>>195775>Okay, so suppose they did buy the river, suppose the laws allowed them to do so... well.. the river feeds the ocean, and they didnt buy the ocean. And if you go further than that, what if they buy the ocean... then you are going to deep, and you could eventually say, what if they buy the world..
So it's fair to say that, under your paradigm of liberalism, the river, ocean, and world are exceptions to the right to property.
How would you respond to someone who called you illiberal or, dare I say, "communist", for it?
>those people are at liberty to accept the bribe (assuming there is no law against it, but even then, they are still at liberty to break the law)
Do you believe that a free, liberal society can justify having such a law? Would this make the society, by definition, illiberal?
>BUT YOU are at liberty to run for office, you are at liberty to expose the bribe, you are at liberty, which means you are responsible to do it, which means you have work to do
The techie CEO knows that. And he knows that he has the power to make use of that liberty.
But here's where it gets reeeal ugly. What if that techie CEO doesn't exist? What if no one has the power, money, and influence, to adequately compete with chembro? Then, the system is stacked in his favor, isn't it? Not only is there no guarantee of safety, there's also a functional inequality of opportunity.
How could that be mitigated? Take the money out of politics? Well, that brings its own disadvantages. And is it really wrong to financially support a cause you believe in? In a vacuum, having that option seems like it should be an objectively good thing, and indeed, powerful individuals and groups often use that power for righteous causes. Yet there's also no shortage of crooks who game the system for their own enrichment, engaging in dishonesty with the public, while also being well within both their legal and natural rights to do so. And sometimes, the crooks win, purely by virtue of having been there first, having amassed more wealth and power than their adversaries, and having better opportunities available to them.
And that's deeply disturbing to those who highly value equal opportunity, whose values manifest as a "fair" playing field where competing ideas and groups come out on top not because they had more power from the get-go, but on their merits and the value they create for society. But how can they address this? It's not right to just take away someone's money, even if they're using it to buy their way to the top. Is it right to limit what they can spend that money on? Maybe? Should prohibiting dumping chemical waste into that river just be a dogma that is never changed or questioned? No, that'd be authoritarian...but that river needs
to be protected, dammit, because if it's not, people's rights will
be infringed on...
It creates a cognitive dissonance, because with all bias stripped away, it is
a question of whose rights are more important than whose. And when you believe all rights are important and must be protected, that question is impossible to give a truly good-faith answer to. In the real world, these decisions of whose rights hold higher value are routinely made -- and the ones on the losing end often have to just suck it up and deal with it, whether it's fair or not.
>They should respond, firstly, by making a better case. They should be trying to persuade people to their way of thinking, they should be running for office, they should be voting, they should make their thoughts known. This is why ALL speech is important, because the idea, if its a good one, wont die.
Do you think this always holds true? Are the "good guys" always the ones who win in the end, even if they may suffer heavy losses at times? Even if the "bad guys" have more power, can deny the "good guys" a platform, or can simply scream louder or outright lie about their opposition?
>They wouldnt be upholding their liberal values by letting it come to pass. They are individuals, they only way it could "come to pass" is if they change their mind about it... if they do that, then it was never a good idea in the first place.
Will one liberal in a sea of communists be able to change their minds? Will one liberal in a sea of nazis be able to change their
Many on the right have claimed that the left uses the term "racist" to silence them, regardless of whether something they're saying actually is or isn't racist. That's a valid complaint, isn't it?
And yet, calling someone racist doesn't actually force
them to stop talking. It'll surely make some people less willing to listen
, but probably not all; maybe some people agree that they're tired of "racist" just being an instant "shut the fuck up" card, and want that person to finish making their point. Maybe their point really isn't racist. But the person called racist sure does feel
silenced, don't they? They're in a position where they face social consequences for what they're saying, regardless of whether what they have to say has actual value or not. They're not really free to say what's on their mind. So, they keep it to themselves.
Now flip that around. Suppose they were
actually saying something racist. "You can't take anything niggers say seriously, they have literally retarded IQs!" Extreme example obviously, because that's very far from something socially acceptable to say now...and between you and me, I'm kind of glad there's social pressure on those
types to keep it to themselves. But suppose that statement were perfectly socially acceptable. Do you think a black person in that group would have a platform? Would they not be in the same position as the previous example, essentially forced silent, by that person's speech? Are they just as free to speak as them? Maybe they really want to call the speaker a racist. Maybe they have insightful things to say on top of that. Maybe a handful of people would secretly agree, because shit, that guy really is
racist. But if they speak up, they risk ridicule, or worse. So, they keep it to themselves.
This is sort of a tangent, but in both the former and the latter example, speech is used as a tool to silence. What are your thoughts on these scenarios? Is it good that the word "racist" has the power to prevent the second scenario from happening? Is it bad that it has the power to cause the first scenario to happen? How would you approach this in a way that protects everyone's
speech from the silencing power of everyone else's
The short answer is, you can't. Because preventing someone from saying something that will silence someone else is
silencing them. By doing so, you've already made the choice to prioritize one person's speech over another's. At the same time, you can't have a productive discussion if some dumbass has free reign to unrelentingly shit it up and "win" arguments with ad hominems. So in some contexts, you're going to have to have some sort of standard on what can be said and how it can be said.
Alternatively, you could leave it at no standards, and leave it up to the social atmosphere to self-enforce. But that's where you run the risk of being silenced by being called racist, or a shill, or a cuck, or an SJW, or a Fucking White Male, as people are often wont to do in contexts with no standard of conduct -- or, more accurately, the standard of conduct that has already developed in that context.
I often see people complain of free speech being violated by the mere existence
of conduct standards intended to prevent one person's speech from inhibiting another's, in places meant for intelligent, constructive discussion, rather than by the effectiveness
of these standards in achieving their stated goal. Sometimes they complain of their free speech being violated by someone else's free speech
. That one in particular goes both ways. And I don't think there's a person alive today who sincerely believes it should be acceptable to say whatever you want, whenever and wherever you want, and nobody should be allowed to do anything to shut you up.
Now, all that said, none of that is to say I think any sort of speech should be, on its own, penalized by the government, barring the already existing exceptions (imminent lawless action, security-sensitive information, etc). The institution of free speech is much too important to tear down like that for the sake of the mores and standards of our own small slice of human history, opening the door for authoritarian abuse for years to come. The Civil Rights Movement would not have been possible without that institution. Women's suffrage would not have been possible without that institution. On a national scale, it's the single most important and basic liberty there is. Conduct standards serve an important role on a smaller scale, and indeed, they'll form on their own whether you want them or not in most social environments, but as far as the government is concerned, protect free speech like the lives and liberty of every single person depends on it, because someday, it just might.