Will Torbald

Basically this. If people don't have jobs, they can't buy cheap imported goods. If people have jobs as a result of protectionist economies, they'll have money to buy the cheaper homegrown products competing with the high marked imported goods. Quality of life is more important than raw money.

Fiction is infinitely interpretable. It's useless to debate theologians since everything is invented and the rules don't matter.

Wasn't there an explosion in Germany near the office of migration of all places? http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/07/27/violent-explosion-outside-german-office-migration-arab-men-fled-scene/Sure, there were no casualties, but it could have been an accident and they meant to explode it elsewhere. In any case, no, I'm not thankful people have to feel thankful for not being slaughtered every day. That's the way it should be, the normal. You don't celebrate the normal. The new normal now is daily terror.

A society without any protection of free speech will inevitably devolve into mob rule. The mob will censor, the mob will pressure media, the mob will segregate dissent. The result is tribal division. When you become an isolated tribe, your speech only echoes from one person to the other. A government that creates common ground, public forums, prevents censorship from utility communications like telephone lines, etc - is what allows effective debate between different ideological tribes possible. Does your free speech matter if only people who agree with you hear it? I don't think it does.

The madman will bless us with his appearance, signalled by double digits and the sign of the frog. Wherever censorious Reddit may be, it won't matter as much as you think it will. If they do it will only give strength to the god emperor.

Because the people who aren't anarchists are going to elect bad rulers until the end of time. At current time, they're going forward with electing someone who will make your life worse through immigration, war, economic instability, and terrorism. It will feel really nice when you don't vote, and really bad when the left continues its path towards destruction.

Yeah, I think I can agree with that description. I'm not even saying "don't have a free society without government", I'm saying that if you do, you'll see your free speech even more limited than what you have with a consitutional government. If that's what you want, suit yourself.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Is dsayers the True Believer? A True Believer of what?

It's routine by now. I'm literally unflinched every time I read they happen. After all, no one is surprised when there are terror attacks in muslim countries.

So you're saying that in a stateless society, all private corporations, institutions, universities, forums, websites, social media will never practice any form of censorship at all because they will be "enlightened". This is an argument from utopia: Because things will be perfect, things will be perfect. I don't know how you can defend this without wishful thinking. "It will just work out, have faith" is not convincing to me. LOL

I've been reading on twitter that the name of the attacker is Ali Dau'd Sonboly, and that the David was inserted because Dau'd is a muslim prophet name equivalent of David. Just further evidence of trying to alter the facts by the media and emotionally manipulate the public.

I wouldn't do anything. Just keep doing everything you're doing now, and it will fix itself in a few weeks.

What evidence? You just jumped into a free society of enlightened people without any road to explain how you get there. Free speech is speech that is free. If you need more definition, you're being obnoxious. You're applying the behavior of people under the coercion of the constition to a society without constitution, which is a mistake. It's like going into a classroom where children are behaving well, and then thinking that when the teacher leaves, they will continue to behave exactly the same. No, the behaviors you see at your Taco Bell have been molded by the state of the 1st amendment, the 2nd amendment, and the resulting culture of tolerance and PC behavior. If you think I'm worried about a Taco Bell, you're wrong. The way in which you dismiss my scenario is bogus just how you would be a terrible Principal who would lose control of the students by thinking they don't need teachers if they behave well under teachers.

You called it absurd and bullshit. That is not an argument. You also used a Taco Bell as an example, whereas I used Twitter -a platform for communication and speech- as my basis for how a privately owned platform would have no reason not to censor without a state protection. Using Taco Bell instead of Facebook or a college campus, places for speech, you are comparing apples and oranges. I will also remind you of the "No swearing" rule stated in the forum guidelines. You know, you could get banned for that. Since the forum is privately owned and all. Go make arguments at the local Taco Bell and see who listens. If you can't explain how you got to the free society first, I don't have to explain how the free society won't censor you. I don't imagine unicorn societies, I'm talking about the world we actually have in reality. Go read how Facebook, Reddit, and Twitter are destroying any semblance of credibility by their censoring of conservatives and libertarians - and then tell me who's going to stop them from doing that without any protection laws.

As someone from South America, this is crucial and why I support a wall. The tremendous ignorance about SA cultures and political views by Americans is dangerous and only fueled by propaganda in the media. Come here and see for yourself what kind of people you think are just like you and will vote and elect conservative or libertarian governments if you think it is so precious to have open borders.

I've found in my experiece that you actually sort of have to, in a way. Normal people just can't process deep thinking without having their emotions broken soon after. It does take a higher intellect, and a stronger than average emotional core. The world is in such a dire state that not thinking about it is how people get by.

There's the idea of free speech, and then there's the 1st amendment, I agree. They're not the same, but the 1s protects the free speech of the people from the government. It doesn't protect censorship done by privately owned platforms - however the government does intervene in communication companies where censorship or discrimination is not allowed. Social media companies are behaving like private companies when censoring people, while proclaiming to be communication services. It's a soft hypocrisy. I started the argument with the 1st amendment, but I alse went beyond it making the case that a society without any common ground where free speech is enforced will fragment without any functional free speech. Your post doesn't address this scenario.

Obi Wan is fighting Anakin, but technically Anakin declared him as his enemy first. He is refusing to see himself as Anakin's enemy just because they are fighting since he wants to save him from the dark side. Again, Obi is speaking in absolutes by calling Palpatine evil, but behaving in gradient ways since he sees the good in Anakin, as did Luke later. So Luke and Obi Wan knew that Anakin turned evil, but not all evil, so they acted in gradient ways - and that led to Anakin's ultimate sacrifice and redemption. On Jesus, I don't care if he's a Sith. I don't like him, anyway.

"All ideas are not equal, and a free market of ideas is the only way to separate the wheat from the chaff." In a stateless society there is no free market of ideas because: 1- Every platform is privately owned. This means that if I wanted to express my thoughts anywhere, on the campuses, or the streets, or the internet - I need the permission of the owner who can ban me for my hate speech at any time. 2- If I make my own platform, and they label me as hate speech, they won't listen. If no one listens, my speech is neutered. No point then. 3- Religions will become all powerful like they used to be centuries ago. They will segregate into their own factions, militarize, and control people's minds. It is the secular state that protects people from religious violence.

It's impossible to speak without making absolute claims. However the claim is that behaving, acting out, with an absolutist view is the Sith's way. If I said that only Sith's spoke with absolutes, you'd be right.

If the only people listening are the people who already agree with you, your speech isn't free, it's just an echo. Kinda like the tree that falls in the forest. If no one is there to listen to what you have to say, does it really matter? It is because the government forces common grounds where censorship is disallowed that effective communication between disparaging factions can occur. The SJW phenomenon is a result of increasingly divided groups unwilling to listen to the other. It's ideological apartheid, and it isn't helphing anyone. It is an issue when twitter becomes a utility. How would you feel if Apple bricked your phone after reading a racist/sexist/islamophobic message you sent with it? Or if Verizon cut your service plan because you were logging on racist!twitter and had wrongthink? In a world without regulations, corporations will do exactly that because society would be enforced by ostracism and cultural reinforcement through the media. Your idea that a company like Twitter calling itself a free speech platform, and then not actually delivering that promise, isn't an issue makes me wonder if you're not aware of how insidious the problem actually is. It is larger than banning Milo. "Free speech means that the government won't interfere" actually means "Twitter is private property so it won't interfere" which is the point I made in the first place. When all companies are Orwellian institutions like facebook and twitter, you will either have nowhere to speak - or no one who'll listen.

The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States is held as the standard for free speech by most. The government is promising to allow and protect people on the subjects of religion, opinion, peaceful assembly, and press within federal commons and institutions like universities. However, the government also allows private property and the exercise of free association within it to a degree, considering the civil rights act doesn't allow for certain discriminations anymore within private properties. So when Twitter, or Facebook, or any other site like Reddit and else start banning voices they disagree with there are always two camps: The free speech team, and the private property team. The PP team usually wins, actually always wins, and the FS team just shrugs it off with a promise for more activism which just ends in memes and trolling. And some good stuff, too, but it's always the same cycle. The last thing I wanted to point out with this is that in a society comprised solely on private property and no commons, there would be no effective free speech at all. Every site, every street, every university, every media outlet, every utility like telephone or radio would have it's own terms of service and rules. They would have the power to ban and silence any opposition. "But the FS team would have its own twitter! Competing products!" Yeah, not so easy. The PP twitter would block all communication from the FS twitter, and you would have total ideological segregation. The FS twitter would also have its funding cut since no one would advertise there - actually it would look a lot like 4chan barely making server costs. The media backlash against non politically correct spaces would follow the typical smear campaign of the left. Anyone using a FS platform would be ostracized and shunned - and since it is a free society, the effect would be even worse than now. To end in short points: 1- Only with a government issued right to free speech in the commons can people exercise that ability. 2- Private property is always at odds with free speech. 3- A society based solely on private property would have tremendous opposition to controversial opinions and possibly negate them completely through leftist tactics and ostracism. PC culture is dominant. 4- The resulting segregation of ideas, where one camp bans the other means that people will only hear the ideas they already agree with. Thus negating the purpose of having free speech at all since no one who disagrees can even reach the other. 5- By having a central authority that enables common grounds and a commitment to freedom of thought and association can the purpose of free speech be reached as the ostracism wouldn't work, the censorship would be a crime, and the ideological segregation attempts would defeat themselves when the people who have never been exposed to opposing views meet the other side and lose the debate - like sjw's do. What do you think? Am I off with these predictions and things would play out differently? Or do you agree, but have a different solution?

Well, maybe. By NAP I don't mean that the government won't use force, but that it won't initiate it. The justice system is largely based on the idea that the one who assaults is guilty and worthy of punishment, or that the person defending himself is righteous in his pushback. So that's basically a NAP position taken at scale. Another idea is not having income tax, and funding the government through tariffs, lotteries, or donations. So it's not that violence won't be used, but that violence isn't used to force people to comply like with tyrannical regimes, but to use it for collective defense.

For reasons like these my approach to the NAP is that it is only functional as a collective principle, not between individuals. It is a guidance for a societal organization without oppressing individuals by the force of a central authority. It's like how there are physical theories that work well for the big space stuff, and theories foe the small quantum stuff - and if you try to use the theory of the small for the big, or the big for the small, it doesn't work. If you try to use the NAP to see who was in the wrong in a bar fight or a brawl somewhere you will get that self righteous justification from both sides. It only works well for the big stuff, like governments and societies, not average Joe on the street.

I understand what you mean, but I'll expand my views to have a more detailed frame of what I meant. I think you're right that lashing out physically on a piece of furniture isn't going to help since I've done similar things that only made me angrier. I'll go step by step. 1- The division between fantasy and reality is about a mental state in which all thoughts coming through are known to be only thoughts. It requires mental discipline to be able to sit with eyes closed and understand that where the thoughts are going is only a hypothetical, and not true. If I were to imagine myself attacking someone, it wouldn't be because I want to do it in reality, but that I want to see what it would feel like - and that division allows for experimentation without feeling guilt or remorse. It's not a victimization. 2- The reason it is not victimhood play is because that exercise is a proactive one, not a reactive one. The anger I feel is already there, and I seek to see it carried out, only in imagination, and have a conversation with it. It is pure mentality and introspection. I wouldn't suggest role playing it with other people.