The user has no choice as to whether their opinion remains visible on FB. But free speech doesn't mean you're guaranteed any one particular platform on which to express your views, and the user has plenty of other places to publish their views. They could ultimately go to Speakers Corner in London and stand on a soapbox and shout, for free, and without fettering. Lots of people do just that.
Equally, if I've created my whizzbang social media site, I don't see why I should be obliged to allow people to use it if they express a desire to kill all members of minority X or whatever other views I find obnoxious. It's my site, after all.
No country has completely unfettered free speech, including the US. In both the US and the EU. In the US, this includes: - incitement to imminent lawless action is not protected speech - false statements of fact are often not protected speech (libel and slander fit here) - child pornography is not protected - fighting words are not protected - speech owned by others is not protected - commercial speech has diminished protections (eg false adverts may be punished or prohibited) - speech made in a way that invokes a particular capacity of the government (eg as regulator of the airwaves, but not the Internet) has limited protection
There are reasonable disagreements to be had about the appropriateness of the categories and scope of these limitations. But you'd have to be either an ideologue or a gibbering fuckwit to fail to recognise that these limits have all been put in place because there is a need to balance competing public interests: the right to free speech vs the risks to minority groups if unfettered hate speech were allowed, for example.
Sadly, few people seem willing to acknowledge these kind of essential complexities of public policy and life, at least on Slashdot. Honestly, the level of debate was better in my sixth-form discussion club than much of what I see here.
There's a good, not malicious, reason why people on Slashdot are anti-Russia and anti-China. Russia is run by a kleptocrat thug who poisons dissidents on the streets of London (round the corner from my frigging office, so I remain quite indignant). China is run by an autocrat who is tightening power and clamping down on all dissent. Both states routinely forbid the mass of their citizenry from doing things that those of us in the West take for granted. The restrictions on freedom of speech, of belief, of religious practice, of sexual identity and behaviour, etc, are orders of magnitude greater than anything we in the West have to contemplate. There is no Great Firewall of the US. The one in China is all too real. This stuff matters, and ought not to be downplayed.
If we're going back in history as far as WWII, then we're going back as far as Stalin. I doubt all the deaths attributable to all US presidents since WWII add up to the numbers slaughtered by Stalin. The insistence on seeing the US as dramatically more evil than every other state is patently absurd.
Someone FUDing for Microsoft won't pick up the phone and fire a gun next to it to scare off an iOS fanboy. That is a difference in kind, not degree. Hence, false equivalence.
1. If you're a Finn, you're a particularly stupid one. 2. Who gives a flying fuck that "She is known for being convicted for amphetamine-related drug-charges in Finland"? What has that to do with her credibility as a journalist? Did you really read that kind of ad hominem attack and say "well, shit, if she was once convicted of possessing speed, I can't believe her journalism"? As I said, if you really are a Finn, you're a particularly stupid one. 3. Someone fired a gun next to a phone because they didn't agree with this woman's politics. And you're defending them!
in what way, exactly, is the US a "massive threat to us (Euro)"? Is any European country at risk of invasion by the US, for example? Ask the Baltic countries about the threat of invasion by Russia. That is entirely possible. Does the US control strategic gas supplies for heating Europe? Does it use that to exert political leverage in Europe? Again, no, that would be Russia.
This notion of "a plague on both your houses" is just lazy thinking.
Why state things so definitively when they are so easily disproved? The auto industry makes extensive use of design patents and does indeed use copyright too, from time to time. Why would you think it doesn't?
1) I didn't complain. I smirked. 2) Do you always just ignore the bits of posts that are inconvenient to your arguments? I said, this isn't a US website in the terms that matter most -- it's a site posting global stories and getting global comments. Had I posted on Fox or the NYT, and had you posted under a handle such as TrueAmerican, your arguments might have some weight. On Slashdot, and posting under the handle "ooloorie", not so much.
The only things I've said that give many pointers to my beliefs are expressions of amazement that you would support the abolition of regulations on pharmaceuticals. Somehow that equates to being someone 'who has no problem in principle with any law, so long as it can be said to "benefit society" '. Your logical leaps are dizzying.
Glad to get it cleared up that you think child labour laws are an "illiberal fix". I'd love to hear your thesis for why child labour wouldn't occur in a truly free society.
I'd also love to hear you explain whether a free adult should have any responsibilities towards a child they conceive, in the context of your liberalism. Should they able to walk away? If so, should anyone else have the burden of looking after that child?
Blimey, you really believe this crap, don't you? Amazing.
I'm more than happy to concede that some humans in prehistory lived in governed communities. I mean well, duh. Of course. I'm not willing to concede that humans in prehistory always lived in governed communities. I mean, well duh. Of course not. If you differ on this, I think this may have to do with the fact that you appear to consider a small band of hunter-gatherers to have a government. And that any slaves they chose to take on a raid of other hunter-gatherers was caused by their government, whatever that might mean. All of which is, to put it mildly, drivel. But you comfort yourself with the idea that I'm ignorant, arrogant and narrow-minded. Whatever makes you feel better, honey.
No, I simply believe in classical, Enlightenment era liberalism.
Gosh, I wonder if you're a proper classical liberal, or if you're one of those wishy-washy newbies who believes in ridiculous constraints on freedom like regulating the number of hours five year olds are allowed to work?
(1) You are on a US web site, and (2) I'm American.
Spectacular! You not only as insular as you seem, you're also fabulously self-regarding! Re (1): The amazing thing about the interwebs -- and I'm sorry if this comes as a shock to you -- is that it's actually quite international. Global, you might say. Slashdot is a site posting news from around the globe, and attracting comments from around the globe. In this important sense -- the only sense that is material to the question here -- it is not a US website. Re (2): Why on earth would I try to tailor my writing for a presumption about your nationality? If you make unwarranted assumptions, and I point out you're a numpty for making them, then moaning and pissing to me that I should have presumed you're American and written accordingly is really not a winning strategy for you.
The error there is in your faulty understanding of the term "government". "Government" doesn't refer (only) to legislatures, but any system of human control over a community. Despotism is a form of government and has existed since prehistory, and, of course, has a predilection for slavery.
Government stands in contrast to voluntary exchanges of goods and services, as they occur in a free market. Voluntary exchanges and free markets don't involve control and don't produce slavery.
Really? That's your definition? So, Ouroboros-like, if one prehistoric person enslaves another prehistoric person, then the former has instituted a form of government, and therefore governments create slavery! Brilliant! You should have been an Oxbridge philosophy don, with logic like that.
Said I:
and not just how you would like it to be (a libertarian want-fest version of the US that has never actually existed, to take another random example)
You replied:
I'm sorry, but you really need to read more carefully. As I pointed out: the ability of local and state legislatures "to set rules for doing business in a locality"... is universal throughout the world (including the US); I merely pointed out that it is not a freedom, as you claimed, but a limit on freedom, and that, given its universality, nobody would have any cause to "vaunt" it.
Of course, what I was actually referring to, by the use of the phrase "libertarian wank-fest version of the US that has never actually existed", was the following quote from you. You will note that your quote uses normative language -- it sets out how you think the world should be. Phrases like "the proper role of government" are indicators:
To answer that, you first need to look at the proper role of government. Government should intervene when people aggress against each other; that means, it should provide military defense, a court system, enforcement of contracts, and police. The role of legislatures is to pass the rules by which that happens. None of that involves "restricting" anybody's freedoms. That is, government should only be able to interfere in your life once you actually commit physical violence against someone else's person or property (including contractual violations). Furthermore, it is a historical holdover that government has such a large role in those functions; that was necessary in earlier times, but modern technology and society makes government less and less important.
This is a completely theoretical view of the world. It doesn't describe any government of the last several hundred years. It is a fabulous libertarian wank-fest, and I hope you found release in describing it.
Far from limiting them, the hydrogen bomb and slavery were creations of governments and legislatures.
The bit about slavery here is an absolute corker, by the way. I'm very pleased to learn that you have unparalleled insight into human pre-history, and can state definitively that prior to legislatures being created, humans not only did not enslave other humans, but could not do so. It's exciting news for slavery experts, who had previously laboured (pun!) under the misapprehension that slavery pre-dated money, pre-dated legal codes, and pre-dated written records. I'm glad you're here to set them straight.
I know it's uncomfortable, but it is really quite important to acknowledge cognitive bias and attempt to see the world as it is (to take a random example, replete with good laws that restrict how businesses operate in the public interest. and do so effectively) and not just how you would like it to be (a libertarian want-fest version of the US that has never actually existed, to take another random example).
Oh, how sweet! You think this is about the US. At least you're not falling into the cliche of an insular American who thinks the entire world revolves around them, eh? Let me remind you that Slashdot is on the internet; the internet is global; and the story we are discussing is about the port of Southampton, which is not in the US. So really, there's no reason to blether on about the US at all.
It's clear that you are one of these people who genuinely believes in Randianesque libertarianism. As such, it's as fruitless to debate with you as it is with a creationist. On the other hand, it is quite fun. When you use phrases like "automatically proscribed" without a blush, it's just delightful. The unthinking nature of your thought! Truly, you remind me of RAH's excellent maxim that "man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalising animal".
The notion of trying to discover whether a drug was safe and effective by just taking the drug and hoping it was... well, let's just say that your recreational drugs must be pretty spectacular if it's never occurred to you that by the time you find out that your batch of insulin was defective, you'll be a bit too dead to sue for redress.
You know, I almost hate to mention it, but... you do seem to have a bit of an issue conflating the world with the US, and the US with a libertarian wank-fantasy that bears no resemblance to historical, present or likely future reality.
I simply pointed out that you are, in fact, not advocating for freedom.
In fact, you said 'No, actually, that's not part of "our much-vaunted freedom" '. That is not pointing out that I am "not, in fact, advocating for freedom". It is stating that it is *not part* of my freedom. Why use the phrase "not part of my freedom", if you actually meant "it is part of your freedom but you should not do it"? It's your language, not mine. Do you always attempt to win arguments by disavowing your own words, or is this a Sunday special?
No, I simply believe that legislatures should not have the power to do these things in the first place
What do you think legislatures should be able to do, if not pass laws that provide the government with powers or restrict the freedom of others? Are you saying that, in principle, you think a person should be able to buy anything they please and no law should ever be passed to restrict a purchase? The rape of your mother? A slave? A hydrogen bomb? A pharmaceutical that may be unsafe or ineffective?
As for calling me what you think I am, you can of course do that and I wouldn't wish to stop you. Maybe using some choice words about me will make you feel better. I can see why someone who struggles with clarity of thought and language as you do might have a lot of anger you need to work out, and I'd rather you did it on the interwebs than bottle it up and suffer an apoplexy.
How *is* the view from inside Ayn Rand's bottom, by the way?
Freedom of speech does not have an exclusion that says "except where someone argues a point and convinces a legislature to pass a law that restricts the liberty of others in some way, such as forbidding them from purchasing small children, nuclear reactors or state secrets".
It is reasonable to argue that people *ought not* to persuade legislatures to pass laws restricting other people's freedom to purchase certain goods and services. But it is not reasonable -- more than that, it's counter-factual -- to argue that people are *not allowed* to persuade legislatures to pass laws restricting other people's freedom to purchase certain goods and services -- since this kind of activity is at the heart of the democratic process in every democracy. And I would argue that you would disappear up the bottom of Ayn Rand in a mass of shitty contradictions if you attempted to argue that people actually *ought to be forbidden* (presumably by force of government arms?) from persuading legislatures in this manner.
You're also free to complain bitterly about pollution, and agitate for cruise ship companies to use less polluting fuel, and use shore power, and use scrubbers etc.
Part of our much-vaunted freedom is not having to rely solely on the power of the almighty buck. Free speech is also important. And the freedom of legislatures to set rules for doing business in a locality, too.
Slashdot Mirror
The user has no choice as to whether their opinion remains visible on FB. But free speech doesn't mean you're guaranteed any one particular platform on which to express your views, and the user has plenty of other places to publish their views. They could ultimately go to Speakers Corner in London and stand on a soapbox and shout, for free, and without fettering. Lots of people do just that.
Equally, if I've created my whizzbang social media site, I don't see why I should be obliged to allow people to use it if they express a desire to kill all members of minority X or whatever other views I find obnoxious. It's my site, after all.
Your view may be reasonable, but the Supreme Court has disagreed for many decades.
No country has completely unfettered free speech, including the US. In both the US and the EU. In the US, this includes:
- incitement to imminent lawless action is not protected speech
- false statements of fact are often not protected speech (libel and slander fit here)
- child pornography is not protected
- fighting words are not protected
- speech owned by others is not protected
- commercial speech has diminished protections (eg false adverts may be punished or prohibited)
- speech made in a way that invokes a particular capacity of the government (eg as regulator of the airwaves, but not the Internet) has limited protection
There are reasonable disagreements to be had about the appropriateness of the categories and scope of these limitations. But you'd have to be either an ideologue or a gibbering fuckwit to fail to recognise that these limits have all been put in place because there is a need to balance competing public interests: the right to free speech vs the risks to minority groups if unfettered hate speech were allowed, for example.
Sadly, few people seem willing to acknowledge these kind of essential complexities of public policy and life, at least on Slashdot. Honestly, the level of debate was better in my sixth-form discussion club than much of what I see here.
They make a better burger. And they make steak hache, which is glorious.
There's a good, not malicious, reason why people on Slashdot are anti-Russia and anti-China. Russia is run by a kleptocrat thug who poisons dissidents on the streets of London (round the corner from my frigging office, so I remain quite indignant). China is run by an autocrat who is tightening power and clamping down on all dissent. Both states routinely forbid the mass of their citizenry from doing things that those of us in the West take for granted. The restrictions on freedom of speech, of belief, of religious practice, of sexual identity and behaviour, etc, are orders of magnitude greater than anything we in the West have to contemplate. There is no Great Firewall of the US. The one in China is all too real. This stuff matters, and ought not to be downplayed.
Thank you for saying this. It's depressing how much people seem to be oblivious too...
Nigel? On Slashdot? In the words of INXS, "Two worlds colliding..."
If we're going back in history as far as WWII, then we're going back as far as Stalin. I doubt all the deaths attributable to all US presidents since WWII add up to the numbers slaughtered by Stalin. The insistence on seeing the US as dramatically more evil than every other state is patently absurd.
You say potato, I say fuckwit.
Someone FUDing for Microsoft won't pick up the phone and fire a gun next to it to scare off an iOS fanboy. That is a difference in kind, not degree. Hence, false equivalence.
1. If you're a Finn, you're a particularly stupid one.
2. Who gives a flying fuck that "She is known for being convicted for amphetamine-related drug-charges in Finland"? What has that to do with her credibility as a journalist? Did you really read that kind of ad hominem attack and say "well, shit, if she was once convicted of possessing speed, I can't believe her journalism"? As I said, if you really are a Finn, you're a particularly stupid one.
3. Someone fired a gun next to a phone because they didn't agree with this woman's politics. And you're defending them!
Thank you. False equivalence seems to be the norm on this thread. I can't work out whether it's stupidity or malice.
in what way, exactly, is the US a "massive threat to us (Euro)"?
Is any European country at risk of invasion by the US, for example? Ask the Baltic countries about the threat of invasion by Russia. That is entirely possible.
Does the US control strategic gas supplies for heating Europe? Does it use that to exert political leverage in Europe? Again, no, that would be Russia.
This notion of "a plague on both your houses" is just lazy thinking.
Why state things so definitively when they are so easily disproved? The auto industry makes extensive use of design patents and does indeed use copyright too, from time to time. Why would you think it doesn't?
1) I didn't complain. I smirked.
2) Do you always just ignore the bits of posts that are inconvenient to your arguments? I said, this isn't a US website in the terms that matter most -- it's a site posting global stories and getting global comments. Had I posted on Fox or the NYT, and had you posted under a handle such as TrueAmerican, your arguments might have some weight. On Slashdot, and posting under the handle "ooloorie", not so much.
The only things I've said that give many pointers to my beliefs are expressions of amazement that you would support the abolition of regulations on pharmaceuticals. Somehow that equates to being someone 'who has no problem in principle with any law, so long as it can be said to "benefit society" '. Your logical leaps are dizzying.
Glad to get it cleared up that you think child labour laws are an "illiberal fix". I'd love to hear your thesis for why child labour wouldn't occur in a truly free society.
I'd also love to hear you explain whether a free adult should have any responsibilities towards a child they conceive, in the context of your liberalism. Should they able to walk away? If so, should anyone else have the burden of looking after that child?
Blimey, you really believe this crap, don't you? Amazing.
I'm more than happy to concede that some humans in prehistory lived in governed communities. I mean well, duh. Of course.
I'm not willing to concede that humans in prehistory always lived in governed communities. I mean, well duh. Of course not. If you differ on this, I think this may have to do with the fact that you appear to consider a small band of hunter-gatherers to have a government. And that any slaves they chose to take on a raid of other hunter-gatherers was caused by their government, whatever that might mean. All of which is, to put it mildly, drivel. But you comfort yourself with the idea that I'm ignorant, arrogant and narrow-minded. Whatever makes you feel better, honey.
No, I simply believe in classical, Enlightenment era liberalism.
Gosh, I wonder if you're a proper classical liberal, or if you're one of those wishy-washy newbies who believes in ridiculous constraints on freedom like regulating the number of hours five year olds are allowed to work?
(1) You are on a US web site, and (2) I'm American.
Spectacular! You not only as insular as you seem, you're also fabulously self-regarding!
Re (1): The amazing thing about the interwebs -- and I'm sorry if this comes as a shock to you -- is that it's actually quite international. Global, you might say. Slashdot is a site posting news from around the globe, and attracting comments from around the globe. In this important sense -- the only sense that is material to the question here -- it is not a US website.
Re (2): Why on earth would I try to tailor my writing for a presumption about your nationality? If you make unwarranted assumptions, and I point out you're a numpty for making them, then moaning and pissing to me that I should have presumed you're American and written accordingly is really not a winning strategy for you.
The error there is in your faulty understanding of the term "government". "Government" doesn't refer (only) to legislatures, but any system of human control over a community. Despotism is a form of government and has existed since prehistory, and, of course, has a predilection for slavery.
Government stands in contrast to voluntary exchanges of goods and services, as they occur in a free market. Voluntary exchanges and free markets don't involve control and don't produce slavery.
Really? That's your definition? So, Ouroboros-like, if one prehistoric person enslaves another prehistoric person, then the former has instituted a form of government, and therefore governments create slavery! Brilliant! You should have been an Oxbridge philosophy don, with logic like that.
Said I:
and not just how you would like it to be (a libertarian want-fest version of the US that has never actually existed, to take another random example)
You replied:
I'm sorry, but you really need to read more carefully. As I pointed out: the ability of local and state legislatures "to set rules for doing business in a locality" ... is universal throughout the world (including the US); I merely pointed out that it is not a freedom, as you claimed, but a limit on freedom, and that, given its universality, nobody would have any cause to "vaunt" it.
Of course, what I was actually referring to, by the use of the phrase "libertarian wank-fest version of the US that has never actually existed", was the following quote from you. You will note that your quote uses normative language -- it sets out how you think the world should be. Phrases like "the proper role of government" are indicators:
To answer that, you first need to look at the proper role of government. Government should intervene when people aggress against each other; that means, it should provide military defense, a court system, enforcement of contracts, and police. The role of legislatures is to pass the rules by which that happens. None of that involves "restricting" anybody's freedoms. That is, government should only be able to interfere in your life once you actually commit physical violence against someone else's person or property (including contractual violations). Furthermore, it is a historical holdover that government has such a large role in those functions; that was necessary in earlier times, but modern technology and society makes government less and less important.
This is a completely theoretical view of the world. It doesn't describe any government of the last several hundred years. It is a fabulous libertarian wank-fest, and I hope you found release in describing it.
Far from limiting them, the hydrogen bomb and slavery were creations of governments and legislatures.
The bit about slavery here is an absolute corker, by the way. I'm very pleased to learn that you have unparalleled insight into human pre-history, and can state definitively that prior to legislatures being created, humans not only did not enslave other humans, but could not do so. It's exciting news for slavery experts, who had previously laboured (pun!) under the misapprehension that slavery pre-dated money, pre-dated legal codes, and pre-dated written records. I'm glad you're here to set them straight.
http://bigthink.com/videos/sla...
I know it's uncomfortable, but it is really quite important to acknowledge cognitive bias and attempt to see the world as it is (to take a random example, replete with good laws that restrict how businesses operate in the public interest. and do so effectively) and not just how you would like it to be (a libertarian want-fest version of the US that has never actually existed, to take another random example).
The freedoms that set the US apart
Oh, how sweet! You think this is about the US. At least you're not falling into the cliche of an insular American who thinks the entire world revolves around them, eh? Let me remind you that Slashdot is on the internet; the internet is global; and the story we are discussing is about the port of Southampton, which is not in the US. So really, there's no reason to blether on about the US at all.
It's clear that you are one of these people who genuinely believes in Randianesque libertarianism. As such, it's as fruitless to debate with you as it is with a creationist. On the other hand, it is quite fun. When you use phrases like "automatically proscribed" without a blush, it's just delightful. The unthinking nature of your thought! Truly, you remind me of RAH's excellent maxim that "man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalising animal".
The notion of trying to discover whether a drug was safe and effective by just taking the drug and hoping it was... well, let's just say that your recreational drugs must be pretty spectacular if it's never occurred to you that by the time you find out that your batch of insulin was defective, you'll be a bit too dead to sue for redress.
You know, I almost hate to mention it, but... you do seem to have a bit of an issue conflating the world with the US, and the US with a libertarian wank-fantasy that bears no resemblance to historical, present or likely future reality.
I simply pointed out that you are, in fact, not advocating for freedom.
In fact, you said 'No, actually, that's not part of "our much-vaunted freedom" '. That is not pointing out that I am "not, in fact, advocating for freedom". It is stating that it is *not part* of my freedom. Why use the phrase "not part of my freedom", if you actually meant "it is part of your freedom but you should not do it"? It's your language, not mine. Do you always attempt to win arguments by disavowing your own words, or is this a Sunday special?
No, I simply believe that legislatures should not have the power to do these things in the first place
What do you think legislatures should be able to do, if not pass laws that provide the government with powers or restrict the freedom of others? Are you saying that, in principle, you think a person should be able to buy anything they please and no law should ever be passed to restrict a purchase? The rape of your mother? A slave? A hydrogen bomb? A pharmaceutical that may be unsafe or ineffective?
As for calling me what you think I am, you can of course do that and I wouldn't wish to stop you. Maybe using some choice words about me will make you feel better. I can see why someone who struggles with clarity of thought and language as you do might have a lot of anger you need to work out, and I'd rather you did it on the interwebs than bottle it up and suffer an apoplexy.
How *is* the view from inside Ayn Rand's bottom, by the way?
Colonically yours...
Freedom of speech does not have an exclusion that says "except where someone argues a point and convinces a legislature to pass a law that restricts the liberty of others in some way, such as forbidding them from purchasing small children, nuclear reactors or state secrets".
It is reasonable to argue that people *ought not* to persuade legislatures to pass laws restricting other people's freedom to purchase certain goods and services. But it is not reasonable -- more than that, it's counter-factual -- to argue that people are *not allowed* to persuade legislatures to pass laws restricting other people's freedom to purchase certain goods and services -- since this kind of activity is at the heart of the democratic process in every democracy.
And I would argue that you would disappear up the bottom of Ayn Rand in a mass of shitty contradictions if you attempted to argue that people actually *ought to be forbidden* (presumably by force of government arms?) from persuading legislatures in this manner.
Surely cruise ship engines would run similarly to passenger jet engines, i.e. some large fraction of full power when the ship is cruising?
Well, duh.
You're also free to complain bitterly about pollution, and agitate for cruise ship companies to use less polluting fuel, and use shore power, and use scrubbers etc.
Part of our much-vaunted freedom is not having to rely solely on the power of the almighty buck. Free speech is also important. And the freedom of legislatures to set rules for doing business in a locality, too.