Excuse me? Libertarians and Holocaust deniers in cahoots? Where? You're not actually saying that since libertarians tend to be critical of laws forbidding various types of speech, they are Holocaust deniers since the Holocaust deniers also want to get rid of one type of law preventing their nazi b@~!*@#! speech, are you?Some think rights are a gift to give to those they want to have them, not indeed rights. They are those that would gladly bend a knee for a dictator to end freedoms as long as he is one like themselves.
You make it so hard to compare you to the ideologues that instated Nazism. [/sarcasm]
I like how you think you're unveiling some sort of wisdom upon us, oblivious to the fact that it's merely a fog of pretension obscuring ignorance.
It's kind of ironic, but as an anarchist I agree with nearly everything Orfamay Quest and Kirth Gersen is writing. Feels kinda weird.
I don't see why that's weird; the only way we can live in real freedom is if we keep each other honest. If it were up to me, there would be only like 4 things that were illegal: assault (direct or indirect), murder, theft... and outright public lying.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's kind of ironic, but as an anarchist I agree with nearly everything Orfamay Quest and Kirth Gersen is writing. Feels kinda weird.I don't see why that's weird; the only way we can live in real freedom is if we keep each other honest. If it were up to me, there would be only like 4 things that were illegal: assault (direct or indirect), murder, theft... and outright public lying.
Then the first election rolls around, and the incumbent arrests his opponent for lying.
Something I've been noticing in this thread that I believe is a misconception, is the idea that Libertarians support unfettered free speech.
It's hardly a misconception when the Libertarians on this thread are supporting unfettered free speech.
Finally, while I see that many are speaking passionately to defend the truth regarding an abysmal mark on the face of human history, please dont paint with broad strokes. Just becasue some Libertarians are in cahoots with holocaust deniars (still scratching my head on that one) or show idiotic behavior; it doesn't mean we are all like that... :P
Not all like that, but there are a lot of people who use Libertarianism as a stalking horse. Essentially, they know that there is a freedom that they want that is not possible to justify in normal moral terms (such as the freedom to behave in anti-Semitic ways), so they resort to high-sounding generalisms in the pious hopes that people will sign off on unfettered freedom.
Typically, it is argued that while you have the right to say controversial things, you do not have the right to de-fraud people. Namely, because libertarianism holds to three basic fundamental human rights: the right to one's life, property and liberty.
And since de-frauding someone is a form of theft of property, I don't see the Libertarian position as defending a doctor who sells his patients "sugar pills" and claim they're the cure for cancer as someone used as an example of above.
I wish that were the case, but I don't see that as typical at all, neither on this thread nor elsewhere in the Libertarian community. I've seen, for example
* an argument that stopping someone from poisoning a river is an illegitimate use of force, because simply poisoning the drinking water of the people does not deprive them of life. They can choose freely to drink bottled water instead.
* an argument that selling sugar pills is not fraud, because an educated consumer can read the medical journals for himself and decide whether or not to buy.
* an argument that "this is a nice place you have here; it would be a shame if it caught fire" is not an attempt at extortion, but simply passing the time of day, and therefore not criminal conduct
* an argument that chattel slavery by contract is legitimate, but that labor unions are not, because they are "forcing" the employer to pay money he otherwise would not.
* that proactive laws -- e.g. criminalizing behavior likely to cause a problem -- are an illegitimate use of force no matter how strong the link is between the behavior and the problem. Apparently I can't stop you from burning down my house until my house has already caught fire.
* similar to above, that criminalizing attempted criminal behavior is "thoughtcrime."
The Holocaust deprived millions of people of life, of liberty, and of property. Even under a Libertarian framework, it's completely justifiable to outlaw Holocaust denial as a prophylactic measure to prevent it from happening again. Especially since there are demonstrably people out there who are actively trying to re-create it.
Something I've been noticing in this thread that I believe is a misconception, is the idea that Libertarians support unfettered free speech.
This is only correct to a certain degree. Typically, it is argued that while you have the right to say controversial things, you do not have the right to de-fraud people. Namely, because libertarianism holds to three basic fundamental human rights: the right to one's life, property and liberty.
And since de-frauding someone is a form of theft of property, I don't see the Libertarian position as defending a doctor who sells his patients "sugar pills" and claim they're the cure for cancer as someone used as an example of above.
Yet it's being used to defend those who wish to white-wash the actions of people who committed genocide.
Please feel free to enlighten me why defrauding a patient is worse than concealing a genocide. Seriously, that's what the argument boils down to. You aren't allowed to steal, but if you want to lie and cover up the murder of Jews, that's okay.
Then the first election rolls around, and the incumbent arrests his opponent for lying.It's kind of ironic, but as an anarchist I agree with nearly everything Orfamay Quest and Kirth Gersen is writing. Feels kinda weird.I don't see why that's weird; the only way we can live in real freedom is if we keep each other honest. If it were up to me, there would be only like 4 things that were illegal: assault (direct or indirect), murder, theft... and outright public lying.
And then you wake up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And then you wake up.Then the first election rolls around, and the incumbent arrests his opponent for lying.It's kind of ironic, but as an anarchist I agree with nearly everything Orfamay Quest and Kirth Gersen is writing. Feels kinda weird.I don't see why that's weird; the only way we can live in real freedom is if we keep each other honest. If it were up to me, there would be only like 4 things that were illegal: assault (direct or indirect), murder, theft... and outright public lying.
*Wakes up*
"AAAHHH!!!"-"Did you have the dream where the Libertarians were right again?"
--"Yeah. The free market was going great until the Lizard Nazis from the other side of the flat earth attacked. We should have listened to them."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And then you wake up.*Wakes up*
"AAAHHH!!!"
-"Did you have the dream where the Libertarians were right again?"
--"Yeah. The free market was going great until the Lizard Nazis from the other side of the flat earth attacked. We should have listened to them."
---"Awww, poor baby. Don't worry, you know it's only a dream. The Libertarians have never been right in the real world and never will be. And the Germans have a thirty year history of keeping the Lizard Nazis under control, because they know that they pose a comparatively realistic threat."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This went from stupid to surreal ..and now to stupidly surreal....
|
Just as a side note, it is interesting how the guy in the original article is referred to as a Bishop in the press.
He is given this status to agrandise the piece even though a more accurate description would be 'heretical ex-Bishop'.
I'm not trying to defend any side in the debate about his excommunication, just pointing out how journos have merrily misrepresented the facts.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Down with all of the bums! Was it Abe Lincoln who said something along the lines of, "If anyone actually wants this job, it's a sure sign they don't deserve it!"?
I don't think it's been brought up so...
Funny thing about that whole shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater thingy. It's a line from Justice Holmes's decision in the Schenk case in which the US government prosecuted members of the Philadelphia branch of the Socialist Party for carrying out antiwar propaganda.
I am not a Holocaust denier and I fervently believe the organized workers movement should initiate mass movements to sweep the fascist filth off the streets, but I don't support the bourgeois state's right to legislate historical truth, even against Holocaust deniers.
Also, Bonzo Goes to Bitburg.
I don't support the bourgeois state's right to legislate historical truth, even against Holocaust deniers.
Oddly enough, that's not what "the bourgeois state" is doing with Holocaust denial laws, any more than the Pure Food and Drug Act legislated recipes.
Something I've been noticing in this thread that I believe is a misconception, is the idea that Libertarians support unfettered free speech.It's hardly a misconception when the Libertarians on this thread are supporting unfettered free speech.
Finally, while I see that many are speaking passionately to defend the truth regarding an abysmal mark on the face of human history, please dont paint with broad strokes. Just becasue some Libertarians are in cahoots with holocaust deniars (still scratching my head on that one) or show idiotic behavior; it doesn't mean we are all like that... :PNot all like that, but there are a lot of people who use Libertarianism as a stalking horse. Essentially, they know that there is a freedom that they want that is not possible to justify in normal moral terms (such as the freedom to behave in anti-Semitic ways), so they resort to high-sounding generalisms in the pious hopes that people will sign off on unfettered freedom.
Don't individuals on both sides of the spectrum use socialism or communism or neo-conservatism or whatever as a "stalking horse" to further their views? If so, the view is not the problem, it's certain individuals. A clever person can use "stalking horses" from any view to make whatever claims they want.
Typically, it is argued that while you have the right to say controversial things, you do not have the right to de-fraud people. Namely, because libertarianism holds to three basic fundamental human rights: the right to one's life, property and liberty.
And since de-frauding someone is a form of theft of property, I don't see the Libertarian position as defending a doctor who sells his patients "sugar pills" and claim they're the cure for cancer as someone used as an example of above.* an argument that stopping someone from poisoning a river is an illegitimate use of force, because simply poisoning the drinking water of the people does not deprive them of life. They can choose freely to drink bottled water instead.
* an argument that selling sugar pills is not fraud, because an educated consumer can read the medical...
But do all Libertarians in the universe have this view? If not, you should not speak in absolutes, its bad form. Further, people on this thread who are defending denial or whatever are not necessarily "Libertarian", even if they share a certain talking point.
-I've never heard any Libertarian that was taken seriously say that punishing someone for poisoning a river is a use of illegitimate force. Why? Because rivers usually flow downstream to someone else's property. Maybe I'm over-simplifying, but that one seems easy to me.
-Selling sugar pills is not fraud if the label says they're sugar pills....If the label says sugar pills cure cancer, then you have a liability.
-..."that chattel slavery by contact were legal". Seems like a contradiction in terms. I'm missing something...Contracts are only valid and binding if both parties are in agreement. I can't make a contract with another person to bind a third party who isn't in mutual agreement with the deal.
-that proactive laws -- e.g. criminalizing behavior likely to cause a problem...Never heard a Libertarian say that punishment for the intent to do harm proven beyond a reasonable doubt was a use of illegitimate force.
Stuff
Yet it's being used to defend those who wish to white-wash the actions of people who committed genocide.
Please feel free to enlighten me why defrauding a patient is worse than concealing a genocide. Seriously, that's what the argument boils down to. You aren't allowed to steal, but if you want to lie and cover up the murder of Jews, that's okay.
-Again, individuals using talking points from a philosophy and using it to further their own views, doesn't necessarily mean Libertarianism as a world-view supports holocaust denial.
-Defrauding a patient is not worse than concealing genocide. If I had a cosmic scale, I would say covering a genocide is worse. Not seeing how anyone is making that claim. I certainly wasn't.
You bolded "right to one's life" in my post regarding what Libertarians hold sacred. If someone (socialist, libertarian, whatever) claims someone's statements or actions are acceptable in contradiction with that point, then they're not acting Libertarian I would suppose.
Stuff
Yet it's being used to defend those who wish to white-wash the actions of people who committed genocide.
Please feel free to enlighten me why defrauding a patient is worse than concealing a genocide. Seriously, that's what the argument boils down to. You aren't allowed to steal, but if you want to lie and cover up the murder of Jews, that's okay.
-Again, individuals using talking points from a philosophy and using it to further their own views, doesn't necessarily mean Libertarianism as a world-view supports holocaust denial.
-Defrauding a patient is not worse than concealing genocide. If I had a cosmic scale, I would say covering a genocide is worse. Not seeing how anyone is making that claim. I certainly wasn't.
You bolded "right to one's life" in my post regarding what Libertarians hold sacred. If someone (socialist, libertarian, whatever) claims someone's statements or actions are acceptable in contradiction with that point, then they're not acting Libertarian I would suppose.
I think it falls under " not all republicans are racist but all racists are probably republican" line of thinking. It was mentioned but if you want a "right" most people would find repugnant then it is easier to advocate for all "rights."
I think it falls under " not all republicans are racist but all racists are probably republican" line of thinking. It was mentioned but if you want a "right" most people would find repugnant then it is easier to advocate for all "rights."Stuff
Yet it's being used to defend those who wish to white-wash the actions of people who committed genocide.
Please feel free to enlighten me why defrauding a patient is worse than concealing a genocide. Seriously, that's what the argument boils down to. You aren't allowed to steal, but if you want to lie and cover up the murder of Jews, that's okay.
Further stuff
I've heard that saying and it is painfully ignorant. Sure, a lot of right-wing conservatives are racist against minorities. But then again, there's racism among minorities too; some towards whites, some towards other minorities. To say "all racists are republicans" is a falsehood. (BTW, not a republican, just looking at the logic of that trope)
I'm not exactly sure what is meant by your last sentence though. Yes, there are certain rights that are repugnant. For example, I think people have the right to smoke, yet many find it repugnant.
Am I comparing smoking to holocaust denial, you scream? No. But the right to speech does not become an offense until it can be proven it does harm.
Does Holocaust Denial spoken aloud do harm? Perhaps, certainly in a given situation, I would say yes. But even dealing with sickness such as that, you must take great care at what precedents you set. Which is why I opined that this was a judicial issue that should be looked at on an individual basis.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've heard that saying and it is painfully ignorant.
I think it falls under " not all republicans are racist but all racists are probably republican" line of thinking. It was mentioned but if you want a "right" most people would find repugnant then it is easier to advocate for all "rights."
Is it? See Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes: Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact (Psychological Science February 2012 vol. 23 no. 2 187-195)
Not "all" racists are necessarily Republican. But the link between right-wing political beliefs and racism is statisticallly sound and has been confirmed through literally decades of research.
Similarly, the link between lower intelligence and conservatism is equally robust. This paper is also relevant, before you start screaming "bias."
So, basically,.... no. It may be repugnant, but it's also close to accurate. While not all racists are republicans, the numbers work out such that the majority of them are.
Which is why I opined that this was a judicial issue that should be looked at on an individual basis.
Aren't all judicial issues looked at on an individual basis? That's exactly what a "trial" is....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You bolded "right to one's life" in my post regarding what Libertarians hold sacred. If someone (socialist, libertarian, whatever) claims someone's statements or actions are acceptable in contradiction with that point, then they're not acting Libertarian I would suppose.
Ah, yes. Now the No True Scotsman fallacy comes into play. We haven't seen that one yet in this thread among Holocaust apologists.
|
Until 1985 Holocause denial was persecuted either as incitement of the people or as libel, depending on the case. The law from 1985 was a reform more or less in union with israel who passed a similar law in 1986.
Interesting, didn't know that. Thank you.
Note, you probably meant "prosecuted" here, not "persecuted". Though, depending on your politics, I could be wrong. ;)
Stuff squared.
Yet more stuff."Is it? See Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes: Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact (Psychological Science February 2012 vol. 23 no. 2 187-195)
Not "all" racists are necessarily Republican. But the link between right-wing political beliefs and racism is statisticallly sound and has been confirmed through literally decades of research.
Similarly, the link between lower intelligence and conservatism is equally robust. This paper is also relevant, before you start screaming "bias."
So, basically,.... no. It may be repugnant, but it's also close to accurate. While not all racists are republicans, the numbers work out such that the majority of them are.
Hey look! I can google random articles too!
And to your logic, here is an article that proves that..."not all Democrats are alcoholics, but all alcoholics are Democrats.
Sorry for the snark. Don't know why I'm arguing right wing vs. left wing.
But honestly, this one is my favorite by far:
Pew Research shows Liberals less tolerant than conservatives.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, yes. Now the No True Scotsman fallacy comes into play. We haven't seen that one yet in this thread among Holocaust apologists.
Not a Libertarian (or a libertarian), but that is their favorite fallacy and has reached the status of an in-joke in the same way Democrats complain about trying to herd cats. It's basis in truth is because even libertarians can't agree exactly what True Libertarianism is.
Also, dude- not cool. There is one, count 'em, one Holocaust apologist in this thread. Everybody else is supporting free speech. There is a difference, for example: the ACLU providing lawyers to Nazis in the US. Doesn't mean the ACLU doubts that the Holocaust occurred.
What does "judicial issue that should be looked at on an individual basis" even mean?
If there's no law against it, then why is a judge even going to consider it? If you just mean there should be a trial where the facts of the case are heard and the court decides whether the law applies and whether the accused has broken, well of course that's how it works. Like it did in this case.As for his last sentence, it's often more palatable to argue the general case for rights than for a particular ugly "right". For example, not that long ago in the US it was common to use "state's rights" as a noble sounding cover for the right to legally discriminate against black people.
I was going back to an earlier post where I said this was a judicial issue over a legislative one. Probably should have clarified the context. Like I said however, I don't claim to be an expert on German law or their judicial system. But typically, every nation has anti-fraud laws in play that I would think would apply to people using free speech to fraud people. Thus, instead of passing a law laying a blanket out saying you can't make certain statements/comments that contradict what we show to be certain truths, you establish harm done and take their @$$ to court.
To your second point, agreed. Although, from a Libertarian perspective, using "state's rights" as a front to discriminate would be suppressing an individual's fundamental right to liberty and pursuit of property, so is of course, wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But honestly, this one is my favorite by far:
Pew Research shows Liberals less tolerant than conservatives.
Without reading the article (reading poisons the mind) that seems like a weird kind of mental jiujitsu. Like, liberals tend to attempt to enforce tolerance, and since the vast majority of people on the internet are dickwads, myself included, bumping up against other aggressively intolerant, racist, or belligerent douches and trying to force them to play nice makes the liberals seem less tolerant. But it's intolerance of douchebaggery.
Ah, yes. Now the No True Scotsman fallacy comes into play. We haven't seen that one yet in this thread among Holocaust apologists.Not a Libertarian (or a libertarian), but that is their favorite fallacy and has reached the status of an in-joke in the same way Democrats complain about trying to herd cats. It's basis in truth is because even libertarians can't agree exactly what True Libertarianism is.
Also, dude- not cool. There is one, count 'em, one Holocaust apologist in this thread. Everybody else is supporting free speech. There is a difference, for example: the ACLU providing lawyers to Nazis in the US. Doesn't mean the ACLU doubts that the Holocaust occurred.
Well said sir. And further, since Libertarians can't really agree on what "100% Libertarianism" is, it hurts when someone pins another guys comments to everyone who uses the "L" word.
the "L" word.
Lesbian?
the "L" word.Lesbian?
Haha. Exactly!
|
|
Hey look! I can google random articles too!And to your logic, here is an article that proves that..."not all Democrats are alcoholics, but all alcoholics are Democrats.
Hah! Nice. But after reading the article, the title is a bit of a tease. I feel safe in saying that Utah, of all places is going to be an outlier in studies like that. And don't let Anklebiter fool you, NH is populated largely by tax-hating, conservative ex-Massachusetts folks. :)
Hey look! I can google random articles too!And to your logic, here is an article that proves that..."not all Democrats are alcoholics, but all alcoholics are Democrats.
Hah! Nice. But after reading the article, the title is a bit of a tease. I feel safe in saying that Utah, of all places is going to be an outlier in studies like that. And don't let Anklebiter fool you, NH is populated largely by tax-hating, conservative ex-Massachusetts folks. :)
You're right. In fairness, it was a tease. :P Having a little fun.
Although, I can't figure out this Anklebiter guy. After reading several of his posts, his covert snarkiness trumps my snarky snark detector leaving me to wonder whether we got snarked.
Edit: HMMMM, I just Googled "True Scotsman Fallacy". Yeah....gonna have to do better.
Also, dude- not cool. There is one, count 'em, one Holocaust apologist in this thread.
I count three. And, no, i'm not going to name names, as that would probably violate the terms of service agreement.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey look! I can google random articles too!
Is it? See Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes: Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact (Psychological Science February 2012 vol. 23 no. 2 187-195)
Yep, I never doubted that you could. The difference, of course, is that I didn't Google random articles, but provided instead peer-reviewed articles from highly respected scientific journals. (Psychological Science, in particular, is in the top 25 psychology journals by impact factor.)
It's basically the difference between getting your medical information from the Journal of the American Medical Association or a puff piece in Seventeen magazine.
There are a lot of people who seem to think that if you can find examples of X on both sides, then X is evenly distributed. The real world doesn't work like that. That's why social scientists provide correlations and $p$-values.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey look! I can google random articles too!
Is it? See Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes: Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact (Psychological Science February 2012 vol. 23 no. 2 187-195)
Yep, I never doubted that you could. The difference, of course, is that I didn't Google random articles, but provided instead peer-reviewed articles from highly respected scientific journals. (Psychological Science, in particular, is in the top 25 psychology journals by impact factor.)
It's basically the difference between getting your medical information from the Journal of the American Medical Association or a puff piece in Seventeen magazine.
There are a lot of people who seem to think that if you can find examples of X on both sides, then X is evenly distributed. The real world doesn't work like that. That's why social scientists provide correlations and $p$-values.
But everybody knows science has a liberal bias...
Reality has a known liberal bias.
HA, I beat BigNorseWolf to it for once!
Hey look! I can google random articles too!
Is it? See Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes: Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact (Psychological Science February 2012 vol. 23 no. 2 187-195)
Yep, I never doubted that you could. The difference, of course, is that I didn't Google random articles, but provided instead peer-reviewed articles from highly respected scientific journals. (Psychological Science, in particular, is in the top 25 psychology journals by impact factor.)
It's basically the difference between getting your medical information from the Journal of the American Medical Association or a puff piece in Seventeen magazine.
There are a lot of people who seem to think that if you can find examples of X on both sides, then X is evenly distributed. The real world doesn't work like that. That's why social scientists provide correlations and $p$-values.
And that's cool man. You have me at a disadvantage there because my psychology knowledge is a bit rusty. But regardless, the comment that preceded said all Republicans are racist. And because you found a psychological study (which psychology is one of the world's most in-exact sciences I might add dealing with the body's most complex and least understood part) showing a correlation between conservatism and stupidity and that they are more racist than liberals, that somehow justifies an all inclusive statement? Sure, you added a line that it was only a majority, but really we're just tying that back into people not sharing your views are all bad/wrong yes?
Because honestly, I'm not a right-winger, don't identify as Republican, but everything you've posted on this thread has been in absolutes. Everyone who disagrees with you is a holocaust apologist. All conservatives are racist. All Libertarians are in cahoots with the deniers. I guess that is what prompts me to continue to post. As I think about it, maybe I got the bur up my butt because I read somewhere in this thread that Libertarians are all crazy.
Can't we all just...get along?
I think it falls under " not all republicans are racist but all racists are probably republican" line of thinking. It was mentioned but if you want a "right" most people would find repugnant then it is easier to advocate for all "rights."
Which is fallacious in itself, because I've met plenty of racist Democrats.
Libertarianism has a problem where its anti-government stance is attractive to a number of unsavory types, and there's no real definition of what a 'true' Libertarian is. Many groups have adopted the term or made up their own little sub-category.
Without reading the article (reading poisons the mind) that seems like a weird kind of mental jiujitsu. Like, liberals tend to attempt to enforce tolerance, and since the vast majority of people on the internet are dickwads, myself included, bumping up against other aggressively intolerant, racist, or belligerent douches and trying to force them to play nice makes the liberals seem less tolerant. But it's intolerance of douchebaggery.
But honestly, this one is my favorite by far:
Pew Research shows Liberals less tolerant than conservatives.
Heh.
If that's what you think, then you're not paying attention. Take the gun control debate for example. Gun owners are all ignorant paranoid middle-aged white men being played by gun manufacturers. We are cousin-humping rednecks compensating for a small penis size. We are asked to 'join a national conversation' and 'reach a compromise', but we are expected to have no say in the conversation.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But typically, every nation has anti-fraud laws in play that I would think would apply to people using free speech to fraud people. Thus, instead of passing a law laying a blanket out saying you can't make certain statements/comments that contradict what we show to be certain truths, you establish harm done and take their @$$ to court.
Whups, missed this the first time. This is actually one -- or maybe two --of the classic Libertarian stupidities I mentioned in my list:
* that proactive laws -- e.g. criminalizing behavior likely to cause a problem -- are an illegitimate use of force no matter how strong the link is between the behavior and the problem. Apparently I can't stop you from burning down my house until my house has already caught fire.
* similar to above, that criminalizing attempted criminal behavior is "thoughtcrime."
Why do I need to wait until there's actual harm? Why can't I stop you before my house catches fire? Sure, I can drag you to court afterwards, but no amount of money I can extract from you will replace my lost personal possessions.
Why do I need to wait until someone is actually injured or killed before removing a drunk driver from the road?
So, I'm pleased -- and horrified -- to see that, after all your complaints that I'm painting with too broad a brush, you actually fall into exactly the stereotyped Libertarian category i mentioned.
|
Here-ah, and here-ah and one written just for you Orfamay
This thread has been a pleasure to read....
oh no wait, I was getting this thread mixed up with this one
And then you wake up.Then the first election rolls around, and the incumbent arrests his opponent for lying.It's kind of ironic, but as an anarchist I agree with nearly everything Orfamay Quest and Kirth Gersen is writing. Feels kinda weird.I don't see why that's weird; the only way we can live in real freedom is if we keep each other honest. If it were up to me, there would be only like 4 things that were illegal: assault (direct or indirect), murder, theft... and outright public lying.
Its happened before. It will happen again.
But typically, every nation has anti-fraud laws in play that I would think would apply to people using free speech to fraud people. Thus, instead of passing a law laying a blanket out saying you can't make certain statements/comments that contradict what we show to be certain truths, you establish harm done and take their @$$ to court.Whups, missed this the first time. This is actually one -- or maybe two --of the classic Libertarian stupidities I mentioned in my list:
* that proactive laws -- e.g. criminalizing behavior likely to cause a problem -- are an illegitimate use of force no matter how strong the link is between the behavior and the problem. Apparently I can't stop you from burning down my house until my house has already caught fire.
* similar to above, that criminalizing attempted criminal behavior is "thoughtcrime."Why do I need to wait until there's actual harm? Why can't I stop you before my house catches fire? Sure, I can drag you to court afterwards, but no amount of money I can extract from you will replace my lost personal possessions.
Why do I need to wait until someone is actually injured or killed before removing a drunk driver from the road?
So, I'm pleased -- and horrified -- to see that, after all your complaints that I'm painting with too broad a brush, you actually fall into exactly the stereotyped Libertarian category i mentioned.
Actually I answered this above. Or tried to...
-that proactive laws -- e.g. criminalizing behavior likely to cause a problem..."Never heard a Libertarian say that punishment for the intent to do harm proven beyond a reasonable doubt was a use of illegitimate force."But more directly to your point, just because I post a law saying you can't deny or criticize the holocaust or whatever, doesn't mean people will obey it. It doesn't guarantee to stop it. The protection for the citizen is already in place. If an individual engages in libel or fraud, there are consequences in place.
As far as your drunk driving analogy goes, why don't we just illegalize alcohol completely? Why bother setting a limit? Wouldn't that save EVERY life that is lost to that now? No. As history proves it does not. Society has placed laws to enforce consequences for bad decisions.
But regardless, the comment that preceded said all Republicans are racist.
Actually I explicitly said not all republicans are racist. But I guess if you can't convince people just lie to them...
Which is fallacious in itself, because I've met plenty of racist Democrats.
I think it falls under " not all republicans are racist but all racists are probably republican" line of thinking. It was mentioned but if you want a "right" most people would find repugnant then it is easier to advocate for all "rights."
How does that work, exactly?
"I believe that the govenrment has a responsibility to protect the welfare of its citizens. Except the blacks and the Jews!"
Doesn't quite make sense to me.
But regardless, the comment that preceded said all Republicans are racist.Actually I explicitly said not all republicans are racist. But I guess if you can't convince people just lie to them...
You're right, my mistake.
|
|
Which is fallacious in itself, because I've met plenty of racist Democrats.
I think it falls under " not all republicans are racist but all racists are probably republican" line of thinking. It was mentioned but if you want a "right" most people would find repugnant then it is easier to advocate for all "rights."How does that work, exactly?
"I believe that the govenrment has a responsibility to protect the welfare of its citizens. Except the blacks and the Jews!"
Doesn't quite make sense to me.
Actually it goes more like:
"I don't think people of color are smart enough to manage their lives so we should help them. If they vote for us and we'll take care of them."
And to your quote - it did apply to National Socialist:
"I believe that the Government and State has a responsibility to protect the welfare of its German citizens!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness." -- Mary Frances Berry, former Chairwoman, US Commission on Civil Rights
It's kind of ironic, but as an anarchist I agree with nearly everything Orfamay Quest and Kirth Gersen is writing. Feels kinda weird.I don't see why that's weird; the only way we can live in real freedom is if we keep each other honest. If it were up to me, there would be only like 4 things that were illegal: assault (direct or indirect), murder, theft... and outright public lying.
Well, the ironic thing would probably be that most of the opponents argue for not giving more power to the government - a government that I hope will burn in righteous socialist revolutionary fire - while you and Orfamay seem to claim the current government of Germany (and in effect most of those in the western world) have some kind of legitimacy, which I strongly oppose.
But of course, I far prefer the government to lay the smack on nazis than nazis laying the smack on ethnic minorities, QTBLG people and union members while the government prevents us from fighting back, which is the more common picture.