Notes of a Freedom Hater - Page 2

On November 11 2010 18:06 XeliN wrote:
And Zap if society is advanced enough to make the distinction then there is no need for it's implementation.

If we are advanced enough to discern what is beneficial to our own good then it doesn't matter what ideas or things people publish, we are advanced enough to know they are false, damaging or wrong and can simply ignore them. There is no need to censor.

On November 11 2010 18:01 ZapRoffo wrote:

I don't propose just banning things based on people wanting them banned, it's based on outgrowths of aspects of our system of law, which we accept and submit to (in general).

The action leading to another harmful action, I don't see why considering that should be disregarded. In some cases it certainly happens, and it takes more abstract and advanced thought to recognize, but I don't see anything that suggests we shouldn't take it into consideration. Isn't it why we try to reduce crime and improve standards of living in impoverished areas by working on improving education there rather than solely devoting more police?

I don't think any of those you mention should be disallowed because the cost of disallowing them impinges on so many things like the foundation of arts, the foundations of personal philosophy and religious practice, etc. but disallowing particular books from being sold in general public places because they have cost to society in inciting law-breaking and direct harm to others in society but don't offer anything of value identified by any reliable source is completely different. I'm asking: isn't our society advanced enough that we can make this distinction?

Also I never said old = irrelevant. What I'm saying is some things are borne out of necessity for their time or expressed in a certain way due to that necessity and then the situation changes and they are no longer as essential or no longer deal properly with complications that arise. I can point to many old philosophers and philosophies that are essential to modern thinking. Things change and we have to recognize what still applies and what needs tweaked or explored more closely. Everyone seems resistant to even consider this.

On November 11 2010 18:14 raviy wrote:


Okay, so what standard are you applying? What do you mean by "outgrowths of aspects of our system of law, which we accept and submit to"?

The core of my argument is that restricting freedoms in an arbitrary way is, well, arbitrary. And arbitrary restrictions on freedoms are always unfair for some class of persons. Remoteness should not be considered because it's arbitrary.

I'm stating that your comment that the philosophies are old or born of a different time or under different circumstances are irrelevant. I quote, as I'm sure others also, for the purpose of making a point in a way superior than I am able. A comment about the circumstances in which the philosophies were developed is irrelevant in considering whether they still hold true today.

Although what I'd most like an answer to is this: How would you propose a community decide what to censor?

On November 11 2010 20:33 ImSkeptical wrote:
Zap you need to realise that one of the core ideas of liberty is that it was never ment to protect the majority. It is designed to uphold the rights of the minority. The majorty's ideas don't need protecting, they are the majority. But without free intellectual critisism the majority rules without critism. Yes we can all see instructional pedophilia is damnable on all accounts. But it is the majority's responsibility to examine it and reject it ourself, not to rule it burnable and cencored.

To what end, does the freedom extend, is action. This is the easiest distinction to make. To argue that speech leads to action is understandable, but a distinction must be drawn, and this is such a brilliant distinction as it encourages self-education and constant critisism. Its not about a slippery slope to all of a sudden rejecting some new truth or reason, its about constantly seeking new truth and reason.

On November 12 2010 07:29 ZapRoffo wrote:

I don't understand what's arbitrary about it. You can't drive faster than the speed limit because we conclude that that causes higher danger to others. Is the speed limit too arbitrary and restricts freedom too much?

Are you saying we can't recognize that that increases the possibility of child abuse? We can because we have the information and the mental capacity to see that.

Is it arbitrary that we don't allow speech that incites violence? We see a clear link between speech and action there.

On November 12 2010 07:29 ZapRoffo wrote:


I'm applying the standard that one of the core values of our society is that we don't allow people to trample each other's rights and that we protect people, especially the helpless/children from abuses.

I don't understand what's arbitrary about it. You can't drive faster than the speed limit because we conclude that that causes higher danger to others. Is the speed limit too arbitrary and restricts freedom too much? The harm that speech can do isn't arbitrary either, moral hazard is a well documented phenomenon in social sciences, and the words of the book are not very arbitrary either and are not aiming at artistic expression, encouraging and telling ways to do something that is deemed by law and by all reliable sources at the same time as harmful. Are you saying we can't recognize that that increases the possibility of child abuse? We can because we have the information and the mental capacity to see that. Is it arbitrary that we don't allow speech that incites violence? We see a clear link between speech and action there.

Wrap your head around the fact that EVERYTHING WE DO IS LIMITED, so saying we can't move the limits around because that makes us not free is bunk. There is no freedom in the way you define it. It's meaningless to apply the concept because it's an ideal that doesn't exist in reality. Every law is created by us they are all arbitrary to some extent if that's how you want to look at it. Clinging to the idea that we can't do anything because of that is only consistent with believing in anarchy. We can become relatively more free or relatively less free, but that's it, you can't "lose your freedom." It never existed in that absolute sense.

And you just said the exact same thing again, that I said old ideas are irrelevant. So once again I NEVER SAID THAT or implied it. I said sometimes they are of their time and apply more to then than now. Ben Franklin had no idea what dangers we would face today and what kind of freedoms we would have, so he could never have taken that into account. His statement is also an exaggeration that didn't even apply in his time. He gave up freedom to be able to kill his neighbor and subsequently decide his own life course and gained security by it. That happened to be a truly meaningless quote but one that helped support the ideology necessary at that time. Same with the 1st amendment. Congress makes laws that abridge freedom of speech and have for a long time. It's been adapted to reality, and we constantly decide our interpretation of it. There are many old ideas that are totally relevant, I can give large parts of Rousseau, Hobbes, Locke, basically any influential philosopher that are huge parts of our ideas today.

We decide by discussion, examining what our values as a society are and what limits us too much and what tramples other people's rights too much. With the level of information exchange available to us (unheard of in the past) we can do that.

On November 13 2010 16:14 ZapRoffo wrote:
I agree that expression of thoughts like you detail is in need of protection, but I also am claiming that we can distinguish between any of those thoughts (which express ideas with logical backing as to why they are not in direct violation of the rights of others) and an expressed thought that directly encourages harm to and violation of rights of others that are under our protection and simultaneously encourages direct harm to those under our protection through a well understood psychological mechanism. It's not about silencing a viewpoint. A theoretical treatise on why pedophilia could be an acceptable practice and why it doesn't interfere with the rights and harm others would be a different animal.

The method: the same one we use for general governing (from a US perspective), we elect representatives who in theory enact measures for the well being of the society that elects them (and act in accordance with the laws and philosophies of the country, such as to not unduly oppress minority opinions). And if they don't follow through, we elect different ones who will modify what's been done. And figures in the market (such as amazon) can influence the course as well. We can also use measures that are not a direct ban, such as we use on things that society in general finds harmful but has reasons to tolerate such as heavy regulations on cigarettes and alcohol and guns, which can mollify a good deal of the harm while still in this case allowing in some ways for viewpoints to be heard.

What I'm saying is we can logically discuss this without falling into immediate danger of every minority right being stripped. What basis is there for this fear? There are so many groups and people who watch for our free speech and who watch politicians to make sure they act in accord with the principles they are meant and so many viewpoints heard and exchanged in our developed society that people would know to be wary if we even begun slightly to venture down that path.