Free Speech Is A Government Program

[Will Torbald]

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?

[dsayers]

The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States is held as the standard for free speech by most.

Not even one sentence's worth of integrity? Very well...

 

You haven't defined free speech or shown how it's being infringed. You're leapfrogging over the fact that in order to have "free speech," you have to have property rights. You ARE using your property to exercise this speech after all.

 

You've created a specious problem. My local Taco Bell is privately owned and they open their doors to the public. Once inside, they don't make special efforts to control what people say because most people don't behave in a way that's disruptive. The idea that everything being privately owned means everybody's walled off and censored is absurd.

[EclecticIdealist]

1- Only with a government issued right to free speech in the commons can people exercise that ability.

Governments do not and cannot issue inalienable human rights. The only rights they can issue are those which derive directly from the existence of government itself, such as the right to a trial by a jury of one's peers, the right to an attorney to mount a proper defense against accusations of criminal activity, the right to vote for one's representatives in government, etc.

 

2- Private property is always at odds with free speech.

Only if there is no public domain.

 

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.

Not just lefist tactics. The political right is also guilty of quashing free speech and expression it considers "morally offensive" such as pornography, and things which are deemed anti-(dominant religion of the society).

 

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.s

This is not necessarily the case. The Internet itself is a good example of how this is not the case. Certain forums are very restrictive; whereas, other forums are very libertine.

 

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.

I agree in principle, but the specifics seem like they need a little work.

 

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?

I also maintain that there will be those who are philosophically and ideologically mature enough to provide such a forum without the necessity of a formal government intervention. Again, I refer you to the internet where exist many sites including sites like this which are largely anarchic and facilitate the respectful exchange of ideas (with the exception of those who might abuse a poorly thought out and executed reputation system in an attempt to stifle ideas or individuals they dislike).

[WasatchMan]

To end in short points:

 

1- Only with a government issued right to free speech in the commons can people exercise that ability.

Well, to be fair, the only reason you need the concept is because you have a government (due to its ability, and monopoly, to exercise force against its enemies).  In a free society, free speech would be redundant because nobody would have the legal ability to initiate force.

 

2- Private property is always at odds with free speech.

The concept free speech doesn't apply to private property. The constitution was intended to be a document of negative rights. Meaning that it was intended to be limitations put on the government (knowing its tendency to get a authoritarian and get a little murdery once in a while) where Gandalf was suppose to show up and say "you shall not pass" if the government tried to cross lines like making "no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

 

Well when the rulers came, and bashed into that line and Gandalf didn't show up, it became a tool for the rulers to limit speech and start applying it to private property. It is really hard to believe, in hindsight, how anyone can really have thought that words would fend back Attila. The spirit of the constitution is deeply embedded in portions of American culture, which has apparently slowed the the slide into an authoritarian dictatorship.

 

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.

In a society based solely on private property you would not have to associate with leftists and they would have no ability to use the government to steal your property or influence your behavior, with threat force.

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.

This is an incredibility relativistic statement and based on the premise that ideas are like emotional states and not tethered to reality.  I do not want to have my ideas which have been developed through rigor and a commitment to reality forced down the mouth of a tea leaf reader and vice versa.  All ideas are not equal, and a free market of ideas is the only way to separate the wheat from the chaff.

 

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.

We have come come full. The only reason you need the concept is because you have a government (due to its ability, and monopoly, to exercise force against its enemies). In a free society, free speech would be redundant because nobody would have the legal ability to initiate force.

 

Why the hell would you want to associate with SJWs if they had no ability to use force against you?  I mean its a good laugh but I am not sure the legal repercussions are worth it.

 

[csekavec]

I think you confuse 'free speech' with some other concept that appears to me to very closely resemble 'enforced listening'

[rosencrantz]

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

 

Twitter banning people is not a free speech issue. Free speech means that the government won't interfere. Companies can do as they like. Also, see https://xkcd.com/1357/

[Will Torbald]

I think you confuse 'free speech' with some other concept that appears to me to very closely resemble 'enforced listening'

 

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.

 

 

Twitter banning people is not a free speech issue. Free speech means that the government won't interfere. Companies can do as they like. Also, see https://xkcd.com/1357/

 

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.

[A4E]

"How would you feel if Apple bricked your phone after reading a racist/sexist/islamophobic message you sent with it?"

 

I would feel like talking about it to people. And then they would lose (future) customers. I think any sane company respects the power of people talking.

[shirgall]

"How would you feel if Apple bricked your phone after reading a racist/sexist/islamophobic message you sent with it?"

 

I would feel like talking about it to people. And then they would lose (future) customers. I think any sane company respects the power of people talking.

 

Indeed, I'm hoping we'll see some sort of reputation backlash against Twitter for the lopsided banning of Milo versus other people who post on the system...

[AncapFTW]

Indeed, I'm hoping we'll see some sort of reputation backlash against Twitter for the lopsided banning of Milo versus other people who post on the system...

I've seen people considering starting a new social media outlet that has free speech, fair use, etc. written into its rules.  Basically, make a new business that doesn't give into this crap and pick up the people that are leaving the other services.

 

Of course, if I had the know how and money I'd make an "onion" style phone system that encrypted anything sent over it.

[Mister Mister]

free speech is first and foremost a cultural value before it is a government policy

Twitter banning people is not a free speech issue. Free speech means that the government won't interfere. Companies can do as they like. Also, see https://xkcd.com/1357

 

Except according to the liberal ethos, companies CAN'T do as they like - i.e. Christian bakers who won't bake gay wedding cakes should be fined by the government.

[shirgall]

free speech is first and foremost a cultural value before it is a government policy

 

After all, protections are not needed for inoffensive speech.

[EclecticIdealist]

I've seen people considering starting a new social media outlet that has free speech, fair use, etc. written into its rules.  Basically, make a new business that doesn't give into this crap and pick up the people that are leaving the other services.

 

Of course, if I had the know how and money I'd make an "onion" style phone system that encrypted anything sent over it.

<Ch-tongue-eek>  You're obviously a terrorist sympathizer or criminal as there's no legitimate reason for anyone to encrypt anything sent over a phone in a manner to make it untraceable.  </Ch-tongue-eek>

[rosencrantz]

Except according to the liberal ethos, companies CAN'T do as they like - i.e. Christian bakers who won't bake gay wedding cakes should be fined by the government.

 

That's because bakeries are public accommodations that are bound to anti-discrimination laws. Because twitter isn't a public accomodation they can have TOS as they see fit.

[ValueOfBrevity]

That's because bakeries are public accommodations that are bound to anti-discrimination laws. Because twitter isn't a public accommodation they can have TOS as they see fit.

Can you please define "public accommodation"?

[rosencrantz]

Here we go http://citizensource.com/History/20thCen/CRA1964/CRA2.htm

[EclecticIdealist]

While I am firmly anti-descrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, sex, age, etc., I am also opposed to the "public accommodation" section of the Civil RIghts Act applying to privately owned property or businesses not receiving subsidies, benefits, or any other privileged status from any government agency. I believe any individual representing themselves or a privately owned company has the right to discriminate against another for any reason, even though I would likely find such discrimination abhorrent. Government agencies, or those receiving subsidies, benefits or special privileges (at the expense of the general public) ought to be held to a higher standard and required not to discriminate against those who are compelled to support them through taxation. Obviously, in a stateless society, such would be a non-issue, as there wouldn't be any tax dollars or government agencies, etc.

 

In short, I believe if you want to be a hypocritical Christian and not do unto others as you'd have others do unto you, and not Love thy neighbor as thyself, you should be able to go ahead and discriminate against gays by not baking them a wedding cake. You should also be subject to ridicule for your hypocrisy, but no one should be subject to violence or threats of violence simply for being self-righteous pricks (whether straight Christians or gay atheists, or whatever you might happen to be).

[Will Torbald]

"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.

[tasmlab]

At the risk of being nitpicky, the constitution says "Congress shall make no law..."  So it's not some universal, it's just a ban on congress.  Any of the other million lawmakers, governors, city mayors, etc., aren't congress.

 

It's stupid that government thinks it gives us permission to talk.  I'm surprised we don't have "freedom to choose breakfast" or "freedom to poop" in the constitution.

[shirgall]

At the risk of being nitpicky, the constitution says "Congress shall make no law..."  So it's not some universal, it's just a ban on congress.  Any of the other million lawmakers, governors, city mayors, etc., aren't congress.

 

It's stupid that government thinks it gives us permission to talk.  I'm surprised we don't have "freedom to choose breakfast" or "freedom to poop" in the constitution.

 

All rights are negatives against government, not anyone else. Just like the positives are called "powers". It is a recent construction to claim that rights extend to negatives for people.

 

Frankly, because corporations are legal fictions of the state, I don't mind rights getting applied to them too. Lay with the pigs and get dirty in the mud.

[Will Torbald]

At the risk of being nitpicky, the constitution says "Congress shall make no law..."  So it's not some universal, it's just a ban on congress.  Any of the other million lawmakers, governors, city mayors, etc., aren't congress.

 

It's stupid that government thinks it gives us permission to talk.  I'm surprised we don't have "freedom to choose breakfast" or "freedom to poop" in the constitution.

 

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.

[Tyler H]

"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 easy to philosophize in a vacuum.  

 

Can you explain how this superstitious, ignorant society was able to repudiate governments and respect private property while simultaneously restricting people's ability to communicate ideas freely?  The society that is advocated here (on this board, in this philosophical community) is not simply "no government", it is one in which people reject the initiation of force as a way of solving complex social problems.  If ostracism was chosen as the primary tool for enforcing social behavior in a future free society, why would these philosophically enlightened people be either spreading hate speech or denying people service (consequently losing money just to satisfy their own prejudice) so prevalently?  

 

If no one listens then what you're saying has no value.  If you spout ignorant drivel and no one wants to hear it, and you call for a group of people to point guns at them in order to force them to listen, then you sound more like a social justice warrior than an advocate for free speech.

[dsayers]

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.

This bullshit was already refuted.

[Tyler H]

At the risk of being nitpicky, the constitution says "Congress shall make no law..."  So it's not some universal, it's just a ban on congress.  Any of the other million lawmakers, governors, city mayors, etc., aren't congress.

 

It's stupid that government thinks it gives us permission to talk.  I'm surprised we don't have "freedom to choose breakfast" or "freedom to poop" in the constitution.

I don't think that's nitpicky at all.  To me being nitpicky is pointing out exceptions when the interlocutor is clearly speaking in generalities.  I don't think clarifying facts is nitpicky.  

 

 

All rights are negatives against government, not anyone else. Just like the positives are called "powers". It is a recent construction to claim that rights extend to negatives for people.

 

Frankly, because corporations are legal fictions of the state, I don't mind rights getting applied to them too. Lay with the pigs and get dirty in the mud.

 

I agree, the constitution has been twisted and reinterpreted at every chance to increase state power.  Even when they can't justify it they just do it anyways (war, income tax).

 

To anyone interested, Lysander Spooner's The Constitution of No Authority has wonderful arguments against the very validity of the constitution.  I found these arguments helpful when exploring the concept of a stateless society.  The constitution has been used to lull the citizenry into a state of complacency thinking it will protect them, when, in actuality, it's just another tool to pacify and control them.

[Will Torbald]

This bullshit was already refuted.

 

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.

 

 

It's easy to philosophize in a vacuum.  

 

Can you explain how-

 

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.

[dsayers]

You called it absurd and bullshit. That is not an argument.

No I didn't. I said: "You haven't defined free speech or shown how it's being infringed. You're leapfrogging over the fact that in order to have "free speech," you have to have property rights. You ARE using your property to exercise this speech after all.

 

You've created a specious problem. My local Taco Bell is privately owned and they open their doors to the public. Once inside, they don't make special efforts to control what people say because most people don't behave in a way that's disruptive." source

 

You also used a Taco Bell as an example... you are comparing apples and oranges.

Unless you are literally incapable of conceptualizing and applying what you learned in one place in another place, you are being obtuse for the sake of marginalizing input you don't care to accept. You painted a picture of a dystopia where nobody would be able or allowed to communicate because everything was privately owned. I showed you an example of private ownership that has made no such efforts because *gasp* no such efforts are necessary! And in fact would be antithetical to their stated goal.

 

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.

This is so very delicious to me for a variety of reasons. The first being that the post only went live when staff allowed it to. Secondly being that in your attempt to childishly mock a dissenter of your position, you actually contradicted your position. Because you're right! The forums ARE privately owned. And look at how many people aren't being silenced. In particular because there's no reason to. Including my use of the word "bullshit." Which by definition is not swearing because it's one of those words that literally has no direct replacement. Any adult will tell you the same.

[Tyler H]

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.

And if you can dismiss my argument for lack of evidence (which I actually did provide) then everyone else can dismiss yours. Also, if you haven't noticed, the laws didn't stop them; the only thing that may is public opinion which just so happens to be the fabric of economic viability in a free society.

[Will Torbald]

And if you can dismiss my argument for lack of evidence (which I actually did provide) then everyone else can dismiss yours. Also, if you haven't noticed, the laws didn't stop them; the only thing that may is public opinion which just so happens to be the fabric of economic viability in a free society.

 

What evidence? You just jumped into a free society of enlightened people without any road to explain how you get there.

 

 

No I didn't. I said: "You haven't defined free speech or shown how it's being infringed. You're leapfrogging over the fact that in order to have "free speech," you have to have property rights. You ARE using your property to exercise this speech after all.

 

You've created a specious problem. My local Taco Bell is privately owned and they open their doors to the public. Once inside, they don't make special efforts to control what people say because most people don't behave in a way that's disruptive." source

 

Unless you are literally incapable of conceptualizing and applying what you learned in one place in another place, you are being obtuse for the sake of marginalizing input you don't care to accept. You painted a picture of a dystopia where nobody would be able or allowed to communicate because everything was privately owned. I showed you an example of private ownership that has made no such efforts because *gasp* no such efforts are necessary! And in fact would be antithetical to their stated goal.

 

 

This is so very delicious to me for a variety of reasons. The first being that the post only went live when staff allowed it to. Secondly being that in your attempt to childishly mock a dissenter of your position, you actually contradicted your position. Because you're right! The forums ARE privately owned. And look at how many people aren't being silenced. In particular because there's no reason to. Including my use of the word "bullshit." Which by definition is not swearing because it's one of those words that literally has no direct replacement. Any adult will tell you the same.

 

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.

[Tyler H]

What evidence? You just jumped into a free society of enlightened people without any road to explain how you get there.

I didn't know I had to explain how to enlighten people - you put forward reason, evidence, and moral condemnation until it changes.  Also, you were the one who started us off in a free society, and any society that accepts the initiation of force is not a free one.  I don't need to explain how it got there I only need to point out that the conditions required for a free society (where you started us) are enlightened people which contradicts your arguments about how they will be so hostile to free speech.

[dsayers]

What evidence? You just jumped into a free society of enlightened people without any road to explain how you get there.

Moving the goalposts, deflection, and being disingenuous. YOU STARTED this thread by imagining what things would look like in a stateless society without any road to explain how you get there. You cannot use this as a standard to reject what others have said here. At least not with integrity.

 

You're applying the behavior of people under the coercion of the constition to a society without constitution, which is a mistake.

It's the other way around! People do not behave in a disruptive manner because they have no incentive to. The State being in place conditions people to seek external solutions, which invites people to behave in a disruptive manner in public places because they presume nobody can do anything about it because they've been relegated to calling on the police to solve their problems.

 

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.

I can see that you're rejecting all evidence to make your claims. Anybody willing to take a look at the evidence will see that so called "tolerance" actually begets intolerance of people who think differently. You're claiming that "PC" has shaped behaviors, but that same ostracism could NOT shape behaviors without somebody pointing guns at people's heads. Also, your claim of 1st amendment and such makes no recognition of people who "behaved" prior to that, or in places where they don't have that. It also deflects from the reason I provided that a business has no motivation to censor its patrons and that it would be antithetical to their stated goals to do so.

 

You are fighting an imaginary foe.

[Will Torbald]

I didn't know I had to explain how to enlighten people - you put forward reason, evidence, and moral condemnation until it changes.  Also, you were the one who started us off in a free society, and any society that accepts the initiation of force is not a free one.  I don't need to explain how it got there I only need to point out that the conditions required for a free society (where you started us) are enlightened people which contradicts your arguments about how they will be so hostile to free speech.

 

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.

 

 

Moving the goalposts, deflection, and being disingenuous. YOU STARTED this thread by imagining what things would look like in a stateless society without any road to explain how you get there. You cannot use this as a standard to reject what others have said here. At least not with integrity.

 

It's the other way around! People do not behave in a disruptive manner because they have no incentive to. The State being in place conditions people to seek external solutions, which invites people to behave in a disruptive manner in public places because they presume nobody can do anything about it because they've been relegated to calling on the police to solve their problems.

 

I can see that you're rejecting all evidence to make your claims. Anybody willing to take a look at the evidence will see that so called "tolerance" actually begets intolerance of people who think differently. You're claiming that "PC" has shaped behaviors, but that same ostracism could NOT shape behaviors without somebody pointing guns at people's heads. Also, your claim of 1st amendment and such makes no recognition of people who "behaved" prior to that, or in places where they don't have that. It also deflects from the reason I provided that a business has no motivation to censor its patrons and that it would be antithetical to their stated goals to do so.

 

You are fighting an imaginary foe.

 

LOL

[Tyler H]

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

Another straw man.  I'm done.

[Donnadogsoth]

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

 

You're not fighting an imaginary foe, Will, you're fighting a True Believer.

[Will Torbald]

You're not fighting an imaginary foe, Will, you're fighting a True Believer.

 

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

[Donnadogsoth]

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

 

dsayers is a True Believer in his particular brand of ancap logic.  Anyone who disagrees with him on anything--or even just phrases statements in a manner not to his liking--must be anti-free-society, illogical, etc..