|
Ok BT -- Just trying to figure out where you're coming from. (While using Sebastian's suggestion.)
"Minarchist" -- Sounds to me like a system where we would generally self-regulate. Do you think that is even possible?
I'm reminded of one of my favorite movie quotes -- "A person is 'smart'. People are dumb, panicy and you know it." I know I can take care of my self -- but what about the people across town? in the next town? across the street? I can homeschool, but the person across from me can't.
It just feels like "minarchist" would be ideal in an ideal world -- which I don't think exists. So where does that put a "minarchist"?
Ok BT -- Just trying to figure out where you're coming from. (While using Sebastian's suggestion.)
"Minarchist" -- Sounds to me like a system where we would generally self-regulate. Do you think that is even possible?
I'm reminded of one of my favorite movie quotes -- "A person is 'smart'. People are dumb, panicy and you know it." I know I can take care of my self -- but what about the people across town? in the next town? across the street? I can homeschool, but the person across from me can't.
It just feels like "minarchist" would be ideal in an ideal world -- which I don't think exists. So where does that put a "minarchist"?
\
The only problem I have with minarchy as BT has described it is that at some points it sounds more like neo-feudalism than a viable system of government. It would work if we were all further behind in terms of our weaponry, I think. But we've all got waaaay too many automatic guns and too many militias/private armies to pull something like this off without things devolving into war between the states/territories/cities/etc.
You really shouldn't take commoner levels, because-
Oh...nm. ;)
I haven't read any of the posts so far, but let me just say:
1. It's about time we get an optimized build for commoners.
2. Isn't this in the wrong section of the messageboards?
I haven't read any of the post so far, but let me just say:
1. It's about time we get an optimized build for commoners.
2. Isn't this in the wrong section of the messageboards?
Nah, this thread is based off of a joke that started in the what to progessives believe thread.
Nah, this thread is based off of a joke that started in the what to progessives believe thread.I haven't read any of the post so far, but let me just say:
1. It's about time we get an optimized build for commoners.
2. Isn't this in the wrong section of the messageboards?
Ok BT -- Just trying to figure out where you're coming from. (While using Sebastian's suggestion.)
"Minarchist" -- Sounds to me like a system where we would generally self-regulate. Do you think that is even possible?
I'm reminded of one of my favorite movie quotes -- "A person is 'smart'. People are dumb, panicy and you know it." I know I can take care of my self -- but what about the people across town? in the next town? across the street? I can homeschool, but the person across from me can't.
It just feels like "minarchist" would be ideal in an ideal world -- which I don't think exists. So where does that put a "minarchist"?
The wiki is pretty decent. I fall pretty squarely into the Constitutionalists camp of minarchy.
Like most constructs of individual freedom minarchy proceeds from some basic assumptions.
I would put the principal of self ownership first. We have a right to govern our own choices (limited by the equal rights of others) because we own ourselves and we are responsible for our selves.
Fundamental human rights are not a gift of the state; they are inherent. The legitimate function of the state is to defend these rights.
(Other classic liberals such as the founders were likely to articulate basic rights as divinely granted, but I eschew that approach.)
From a pragmatic stand point I believe individuals are simply better qualified to make decisions for themselves than the state. While we can all think of examples of people we hope don't exercise some of their basic human rights (self defense, having kids etc.) minarchists don't accept restricting peoples basic rights because some people are stupid.
Some basic caveats for me would be that I'm basically always talking about adults (18+).
You own yourself and by extension the product of you labor which is your property. (This is why I find income tax more odious than sales tax.)
You have the right to do anything you want that does not initiate force or the threat of force against someone else or by extension their property.
By way of example if I dump hazardous chemicals in your yard I have initiated force against your property. You have a right to defend your property from my actions, and government has a legitimate role in using force to prohibit my behavior because it violates your rights.
Minarchy is not Anarchy. Most forms of anarchy reject the legitimacy of all state coercion. Minarchy sees government as a necessary evil that should be minimized.
The last paragraph "criticism" provides a decent contrast between minarchy and anarchy/ anarcho-capitalism.
I hope this helps lay out some of the basics. I'll see if I can find some decent essays about the initiation of force doctrines.
Why don't we all put out polisticks down, take a left turn, and start talking about that optimized commoner build. That actually sounds interesting, and I like monopolizing the conversation.
Turn down the volume before clicking this link.
You really shouldn't take commoner levels, because-
Oh...nm. ;)
No, no, you're right. If we were all commoners, we'd live in constant fear of cats.
No, no, you're right. If we were all commoners, we'd live in constant fear of cats.You really shouldn't take commoner levels, because-
Oh...nm. ;)
If you have a cat, you live in fear. That's just life man.
The only problem I have with minarchy as BT has described it is that at some points it sounds more like neo-feudalism than a viable system of government. It would work if we were all further behind in terms of our weaponry, I think. But we've all got waaaay too many automatic guns and too many militias/private armies to pull something like this off without things devolving into war between the states/territories/cities/etc.
That's more or less what happened in regular old feudalism. In fact, it was more or less the point.
No, no, you're right. If we were all commoners, we'd live in constant fear of cats.You really shouldn't take commoner levels, because-
Oh...nm. ;)
Too bad you aren't a miner. Cats aren't too keen on deep underground places. Maybe you could hire a couple dwarves to help?
That's more or less what happened in regular old feudalism. In fact, it was more or less the point.
The only problem I have with minarchy as BT has described it is that at some points it sounds more like neo-feudalism than a viable system of government. It would work if we were all further behind in terms of our weaponry, I think. But we've all got waaaay too many automatic guns and too many militias/private armies to pull something like this off without things devolving into war between the states/territories/cities/etc.
Well that's just the thing- this isn't regular old feudalism, which I found to be more thinly justified titles for warlords and dictators, but a nod towards an actual system of government. I just think that it wouldn't be long before it started turning into regular old feudalism. I think assassinations of unpopular leaders and their supporters would become a regular practice, if only because we have the weaponry to make such things happen now available on a widespread scale.
You have the right to do anything you want that does not initiate force or the threat of force against someone else or by extension their property.
Where would you stand if, say, I wanted to give lectures about how people with red hair are unnatural abominations and should be relocated someplace far? I distribute pamphlets quoting questionable studies that support my position. I form groups and organize demonstrations. But I never commit nor endorse any act of violence against a person with red hair.
Where do you stand on government's role regarding corporate monopolies? I do not think most monopolies present themselves as an immediate threat to a person nor the product of anyone's labor (except maybe a competitor's, but that seems like it would be near impossible to prove).
It seems to me that corporations would soon take over. As long as they did not demonstrate and immediate threat to life or property, the government would not interfere. I believe it is safe to say that corporations do not have the general public's best interest in mind. I also believe they could present a threat without being an immediate threat to life and property.
What is to stop them from saying, "You know what…7 day work weeks really are best." As long as the work environment is not dangerous, and how dangerous is a cube? And vacation is for lazy people. I mean, time off is not a fundamental right. Certainly it does not present an immediate threat to life. Sure, maybe over the long run working 7 days a week 365 days a year can wear a body down…but you are free to quit any time. It is your choice to take a job with any company.
What is to stop them from saying, "You know what…7 day work weeks really are best." As long as the work environment is not dangerous, and how dangerous is a cube? And vacation is for lazy people. I mean, time off is not a fundamental right. Certainly it does not present an immediate threat to life. Sure, maybe over the long run working 7 days a week 365 days a year can wear a body down…but you are free to quit any time. It is your choice to take a job with any company.
A good point.
The more we go down this particular road, the more it sounds like Shadowrun!!!!!
GO MINARCHY!! BRING MAGIC BACK TO THE WORLD! AND GIVE NATIVE AMERICANS BACK THEIR LAND AS A RESULT! AND ELVES! WE NEED ELVES! AND MAYBE TROLLS AND ORCS AND DWARVES, BUT MOSTLY ELVES!!
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I think assassinations of unpopular leaders and their supporters would become a regular practice, if only because we have the weaponry to make such things happen now available on a widespread scale.
In the U.S. we have widespread availability of the weaponry to make this possible and it just doesn't happen. Although there have been Presidential assassinations (Kennedy) and assassination attempts (Reagan), there really hasn't been that much assassination of elected officials. So if it's the proliferation of individual weapons that concerns you, history doesn't really bear out those concerns. I'd venture to guess that assassinations are no more common (and certainly LESS common in first-world countries) in the age of the rifle than in the days of sword and spear.
I think assassinations of unpopular leaders and their supporters would become a regular practice, if only because we have the weaponry to make such things happen now available on a widespread scale.In the U.S. we have widespread availability of the weaponry to make this possible and it just doesn't happen. Although there have been Presidential assassinations (Kennedy) and assassination attempts (Reagan), there really hasn't been that much assassination of elected officials. So if it's the proliferation of individual weapons that concerns you, history doesn't really bear out those concerns. I'd venture to guess that assassinations are no more common (and certainly LESS common in first-world countries) in the age of the rifle than in the days of sword and spear.
Oh, I certainly agree, but we aren't exactly a minarchist society. I'd have to comb through BT's posts to find it now, but there was a world he outlined where people were more regularly armed than they are today and militias were more commonplace. In such an enviornment, I could see things getting ugly when people act out against the local government.
You have the right to do anything you want that does not initiate force or the threat of force against someone else or by extension their property.Where would you stand if, say, I wanted to give lectures about how people with red hair are unnatural abominations and should be relocated someplace far? I distribute pamphlets quoting questionable studies that support my position. I form groups and organize demonstrations. But I never commit nor endorse any act of violence against a person with red hair.
Where do you stand on government's role regarding corporate monopolies? I do not think most monopolies present themselves as an immediate threat to a person nor the product of anyone's labor (except maybe a competitor's, but that seems like it would be near impossible to prove).
It seems to me that corporations would soon take over. As long as they did not demonstrate and immediate threat to life or property, the government would not interfere. I believe it is safe to say that corporations do not have the general public's best interest in mind. I also believe they could present a threat without being an immediate threat to life and property.
What is to stop them from saying, "You know what…7 day work weeks really are best." As long as the work environment is not dangerous, and how dangerous is a cube? And vacation is for lazy people. I mean, time off is not a fundamental right. Certainly it does not present an immediate threat to life. Sure, maybe over the long run working 7 days a week 365 days a year can wear a body down…but you are free to quit any time. It is your choice to take a job with any company.
Bigotry is free speech until they threaten someone.
It seems that in US history monopolies tend to be created/subsidized by the government. Libertarians usually oppose anti trust laws, and I tend to agree, but I don't feel well informed enough about this policy aspect to articulate a sound policy defense.
Wages etc. should be decided by the parties involved not the federal government. If you want to take a job working 365, yes, that's up to you.
|
|
Bigotry is free speech until they threaten someone.
On the one hand, I agree with this statement. On the other, I'm less inclined to do so. Speech that attempts to dehumanize those with which we disagree while stopping just short of outright violence (but it is implied) falls into that gray area that I would be more inclined to restrict for the betterment (is that even a word? it sounded right) of society as a whole. Fred Phelps is a great example of this.
It seems that in US history monopolies tend to be created/subsidized by the government. Libertarians usually oppose anti trust laws, and I tend to agree, but I don't feel well informed enough about this policy aspect to articulate a sound policy defense.
If we're going to have anti-trust regulations, they need to be applied accross the board, not selectively as they are now (ie.- power companies, health insurance, etc.). Monopolies are anathema to capitalism. If there is a monopoly, there is no competition and the theories of free-market economy break down.
Wages etc. should be decided by the parties involved not the federal government. If you want to take a job working 365, yes, that's up to you.
See, I feel that this is one of the areas that the government should have some say. I do not believe they should be setting all wages (ie.-if you have a HS ed you'll make $x, an associates $y, etc.), but I believe that a standardized minimum wage is a very reasonable thing to enforce. Look at working conditions before child labor laws and minimum wage laws were on the books. They were horrendous, yet people worked in them because it was either that or starve. I do not believe a minimal set of labor laws would hinder business to the point that their negative impact would outweigh their benefit.
See, I feel that this is one of the areas that the government should have some say. I do not believe they should be setting all wages (ie.-if you have a HS ed you'll make $x, an associates $y, etc.), but I believe that a standardized minimum wage is a very reasonable thing to enforce. Look at working conditions before child labor laws and minimum wage laws were on the books. They were horrendous, yet people worked in them because it was either that or starve. I do not believe a minimal set of labor laws would hinder business to the point that their negative impact outweighs their benefit.
Agreed. Considering how many multinational companies do business with their employees when away from american shores, I have to concur- unless someone steps in to set some guidelines, most companies could care less if people die horribly or even starve to death while working for them, so long as the bottom line is met.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Oh, I certainly agree, but we aren't exactly a minarchist society. I'd have to comb through BT's posts to find it now, but there was a world he outlined where people were more regularly armed than they are today and militias were more commonplace. In such an enviornment, I could see things getting ugly when people act out against the local government.
Well, to trot out an old adage, an armed society is a polite society. Most people acting out of rational self-interest wouldn't incite civil war at the drop of a hat because they'd be likely to die as a result. Think of it like the Cold War writ small: nuclear proliferation resulted in the great powers working out their differences through diplomacy and small-scale proxy wars. Even bush wars are no fun for those involved, but they're a hell of a lot better than conflict on the scale of WWII. I think the idea is that local governments would be required perforce to be very responsive to the desires of their constituents.
Not that I'm strictly speaking a minarchist... Successful defense against powerful strategic rivals requires a certain level of military power (or geographic barriers) than I don't think could be maintained by a minarchy. A state that had more central control of resources could, in theory, take advantage of economies of scale and division of labor to project more military power. It didn't work out that way for the USSR, but remember that the U.S. government had to control resources and production at the national level during WWII (via rationing, etc.) to build and project the military power that we did.
Oh, I certainly agree, but we aren't exactly a minarchist society. I'd have to comb through BT's posts to find it now, but there was a world he outlined where people were more regularly armed than they are today and militias were more commonplace. In such an enviornment, I could see things getting ugly when people act out against the local government.I think assassinations of unpopular leaders and their supporters would become a regular practice, if only because we have the weaponry to make such things happen now available on a widespread scale.In the U.S. we have widespread availability of the weaponry to make this possible and it just doesn't happen. Although there have been Presidential assassinations (Kennedy) and assassination attempts (Reagan), there really hasn't been that much assassination of elected officials. So if it's the proliferation of individual weapons that concerns you, history doesn't really bear out those concerns. I'd venture to guess that assassinations are no more common (and certainly LESS common in first-world countries) in the age of the rifle than in the days of sword and spear.
We were a somewhat minarchist society at the nations founding with some ugly exceptions. We had firearms, cannons and such then, but we did pretty well at not falling on one another (with some exceptions) until the civil war.
I think some of the disconnect here may be our respective comfort levels with heavy weapons. I have friend with tanks, machine guns, silencers, .50 cals, vulcanized machine guns and so forth here in Colorado (all legally of course). They don't use them on their neighbors, the cops, or the Governor. Most folks don't even know they have these even though Mel actually has a museum open to the public.
I'm just guessing here, but I think you may be stressing the weapons side of the issue more than I due in part to our different backgrounds.
It seems that in recent US history monopolies tend to be created/subsidized by the government.
See bolded qualifier. Your statement has been true since Teddy Roosevelt trust-busted the big monopolies with his "big stick."
Before that, exemplified by the "Age of Robber Barons," monopolies were a matter of course (no laws against meant that there was a feeding frenzy of companies acquiring each other and/or forcing each other out of business until only the biggest one was left). Better still, large corporations were free to work their laborers to death, bringing in strikebreakers to beat them into submission (on the grounds of "quelling a riot") if the workers attempted to obtain any sort of rights at all, since there were no laws protecting workers' rights.
Have unions gone too far the other way? Probably so, but that's a reaction from when they weren't allowed at all, and employees had no recourse whatsoever. Boss says you're fired unless you blow him? Too bad -- find another job. Boss says you have to work 72 hours in a row without sleep or a shower? Too bad -- find another job. Opening a local hardware store? Too bad, Wal-Mart will sell hardware for free, taking the loss for as long as they need to until you're out of business, and then raise prices enough to make up the shortfall and then some.
These were all standard business practices at one time. Business isn't conducted that way now, not because of free market corrections, but because there are laws protecting workers' rights, preventing monopolies, and the like. A free market requires some amount of legislation.
-----
Again, I'm not claiming we don't have too much legislation at the current time. Indeed, antitrust laws in no way require government ownership of business, which in general I find abhorrent as an example of too great a concentration of power in one place. All I'm saying is that no laws governing business is just as bad as too many. We must always beware of extremism -- in any direction.
Oh, I certainly agree, but we aren't exactly a minarchist society. I'd have to comb through BT's posts to find it now, but there was a world he outlined where people were more regularly armed than they are today and militias were more commonplace. In such an enviornment, I could see things getting ugly when people act out against the local government.I think assassinations of unpopular leaders and their supporters would become a regular practice, if only because we have the weaponry to make such things happen now available on a widespread scale.In the U.S. we have widespread availability of the weaponry to make this possible and it just doesn't happen. Although there have been Presidential assassinations (Kennedy) and assassination attempts (Reagan), there really hasn't been that much assassination of elected officials. So if it's the proliferation of individual weapons that concerns you, history doesn't really bear out those concerns. I'd venture to guess that assassinations are no more common (and certainly LESS common in first-world countries) in the age of the rifle than in the days of sword and spear.We were a somewhat minarchist society at the nations founding with some ugly exceptions. We had firearms, cannons and such then, but we did pretty well at not falling on one another (with some exceptions) until the civil war.
I think some of the disconnect here may be our respective comfort levels with heavy weapons. I have friend with tanks, machine guns, silencers, .50 cals, vulcanized machine guns and so forth here in Colorado (all legally of course). They don't use them on their neighbors, the cops, or the Governor. Most folks don't even know they have these even though Mel actually has a museum open to the public.
I'm just guessing here, but I think you may be stressing the weapons side of the issue more than I due in part to our different backgrounds.
Oh, for a certainty. I have no military background, although my uncle is involved with Lockheed Martin now instead of the Army, and my distant cousin is a Lt. Colonel in the Air Force. That's about it. I wanted to fly a plane when I was little, but once I discovered that the army in fact DID NOT have veritechs available, I went into other fields. :-D
|
Bigotry is free speech until they threaten someone.On the one hand, I agree with this statement. On the other, I'm less inclined to do so. Speech that attempts to dehumanize those with which we disagree while stopping just short of outright violence (but it is implied) falls into that gray area that I would be more inclined to restrict for the betterment (is that even a word? it sounded right) of society as a whole. Fred Phelps is a great example of this.
I agree that fred phelps is a great example specifically because he has been spouting his hate for a while and absolutely nothing came of it which is why you should be free to shout even the craziest of ramblings as long as you aren't actively engaging in or encouraging the engaging of real violence.
|
|
I agree that fred phelps is a great example specifically because he has been spouting his hate for a while and absolutely nothing came of it which is why you should be free to shout even the craziest of ramblings as long as you aren't actively engaging in or encouraging the engaging of real violence.Bigotry is free speech until they threaten someone.On the one hand, I agree with this statement. On the other, I'm less inclined to do so. Speech that attempts to dehumanize those with which we disagree while stopping just short of outright violence (but it is implied) falls into that gray area that I would be more inclined to restrict for the betterment (is that even a word? it sounded right) of society as a whole. Fred Phelps is a great example of this.
Touche, however, it depends on how someone defines hurting or causing pain to someone. Phelps and his ilk are knowing inflicting large amounts of emotional pain and suffering upon the family members of the deceased whose funerals they protest (and doing so under the guise of free speech). If it was my friend or family member whose funeral they decided to protest I'm not going to lie, I would probably beat him into a coma at the very least (and get off if charges were brought).
A better example would be the statements of hard-line abortion protestors. The message they espouse, while not outwardly advocating harm, has lead to multiple killings. They have not told anybody "go blow up this clinic and shoot this guy in the head while he's attending church" yet just making the statements and playing off of the emotional instability of others would, to me qualify as enough of a catalyst to restrict their speech.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
On the one hand, I agree with this statement. On the other, I'm less inclined to do so. Speech that attempts to dehumanize those with which we disagree while stopping just short of outright violence (but it is implied) falls into that gray area that I would be more inclined to restrict for the betterment (is that even a word? it sounded right) of society as a whole. Fred Phelps is a great example of this.
The problem with restricting free speech that you consider to be especially egregious is that somebody out there thinks YOUR speech to be especially egregious. It's a classic slippery slope. You can't trample individual rights "for the betterment of society as a whole." Also betterment is a word.
If we're going to have anti-trust regulations, they need to be applied accross the board, not selectively as they are now (ie.- power companies, health insurance, etc.). Monopolies are anathema to capitalism. If there is a monopoly, there is no competition and the theories of free-market economy break down.
The problem with utilities is that they are natural monopolies. It is incredibly inefficient to have more than one power company, for instance, in a given market due to the duplication of infrastructure that would be involved. That's why government regulates utility rates, to prevent that monopoly power from allowing utilities to price gouge.
It seems that in recent US history monopolies tend to be created/subsidized by the government.See bolded qualifier. Your statement has been true since Teddy Roosevelt trust-busted the big monopolies with his "big stick."
Before that, exemplified by the "Age of Robber Barons," monopolies were a matter of course (no laws against meant that there was a feeding frenzy of companies acquiring each other and/or forcing each other out of business until only the biggest one was left). Better still, large corporations were free to work their laborers to death, bringing in strikebreakers to beat them into submission (on the grounds of "quelling a riot") if the workers attempted to obtain any sort of rights at all, since there were no laws protecting workers' rights.
Have unions gone too far the other way? Probably so, but that's a reaction from when they weren't allowed at all, and employees had no recourse whatsoever. Boss says you're fired unless you blow him? Too bad -- find another job. Boss says you have to work 72 hours in a row without sleep or a shower? Too bad -- find another job. Opening a local hardware store? Too bad, Wal-Mart will sell hardware for free, taking the loss for as long as they need to until you're out of business, and then raise prices enough to make up the shortfall and then some.
These were all standard business practices at one time. Business isn't conducted that way now, not because of free market corrections, but because there are laws protecting workers' rights, preventing monopolies, and the like. A free market requires some amount of legislation.
-----
Again, I'm not claiming we don't have too much legislation at the current time. Indeed, antitrust laws in no way require government ownership of business, which in general I find abhorrent as an example of too great a concentration of power in one place. All I'm saying is that no laws governing business is just as bad as too many. We must always beware of extremism -- in any...
I'm not sure I would favor zero anti trust laws, but even before Teddy I think the government still played a role in facilitating monopolies. I also know that federal troops were used to fire on union protesters. Still I'm not certain I can embrace the hard line of zero anti trust laws.
EDIT: NOT certain
Response
I thank you for taking the time to respond to me, sir.
We must always beware of extremism -- in any direction.
I think this sums up my thoughts.
I agree that fred phelps is a great example specifically because he has been spouting his hate for a while and absolutely nothing came of it which is why you should be free to shout even the craziest of ramblings as long as you aren't actively engaging in or encouraging the engaging of real violence.
I consider myself a very strong advocate for freedom of speech, even for those I disagree with. My concern, and this is a recently developed concern of mine, is that speech can do harm. If a lie is told often enough by enough people, others start believing it. To pull a Godwin, I believe this is what caused a large portion of Nazi Germany to 'look the other way'.
I am not sure where we draw the line between free speech and preventing hate speech from causing problems.
On the one hand, I agree with this statement. On the other, I'm less inclined to do so. Speech that attempts to dehumanize those with which we disagree while stopping just short of outright violence (but it is implied) falls into that gray area that I would be more inclined to restrict for the betterment (is that even a word? it sounded right) of society as a whole. Fred Phelps is a great example of this.The problem with restricting free speech that you consider to be especially egregious is that somebody out there thinks YOUR speech to be especially egregious. It's a classic slippery slope. You can't trample individual rights "for the betterment of society as a whole." Also betterment is a word.
If we're going to have anti-trust regulations, they need to be applied accross the board, not selectively as they are now (ie.- power companies, health insurance, etc.). Monopolies are anathema to capitalism. If there is a monopoly, there is no competition and the theories of free-market economy break down.The problem with utilities is that they are natural monopolies. It is incredibly inefficient to have more than one power company, for instance, in a given market due to the duplication of infrastructure that would be involved. That's why government regulates utility rates, to prevent that monopoly power from allowing utilities to price gouge.
+1 on the slippery slope.
Infrastructure redundancies can be inefficient, but seeing how many municipal power companies are run the lack of competition creates a great deal of stagnation and inefficiency also. There is very little incentive for innovation or efficiency.
|
|
The problem with restricting free speech that you consider to be especially egregious is that somebody out there thinks YOUR speech to be especially egregious. It's a classic slippery slope. You can't trample individual rights "for the betterment of society as a whole."
I recognize the slipperyness and the slopyness, however, I'm also of the mind that hate-speech has no place in today's society. Take the UK and Canada's hate-speech laws for example. If people want to use hate speech in private forums, there is nothing stopping them. It is when they try and get up on a soapbox in a public forum that they're limited. I think this is a reasonable restriction. There are plenty of things that are perfectly legal for a person to do in the privacy of their own home, but if they were to start doing it on the side of road, it would get them arrested. Why should speech be any different?
Also betterment is a word.
Sounded right in my noggin, just didn't look right when typed out.
The problem with utilities is that they are natural monopolies. It is incredibly inefficient to have more than one power company, for instance, in a given market due to the duplication of infrastructure that would be involved. That's why government regulates utility rates, to prevent that monopoly power from allowing utilities to price gouge.
Regardless, it's still ridiculous. I have gas and electric in my apartment. In the summer time, my gas usage is minimal (pilot lights and oven/stove use), but my gas bill is still $50 (half of my electric bill--and I'm running my AC all day every day). 90% of this $50 bill is fees...my gas usage is around $5 each month in the summer. It might not be reasonable to have multiple companies, but if the government is going to have a forced monopoly, there should be oversight on what that monopoly is charging.
To pull a Godwin, I believe this is what caused a large portion of Nazi Germany to 'look the other way'.
Your speech offends me. SILENCE POODLE!!!!
...It seems that in recent US history monopolies tend to be created/subsidized by the government.See bolded qualifier. Your statement has been true since Teddy Roosevelt trust-busted the big monopolies with his "big stick."
Before that, exemplified by the "Age of Robber Barons," monopolies were a matter of course (no laws against meant that there was a feeding frenzy of companies acquiring each other and/or forcing each other out of business until only the biggest one was left). Better still, large corporations were free to work their laborers to death, bringing in strikebreakers to beat them into submission (on the grounds of "quelling a riot") if the workers attempted to obtain any sort of rights at all, since there were no laws protecting workers' rights.
Have unions gone too far the other way? Probably so, but that's a reaction from when they weren't allowed at all, and employees had no recourse whatsoever. Boss says you're fired unless you blow him? Too bad -- find another job. Boss says you have to work 72 hours in a row without sleep or a shower? Too bad -- find another job. Opening a local hardware store? Too bad, Wal-Mart will sell hardware for free, taking the loss for as long as they need to until you're out of business, and then raise prices enough to make up the shortfall and then some.
These were all standard business practices at one time. Business isn't conducted that way now, not because of free market corrections, but because there are laws protecting workers' rights, preventing monopolies, and the like. A free market requires some amount of legislation.
-----
Again, I'm not claiming we don't have too much legislation at the current time. Indeed, antitrust laws in no way require government ownership of business, which in general I find abhorrent as an example of too great a concentration of power in one place. All I'm saying is that no laws governing business is just as bad as too many. We must always beware of
Are you sure these were feds and not state level law enforcement? I'd say that's a greater possiblity, depending on the state and how the strike was being performed.
|
"One of the worst fallacies in the field of economics—propagated by Karl Marx and accepted by almost everyone today, including many businessmen—is that the development of monopolies is an inescapable and intrinsic result of the operation of a free, unregulated economy. In fact, the exact opposite is true. It is a free market that makes monopolies impossible."
"In the whole history of capitalism, no one has been able to establish a coercive monopoly by means of competition on a free market. There is only one way to forbid entry into a given field of production: by law. Every single coercive monopoly that exists or ever has existed—in the United States, in Europe or anywhere else in the world—was created and made possible only by an act of government"
"One of the worst fallacies in the field of economics—propagated by Karl Marx and accepted by almost everyone today, including many businessmen—is that the development of monopolies is an inescapable and intrinsic result of the operation of a free, unregulated economy. In fact, the exact opposite is true. It is a free market that makes monopolies impossible."
"In the whole history of capitalism, no one has been able to establish a coercive monopoly by means of competition on a free market. There is only one way to forbid entry into a given field of production: by law. Every single coercive monopoly that exists or ever has existed—in the United States, in Europe or anywhere else in the world—was created and made possible only by an act of government"
Then how would you explain the robber-barons of yore? I have heard it claimed before that they were not nearly as bad as history made them sound.
|
|
"Take, for example, the “human right” of free speech. Freedom of speech is supposed to mean the right of everyone to say whatever he likes. But the neglected question is: Where? Where does a man have this right? He certainly does not have it on property on which he is trespassing. In short, he has this right only either on his own property or on the property of someone who has agreed, as a gift or in a rental contract, to allow him on the premises. In fact, then, there is no such thing as a separate “right to free speech”; there is only a man’s property right: the right to do as he wills with his own or to make voluntary agreements with other property owners."
So for Fred Phelps and his crew, it's up to the funeral home to have a policy of restricting such speech on its property. If Fred wants to scream hatred from his house or on his website, fine.
|
|
"Take, for example, the “human right” of free speech. Freedom of speech is supposed to mean the right of everyone to say whatever he likes. But the neglected question is: Where? Where does a man have this right? He certainly does not have it on property on which he is trespassing. In short, he has this right only either on his own property or on the property of someone who has agreed, as a gift or in a rental contract, to allow him on the premises. In fact, then, there is no such thing as a separate “right to free speech”; there is only a man’s property right: the right to do as he wills with his own or to make voluntary agreements with other property owners."
So for Fred Phelps and his crew, it's up to the funeral home to have a policy of restricting such speech on its property. If Fred wants to scream hatred from his house or on his website, fine.
Exactly what I was getting at. Take the tired example of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. There are no laws preventing somebody from using the word fire...just the location in which they can say it. Nobody is stopping that same person from screaming "fire" 24/7 from within the four walls of his home. I see no problem with putting restrictions on speech. Not putting restrictions on what is said, but rather where it is said.
As to your example with Phelps, Snobi, I believe most, if not all funeral homes have done this. The problem is that they have moved their protests to public property (ie.-streets and sidewalks) so the funeral home has no say.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Infrastructure redundancies can be inefficient, but seeing how many municipal power companies are run the lack of competition creates a great deal of stagnation and inefficiency also. There is very little incentive for innovation or efficiency.
The incentive for innovation and efficiency is cost reduction. Reducing costs = increasing profits, especially when you're operating on slim margins like utilities do. The alternative to regulation of natural monopoly is government ownership of utilities, and that's bad for all the usual reasons.
/snip if the government is going to have a forced monopoly, there should be oversight on what that monopoly is charging.
In fact, there is oversight. Your gas bill is probably relatively constant because gas utilities frequently smooth rates seasonally to avoid sticking people harder in the winter.
Why should speech be any different?
Who gets to decide what is considered hate speech? That's pretty subjective. Nobody wants to be publicly silenced. Plus, even unpopular ideas can be true. The kind of speech restrictions you're talking about could have been used to silence the civil rights movement. You wouldn't have wanted the then-mainstream to decide that civil rights speech was offensive enough to be prohibited. Freedom of speech ensures free exchange of ideas, which allows society to grow ideologically. Bad ideas will eventually die on their own. Good ideas will flourish.
|
|
In fact, there is oversight. Your gas bill is probably relatively constant because gas utilities frequently smooth rates seasonally to avoid sticking people harder in the winter.
It's optional, but definitely not something they automatically set up for customers. I am within my first year of living in this apartment, so if I do decide to sign up for average billing, my bill will be even higher during the summer months.
Who gets to decide what is considered hate speech? That's pretty subjective.
The reasonable person standard?
Nobody wants to be publicly silenced. Plus, even unpopular ideas can be true. The kind of speech restrictions you're talking about could have been used to silence the civil rights movement. You wouldn't have wanted the then-mainstream to decide that civil rights speech was offensive enough to be prohibited. Freedom of speech ensures free exchange of ideas, which allows society to grow ideologically. Bad ideas will eventually die on their own. Good ideas will flourish.
The FCC has decided that profanities are not acceptable and cannot be shown on network television. Profanities are much less offensive than somebody getting on the TV and extolling the virtues of the white race over all other races or how homosexuals are sexual deviants and abominations (as examples). Any reasonable person can tell you that racism is hate speech and that calling a person a deviant and an abomination for what goes on behind closed doors is hate speech. Likewise, any reasonable person can tell you that a person saying that christians are bigoted idiots is hate speech. Any or all of these things may be "true" to the person saying them or to a section of the population, but they add nothing to any meaningful discourse and are obviously hate speech to any reasonable person. Let people say these things in their houses, meeting halls, or churches, but don't give them free reign to say it in the middle of the publicly funded streets.
|
|
And as to the civil rights movement...they did try to silence the protestors. They did so by locking them up, killing them, sicing dogs on them, and/or spraying them with firehoses. But the idea was so popular to such a large group of people that these attempts to silence them failed. Laws against hate-speech would have done nothing had their message been designated so because the message was so populist it would have succeeded regardless.
If messages that a reasonable person would consider hate speech reach that point of populism, it's time for me to pack up my family and head north.
What is to stop them from saying, "You know what…7 day work weeks really are best." As long as the work environment is not dangerous, and how dangerous is a cube? And vacation is for lazy people. I mean, time off is not a fundamental right. Certainly it does not present an immediate threat to life. Sure, maybe over the long run working 7 days a week 365 days a year can wear a body down…but you are free to quit any time. It is your choice to take a job with any company.A good point.
The more we go down this particular road, the more it sounds like Shadowrun!!!!!
GO MINARCHY!! BRING MAGIC BACK TO THE WORLD! AND GIVE NATIVE AMERICANS BACK THEIR LAND AS A RESULT! AND ELVES! WE NEED ELVES! AND MAYBE TROLLS AND ORCS AND DWARVES, BUT MOSTLY ELVES!!
Everything else I'm okay with.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
"One of the worst fallacies in the field of economics—propagated by Karl Marx and accepted by almost everyone today, including many businessmen—is that the development of monopolies is an inescapable and intrinsic result of the operation of a free, unregulated economy. In fact, the exact opposite is true. It is a free market that makes monopolies impossible."
"In the whole history of capitalism, no one has been able to establish a coercive monopoly by means of competition on a free market. There is only one way to forbid entry into a given field of production: by law. Every single coercive monopoly that exists or ever has existed—in the United States, in Europe or anywhere else in the world—was created and made possible only by an act of government"
I don't subscribe to this. It might be a good way of considering the topic theoretically, but in reality, politics and economics are intertwined - it's not possible to separate the two. Once an industry has sufficient mass, it can use that power to influence the government and obtain the ability to create a monopoly, either directly (e.g., the phone companies and railroads) or indirectly (e.g., patent law). To assert that no monopoly is possible without governmental action assumes that economic interests don't use their power to cause governmental action. It's like asserting that people don't kill people, guns kill people.
I think this is also part of the reason that, despite my love of economics and economic theory, I'm not a strong believer in the correctness of the unfettered free market. I don't think there can be any real free market absent some type of legal regime that establishes ownership rights, dispute resolutions, etc. How you cast of frame those rights sets limits on the market and determines how it operates. Even black markets are defined (to a certain extent) by their interaction with legitimate markets.
Which isn't to say that you can't have more effective markets or more efficient markets. I just think the state of nature of economic forces absent some legal regime is a force based economy (much like in a black market economy, where transactions are ultimately honored/respected out of the threat of the use of force - though, now that I type that, it applies equally well to the legal markets, which have the implicit force of the government backing them up as well).
The FCC has decided that profanities are not acceptable and cannot be shown on network television...
Actually, in recent news...
Edit, formatting brain fart.
What is to stop them from saying, "You know what…7 day work weeks really are best." As long as the work environment is not dangerous, and how dangerous is a cube? And vacation is for lazy people. I mean, time off is not a fundamental right. Certainly it does not present an immediate threat to life. Sure, maybe over the long run working 7 days a week 365 days a year can wear a body down…but you are free to quit any time. It is your choice to take a job with any company.A good point.
The more we go down this particular road, the more it sounds like Shadowrun!!!!!
GO MINARCHY!! BRING MAGIC BACK TO THE WORLD! AND GIVE NATIVE AMERICANS BACK THEIR LAND AS A RESULT! AND ELVES! WE NEED ELVES! AND MAYBE TROLLS AND ORCS AND DWARVES, BUT MOSTLY ELVES!!
Everything else I'm okay with.
What was that? EXTRA elves? Hey man, you're the boss...
|
|
The FCC has decided that profanities are not acceptable and cannot be shown on network television...Actually, in recent news...
I read the story. The ruling has nothing to do with with lifting the ban on profanity. It has determined that networks should not be fined/punished for incidental slip-ups during live broadcasts.
EDIT: Read the trimmed down/mash-up version of the story in the link, and it differs from the AP version of the story I read...by alot.
|
|
Freehold reminded me of something in another thread I'd like to just throw out here, but the idea of "regional monopolies" where companies refuse to compete with one another in given regions forcing the consumer to have fewer sources for a given product (such as cable television). Has anyone else seen anything like this? Is there anything good or bad about it? If so, is it a problem?
Edit:
Example: Comcast rules the East, Charter dominates the cable market where I am.