as I would then wonder what we're disagreeing on :)

Far as I'm aware, Ludwig von Mises is considered key to the development of Austrian economics. Mises was also highly individualistic.

Social cooperation, however, can be based only on the foundation of private ownership of the means of production… The assertion that there is irrational action is always rooted in an evaluation of a scale of values different from our own. Whoever says that irrationality plays a role in human action is merely saying that his fellow men behave in a way that he does not consider correct. —Ludwig von Mises

“Despots and democratic majorities are drunk with power. They must reluctantly admit that they are subject to the laws of nature. But they reject the very notion of economic law . . . economic history is a long record of government policies that failed because they were designed with a bold disregard for the laws of economics …

All those not familiar with economics (i.e., the immense majority) do not see any reason why they should not coerce other people by means of force to do what these people are not prepared to do of their own accord…

On the market it is not mankind, the state, or the corporative unit that acts, but individual men and groups of men, and that their valuations and their actions are decisive, not those of abstract collectives. .” —Ludwig von Mises, in Austrian Economics: An Anthology
So there's your bloody citation. :p

Another point I might add is that private ownership doesn't exist in the context of government and country (as opposed to nation). The terms are, in true meaning, incompatible - a fact that seems hard to come by via common definition but pieced together by asking some pertinent questions i.e. who owns a country and what makes up a country's borders. It ain't private constituencies and nobody truly owns the land they've bought. Try secede your land without government violence if you disagree :p


So what's the alternative to government coercion. The "necessary evil" as some put it? "If you believe government and taxes are a necessary evil, then you believe evil is necessary" - quote I read on social media recently.

It's never been tried in modern times as far as I'm aware. But in theory a nation with membership rights can realize much of the same benefits. Dispose of the concept of government and country completely IMO. But yeah, just IMO. I don't know if that's a good answer, I mean how could anyone but speculate about it if there is no data :/ But at least it is consistently moral if you believe in personal sovereignty. (If -> ought)

My argument for personal sovereignty is simple... you cannot acknowledge your own without acknowledging the possibility of others. If you commit aggression to others, you condone the same aggression to your own - as you condone aggression in general by your actions. There is no logical/consistent standard by which only certain agents can commit aggression freely. Morality, being a social practice, is highly concerned with your actions. In short, the golden rule applies, do unto others... And it would be curious to find anyone who does not acknowledge their personal sovereignty, as that almost literally means they condone harm/aggression to themselves. And, by extension, we should strive to defend others for the sake of our own.

EDIT: In other words, collectivism is bullshit and individualism (to those you honor sovereignty towards) is the truest form of collaboration. It is patently obvious you cannot collaborate without acknowledging sovereignty towards the agent you are dealing with, and without acknowledging your own. All collectivism starts with narcissism. It literally requires ignorance of sovereignty unto the other to function. This is a situation that is not welcome in a free market at all! And I'm not a fan of any platform being managed or influenced by narcissists, including politicians. All corruption stems from such.

So, shall we argue about private property and free market once more? :ROFL:
 
Last edited:
Top