On the issue of Free Speech

^^^^ shit this troll is in every thread


The way that Dresden (a fellow member) has become a punching bag for anyone who wants to enhance their pretension of looking like a liberal is annoying enough, it has become the habit of liberals (often calling themselves "democrats" - oh the irony) to try and limit anyone who says things that they do not like hearing, well fuck them. Even if I strongly disagree with anyone here I still applaud the honesty of anyone speaking his mind - especially when under personal attacks (even though some are funny, and are done in humor).

The fact that you can speak your mind freely in the STS section, and that there is open discussion about almost anything is of great credit to this forum, its founders and its moderators.
Click to expand...

Dresden14 is a nice guy who really help out, got him on skype after he posted his thread about selling his site for 19k, real advice and real help from him.
 


Unarmed Gunman said:
Until the Government tells you that you no longer own it by confiscating it through taxation, making possession of blue widgets illegal, or any other number of ways that your rights may be altered.
Click to expand...
But that's my point. Even in a totally anarchic society, with no government, anyone could still take your blue widget by force. Just like land-ownership and the government, it's just a different thief. Nothing changes.
guerilla said:
There is the old saying, "possession is 9/10ths of the law"
Click to expand...
I'm not sure of your point?
 
-joe- said:
Even in a totally anarchic society, with no government, anyone could still take your blue widget by force. Just like land-ownership and the government, it's just a different thief. Nothing changes.
Click to expand...

I'm not an anarchist, and I agree that without government you would still have others using force on you, just in a different manner. I think that's the point though. A right has to be given to you, and therefore it can be taken away. People tend to think a "right" is this magical thing that is unchanging but a right is nothing more than a rule that can be changed at any time, for any reason by your rulers.
 
-joe- said:
But that's my point. Even in a totally anarchic society, with no government, anyone could still take your blue widget by force. Just like land-ownership and the government, it's just a different thief. Nothing changes.
Click to expand...
Not nothing changes. There are potentially more thieves but they are smaller, and easier to deal with.

-joe- said:
I'm not sure of your point?
Click to expand...
Possession and ownership are intimately linked, and thus reflected in our legal traditions.
 
Okay, I'm just REALLY curious what actually happens when right is given a definition so here goes:

From my perception, a right is any privilege or freedom to act bestowed upon an individual or individuals by their governing entity. An individual may exercise these rights so long as they do not interfere with the rights bestowed upon others.

Now that someone has defined this in the thread, I wonder if everything will be all hunky-dory and we will all engage in pleasant and meaningful debate.... Nah, probably not: Inb4 define freedom, define privilege, etc etc. lol lol lol.
 
Unarmed Gunman said:
A right has to be given to you, and therefore it can be taken away. People tend to think a "right" is this magical thing that is unchanging but a right is nothing more than a rule that can be changed at any time, for any reason by your rulers.
Click to expand...
This ^^^ is very good work.
 
^ That is an inalienable right. There is a difference....

i.e. you have the rights granted to you of all other free citizens, that is until you murder someone and go to prison.

(God, how did I get baited into this.)
 
Russ86 said:
From my perception, a right is any privilege or freedom to act bestowed upon an individual or individuals by their governing entity.
Click to expand...
Great definition.

Russ86 said:
An individual may exercise these rights so long as they do not interfere with the rights bestowed upon others.
Click to expand...
Not sure this is correct or necessary. The (supposed) right to healthcare or education necessitates violating the property rights of others (taxation).

Rights are as you and UG said, ad hoc. And so, they are arbitrary and not necessarily logically consistent.

So does anyone have a "right" to free speech?

The answer is, wherever a property owner will allow it, as long as they allow it you do. And when they change their mind, you do not.
 
guerilla said:
Great definition.


Not sure this is correct or necessary. The (supposed) right to healthcare or education necessitates violating the property rights of others (taxation).

Rights are as you and UG said, ad hoc. And so, they are arbitrary and not necessarily logically consistent.

So does anyone have a "right" to free speech?

The answer is, wherever a property owner will allow it, as long as they allow it you do. And when they change their mind, you do not.
Click to expand...

One could argue that the 'right to healthcare' should not be labeled as right at all since it impedes on the rights of others and therefore doesn't fit the definition.

I don't think it's the definitions that are arbitrary. I think it's more that people use the word right arbitrarily.
 
Russ86 said:
One could argue that the 'right to healthcare' should not be labeled as right at all since it impedes on the rights of others and therefore doesn't fit the definition.
Click to expand...
I think that what we tend to call rights, and you and UG defined, are in fact privileges, and not rights at all. Rights might be something we both negotiate and support, whereas a privilege can be taken away by one party without the consent of the other.

Russ86 said:
I don't think it's the definitions that are arbitrary. I think it's more that people use the word right arbitrarily.
Click to expand...
We're all guilty of being sloppy with language and being more precise with language actually makes it harder to communicate than engaging in the popular delusions of the day.
 
Most fundamental is the right to life and liberty, for that right not to be in effect someone needs to rob you of it thus cancel that right, that action - by itself - is despicable and rotten that no one can say there is anything decent in it.

Without getting too deep into all of the different sorts of arguments that can follow (death penalty is the deprivation of life - yes, but it is usually given to someone who robbed many of lives and still does not mean that its a moral punishment, liberty can be set with limits, but the idea of liberty still holds that you can oppose those limitations) free speech is something natural and normal, it is only societies that set up limitations on what you can or can not say.
 
Unarmed Gunman said:
"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less." ~ Humpty Dumpty
Click to expand...

This is exactly why words have precise definitions. Whose perception is the one that really matters, the speakers or the audience? Since the speaker is the one trying to communicate a specific message, I would say that it's the audience's perception that matters. If a speaker uses a word but gives it an altered meaning, this creates a gap in communication since the audience will interpret the word by it's known meaning, and not the altered, exaggerated, or otherwise manipulated definition of the word.
 
As long as the party using a word will define it, then a discussion can ensue.

If I say the word red, and you want to be sure of what I mean, and I won't tell you, it's damn hard to discuss anything.

Whether we call it a right or a freedom or something else, people MUST be willing to define their terms or it is very unlikely there will be productive discourse.

Once we understand the term, we can discuss whether it is a valid idea or not.
 
Lol @ guerilla trolling people asking shit like "What does what mean" and people freaking out over it.

3587727509_778646eb3a.jpg
 
guerilla said:
As long as the party using a word will define it, then a discussion can ensue.

If I say the word red, and you want to be sure of what I mean, and I won't tell you, it's damn hard to discuss anything.

Whether we call it a right or a freedom or something else, people MUST be willing to define their terms or it is very unlikely there will be productive discourse.

Once we understand the term, we can discuss whether it is a valid idea or not.
Click to expand...

it has been defined you don't like the answer, but you are not the authority on what is and isn't. What does god have to do with a right or atheism for that matter? A right is invented by people not gods. . . .
 
Unarmed Gunman said:
I'm not an anarchist, and I agree that without government you would still have others using force on you, just in a different manner. I think that's the point though. A right has to be given to you, and therefore it can be taken away. People tend to think a "right" is this magical thing that is unchanging but a right is nothing more than a rule that can be changed at any time, for any reason by your rulers.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
guerilla said:
Possession and ownership are intimately linked, and thus reflected in our legal traditions.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

guerilla said:
Not nothing changes. There are potentially more thieves but they are smaller, and easier to deal with.
Click to expand...
Ok, I was hyperbolising there, but it's the same basic principle. Yes, while they're smaller, they're not necessarily easier to deal with, as history demonstrates that full-blown anarchy very quickly descends into tribal culture, where there will almost always be a group bigger than yours, who could take your possessions on a whim.

Also, for the sake of clarification, could you state your preferred sect of anarchism?
 
guerilla said:
Where is the definition I don't like?


I never claimed I was.


It was a very simple metaphor.
Click to expand...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ86
One could argue that the 'right to healthcare' should not be labeled as right at all since it impedes on the rights of others and therefore doesn't fit the definition.

I think that what we tend to call rights, and you and UG defined, are in fact privileges, and not rights at all. Rights might be something we both negotiate and support, whereas a privilege can be taken away by one party without the consent of the other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ86
I don't think it's the definitions that are arbitrary. I think it's more that people use the word right arbitrarily.

We're all guilty of being sloppy with language and being more precise with language actually makes it harder to communicate than engaging in the popular delusions of the day.

=============================================================




You don'y claim to be you just assume the role I'm not going to point out everyone else's version of what they claim a right is.
 
-joe- said:
Yes, while they're smaller, they're not necessarily easier to deal with, as history demonstrates that full-blown anarchy very quickly descends into tribal culture, where there will almost always be a group bigger than yours, who could take your possessions on a whim.
Click to expand...
Couldn't edit; meant to add "with the exception of a couple of heavily communist groups" - and I'm guessing you're not advocating communist anarchism? Let me know if I'm wrong :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom