freedom of expression/limits

[toth8]

What should be the limits to freedom of expression, in a free society?

[EricK]

I don't have an answer to this question but I do have a further question:

Why do we tend to limit physical actions more than verbal actions? If I didn't like someone's opinions and hit them - hit them just hard enough to hurt them physically but not hard enough to cause them any permanent damage -then I would very likely be committing an offence. But If instead I was to assault them verbally and hence hurt them emotionally then I would be protected under "free speech". Why should the one form of temporary hurting be allowed and the other forbidden?

[Loren Pechtel]

Speech that poses an immediate risk.

Beyond that there are two things I'm not sure how to deal with:

Speech that encourages people to take part in criminal action without making it clear the nature of the action. Example: "Pray to them on their 800- lines".

Speech that aids a movement that results in substantial harm. I would make it an absolute definition, not something subject to a legal finding. Say 10 deaths last year or 100 deaths in the last 5 years. Example: Those preaching jihad.

[EricK]

Speech that aids a movement that results in substantial harm. I would make it an absolute definition, not something subject to a legal finding. Say 10 deaths last year or 100 deaths in the last 5 years. Example: Those preaching jihad.

Or those supporting the Iraq war? Or being a spokesperson for a tobacco company?

[Mike Rosoft]

Speech that aids a movement that results in substantial harm. I would make it an absolute definition, not something subject to a legal finding. Say 10 deaths last year or 100 deaths in the last 5 years. Example: Those preaching jihad.

No, it doesn't work this way. How do you assign a particular death to a particular movement? Exactly what counts as a movement (for example, is Al Qaeda one movement, or multiple ones)? What if some movement is limited to a small geographic region; then it is much easier for it to fall below the limit. And why should it be legal to support by speech a movement responsible for X deaths, but not one responsible for X+1?

In the Czech Republic, the relevant hate speech law prohibits support/propagation/expression of sympathy towards a movement which "aims to suppress human and civil rights and liberties". (There are several other laws limiting speech; defamation is currently a criminal offense, so is holocaust denial.)


Mike Rosoft

[Loren Pechtel]

Or those supporting the Iraq war? Or being a spokesperson for a tobacco company?

I would exempt government actions from this rule entirely.

As for tobacco--tobacco kills it's users but seldom others. I should have made it clear that I was talking about killing others.

Speech that aids a movement that results in substantial harm. I would make it an absolute definition, not something subject to a legal finding. Say 10 deaths last year or 100 deaths in the last 5 years. Example: Those preaching jihad.

No, it doesn't work this way. How do you assign a particular death to a particular movement? Exactly what counts as a movement (for example, is Al Qaeda one movement, or multiple ones)? What if some movement is limited to a small geographic region; then it is much easier for it to fall below the limit. And why should it be legal to support by speech a movement responsible for X deaths, but not one responsible for X+1?

There's one movement: Violence in the name of Islamic fundamentalism.

In the Czech Republic, the relevant hate speech law prohibits support/propagation/expression of sympathy towards a movement which "aims to suppress human and civil rights and liberties". (There are several other laws limiting speech; defamation is currently a criminal offense, so is holocaust denial.)

The church is banned??!

[Bonniedundee]

What should be the limits to freedom of expression, in a free society?None, except being asked to leave someone's property if they don't like what you are saying.

[toth8]

Yeah, there should be no limits on freedom of expression. It should depend upon property rights; say what you want on your own property and but necessarily on someone else's.

[B.S. Lewis]

Yeah, there should be no limits on freedom of expression. It should depend upon property rights; say what you want on your own property and but necessarily on someone else's.

How about public property (where people can actually hear you)? The internet sort of nullifies the idea of saying things only on your own property, anyway. With an internet connection, the right to say whatever you want *on* your property becomes the right to say whatever you want *from* your property, but to the whole world.

[toth8]

Public property shouldn't exist.

[Bonniedundee]

Public property shouldn't exist.
Well there can be community property such as rights of way, common fields, pathways etc
These are similar to the kind of commons that historically were very numerous.


Many ancaps particularly the Agorists and left-Rothbardians have written on this sort of thing.

[Jon Barleycorn]

No limits - arguments should stand or fall on their own merits.

For a start, who gets to decide what can be said & what can't?

[Bonniedundee]

For a start, who gets to decide what can be said & what can't?The property owner?

[general_koffi]

Yeah, there should be no limits on freedom of expression. It should depend upon property rights; say what you want on your own property and but necessarily on someone else's.

That's unnecessary, provided right to admission is preserved.

Common sense restrictions:

Deceive someone into believing they are in immediate danger. (Shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, when there is no fire.)

Directly threaten violence against a person, people or demographic.

Defamation. (Tell damaging lies about someone.)

For a start, who gets to decide what can be said & what can't?

The government - specified by the legislature, and judged in each case by the judiciary.

Public property shouldn't exist.

I disagree. Such an environment would be the death of free speech.

[toth8]

Deceive someone into believing they are in immediate danger. (Shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, when there is no fire.)

Then the free market would weed out theatres which had no safeguards against that.

Directly threaten violence against a person, people or demographic.


People have free will.

Defamation. (Tell damaging lies about someone.)


No one has to like anyone else.





I disagree. Such an environment would be the death of free speech.

Yes, free speech on your own property.

[John the Baathist]

For a start, who gets to decide what can be said & what can't?


The property owner?


I'm reading your opinion on my laptop and my laptop is my property.
Therefor I can decide what you can and can't say?

[Bonniedundee]

I'm reading your opinion on my laptop and my laptop is my property.
Therefor I can decide what you can and can't say?That doesn't make sense, it is like saying if you buy an individual copy of a newpaper it is your paper and therefore can control what I write in it.

[John the Baathist]

That doesn't make sense, it is like saying if you buy an individual copy of a newpaper it is your paper and therefore can control what I write in it.

You're right, I didn't think it through enough, guess it's too early.
Freedom of speech goes as far as the property owner allows.

IIDB is a privately owned board and determines the limits of what you can and can't say on the forums.
This is the same with the rest of the internet, my mistake was thinking of the internet as public property which it isn't.

ETA:

Public property is land which is owned by a government, as opposed to private property, which is owned by non-government parties such as individuals or corporations.

So the limits on the freedom of speech in regards to public property would be defined by it owners as well, in this case the government.
And it depends on the form of government who gets to set the limit, for example in a dictatorship it would be the dictator while in a democracy it would be the electorate.

Great, I learned something new today! :)

[Mike Rosoft]

People have free will.

Let's take this argument to the extreme. Should it be legal for me to tell person X to kill person Y, on the grounds that the assassin has free will and doesn't have to obey? Sorry, that makes no sense.

By he way, a former Czech politician Karel Srba did exactly that. He conspired to have a journalist killed, the assassin exercised his free will and informed the police instead - and this is why Srba is now serving his 12-year sentence for conspiracy to commit murder.


Mike Rosoft

[toth8]

People have free will.

Let's take this argument to the extreme. Should it be legal for me to tell person X to kill person Y, on the grounds that the assassin has free will and doesn't have to obey?

Yes.

Sorry, that makes no sense.




Mike Rosoft

Why? If I told you to jump off a cliff would you do it?

[EricK]

Why? If I told you to jump off a cliff would you do it?

Doesn't your logic imply that managers and team leaders shouldn't get any credit or blame for the performance of their teams? After all they only tell their subordinates what to do. It's the team members who exercise their free will and actually obey the instructions who deserve all the credit.

[toth8]

No, I'm simply saying that someone told to kill another can exercise their own volition. No one really is an automaton who consistently does what people tell them.

[EricK]

No, I'm simply saying that someone told to kill another can exercise their own volition. No one really is an automaton who consistently does what people tell them.
But nobody is saying people are simple automata.

You have a rather simplistic view of people in which they are solely responsible for their own actions and your arguments for that view are just knockdowns of the opposing simplistic viewpoint that people are not at all responsible for their actions. At least that's the way it seems to me.

The fact that some people are more easily influenced than others and, more importantly, the fact that some people are more persuasive than others shows that the reality is more complex than either of those extremes.

[toth8]

People are solely responsible for their actions. A mentally healthy person would have sufficient volition not to do that. No one is that gullible to do whatever they are told.

[EricK]

People are solely responsible for their actions. A mentally healthy person would have sufficient volition not to do that. No one is that gullible to do whatever they are told.
Again you end with a strawman of the opposing position. It is not that anyone is so gullible that they do whatever they are told. It is that some people (most people, in fact) in certain circumstances will do things when told to by another that they would never do in ordinary circumstances (and would, no doubt, vehemently deny that they would ever behave in those ways).

I wonder, for instance, what you make of this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

[Unbeatable]

Then the free market would weed out theatres which had no safeguards against that.

How?


People have free will.

No they don't.


Yes, free speech on your own property.

So no free speech if you don't own property?

[Loren Pechtel]

People have free will.

Let's take this argument to the extreme. Should it be legal for me to tell person X to kill person Y, on the grounds that the assassin has free will and doesn't have to obey? Sorry, that makes no sense.

By he way, a former Czech politician Karel Srba did exactly that. He conspired to have a journalist killed, the assassin exercised his free will and informed the police instead - and this is why Srba is now serving his 12-year sentence for conspiracy to commit murder.


Mike Rosoft

Yeah--if it's legal to tell X to kill Y then how do you prosecute solicitation to commit murder, or even a murder that results from it?

[toth8]

How?



People don't have to go to theatres that didn't have such safeguards.

No they don't.


why not?



So no free speech if you don't own property?

Yep.

[toth8]

Again you end with a strawman of the opposing position. It is not that anyone is so gullible that they do whatever they are told. It is that some people (most people, in fact) in certain circumstances will do things when told to by another that they would never do in ordinary circumstances (and would, no doubt, vehemently deny that they would ever behave in those ways).

I wonder, for instance, what you make of this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment


Then in a free society some agencies could have safeguards against this. It would be up to the marketplace to decide.

[Mike Rosoft]

There's little point in arguing with people for whom ideology takes precedence over the real-life results. And this applies equally to religious fanatics, as to communists or free market worshippers.

According to you it should have been legal for Srba to hire an assassin on a troublesome journalist, and when he screwed up another one, then yet another one ... The question is: why? What good would that do?


Mike Rosoft

[toth8]

Because he is free. That's why.

[Mike Rosoft]

I feel no obligation to accept your twisted idea of freedom.

Normally, when one talks about freedom, it means the right to do anything that doesn't cause harm to others. (And then we may talk about details, such as whether drug dealing or hate speech causes harm, or to what extent one has a right to harm onself.) You, for some reason, have defined it to include the right to have somebody murdered, as long as you don't commit the murder yourself. So I ask once again: why? What good would it do?


Mike Rosoft

[toth8]

Telling someone to kill another doesn't directly violate the person and property of another.

[Mike Rosoft]

Yes, it does. If you tell somebody to commit murder with an intention of him carrying it out, you are - by law and common sense - just as guilty of murder as the actual perpetrator. (And intention is what matters to the law; that's why attempted murder is a more serious crime than negligent manslaughter.)

By your standard, Hitler wasn't a war criminal; after all, he didn't kill anybody himself. (He just ordered the genocide of millions of people. But his subjects didn't have to obey the orders, did they? And if they refused, they may have found themselves in a concentration camp or before a firing squad. But the executioners didn't have to obey the orders, either. Right?)

If you say: "exactly, Hitler was not a war criminal", then there's no hope for you.
:(

Mike Rosoft

[toth8]

I'm sorry but it doesn't. If person A tells person B to kill person C, then only person B should be responsible legally. No one else's person or property is damaged as a result of person A telling person B to kill.

[premjan]

Hitler could use coercion against people who didn't follow orders - also people have a tendency to follow orders from a person in authority simply due to the probable cost of trying to buck the system. And payment could be another form of coercion. So could emotional blackmail (e.g. a person telling a lover to kill her spouse). In the last case of course the person would normally be held guilty.

[Mike Rosoft]

What you say is technically true - and as meaningless as if said that my act of pulling the trigger didn't harm anybody (and that I couldn't be held responsible for anything that happened afterwards). Consider this analogy.

I fired a gun (hired an assassin) with an intention of person X being killed. It is irrelevant that the attempt may not succeed for reasons independent from my will; for example, the gun might fail (the assassin might refuse to obey the order). Neither does it matter that it isn't me who does the killing; the bullet (the assassin) does. I am still guilty of intentionally causing X's death, in other words, of murder.

I repeat: it is the intention that matters to the law. If you try to kill somebody and fail to, you are guilty of attempted murder, for which the punishment is the same or slightly lesser than for an actual murder. If you kill somebody without intending to do so, you are guilty of manslaughter, which is a less serious crime.

I have also noticed that you, conveniently, failed to respond to my question about Hitler. But since I already know the answer (it's an obvious consequence of your statements), I won't press you. Neither will I force you to tell me what good would legalization of ordering somebody to commit murder do, because you don't seem to care; see above (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4472326#post4472326).

What I have to tell you is that your opinions are at odds with what the majority of people believe - in an extreme manner. It's not enough to repeat "it should be legal", as you do. I ask for the third and last time: why?


Mike Rosoft

[Canard DuJour]

What I have to tell you is that your opinions are at odds with what the majority of people believe - in an extreme manner. It's not enough to repeat "it should be legal", as you do. I ask for the third and last time: why?


Mike Rosoft

Because Libertarians cannot recognise any coercion other than direct physical force. Because then they'd have to recognise exploitation through bargaining power, unconscionability, contract arbitration etc and the whole rickety ideology falls apart.

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm sorry but it doesn't. If person A tells person B to kill person C, then only person B should be responsible legally. No one else's person or property is damaged as a result of person A telling person B to kill.

In other words, mob bosses aren't criminals???

[EricK]

I'm sorry but it doesn't. If person A tells person B to kill person C, then only person B should be responsible legally. No one else's person or property is damaged as a result of person A telling person B to kill.

What a fun way to live your life!

If I tell people that you torture, kill and then eat babies then your reputation is only damaged if people believe me. If nobody believes me then no harm has been done to you. So it is the people who believe me who should be held legally responsible for any loss of reputation which occurs. If one of those people is so disgusted by what they hear about you that they brutally attack you, then I have still done nothing wrong.

[toth8]

What a fun way to live your life!

If I tell people that you torture, kill and then eat babies then your reputation is only damaged if people believe me.

No, because your reputation is an aspect of your own mind.


If nobody believes me then no harm has been done to you. So it is the people who believe me who should be held legally responsible for any loss of reputation which occurs.

Harm is relative. And it should be the people who do damage to person and property that are legally responsible.

If one of those people is so disgusted by what they hear about you that they brutally attack you, then I have still done nothing wrong.

Maybe so, but so what? No damage against person or property has occurred.

[toth8]

In other words, mob bosses aren't criminals???

In other words, unless they commit acts against person and property, then yes, they are.

[Loren Pechtel]

In other words, unless they commit acts against person and property, then yes, they are.

They don't, however. They have others do the dirty work.


Lets try a different approach: The CEO tells the trucker to dump the hazardous waste in the desert instead of paying the dump fees.

Is he guilty of anything?

[doubtingt]

Public property shouldn't exist.


Then you need to create a universe quite unlike this one where clearly definable plots of land, air and water exist that have no interaction or impact upon any other plots of land, air and water. OTherwise, the notion of everything being privately owned is an absurd unworkable fantasy that never has nor ever could come to be.

[toth8]

They don't, however. They have others do the dirty work.


Lets try a different approach: The CEO tells the trucker to dump the hazardous waste in the desert instead of paying the dump fees.

Is he guilty of anything?

No. Because he hasn't directly damaged another' person or property.

[Bonniedundee]

No. Because he hasn't directly damaged another' person or property.I think you are overdoing it here, as has been said this would exonerate Himmler, Hitler etc(I'm presuming they never personally killed anyone.).

[Canard DuJour]

No. Because he hasn't directly damaged another' person or property.

I think you are overdoing it here, as has been said this would exonerate Himmler, Hitler etc(I'm presuming they never personally killed anyone.).

"Only invasive actions should be declared illegal, and combated with the full power of the law. The invasion must be concrete and physical. [...] Words and opinions are not physical invasions.[...] Legal and political theory have committed much mischief by failing to pinpoint physical invasion as the only human action that should be illegal and that justifies the use of physical violence to combat it." - Murray N. Rothbard.

.

[premjan]

Then you need to create a universe quite unlike this one where clearly definable plots of land, air and water exist that have no interaction or impact upon any other plots of land, air and water. OTherwise, the notion of everything being privately owned is an absurd unworkable fantasy that never has nor ever could come to be.
Technically there is probably nothing like universal public property. Every piece of land belongs to someone if only the government. Or is that not so?

[Bonniedundee]

"Only invasive actions should be declared illegal, and combated with the full power of the law. The invasion must be concrete and physical. [...] Words and opinions are not physical invasions.[...] Legal and political theory have committed much mischief by failing to pinpoint physical invasion as the only human action that should be illegal and that justifies the use of physical violence to combat it." - Murray N. Rothbard.Rothbard is not perfect.

And who says ordering killings is not a concrete invasions? Rothbard here says words and opinions are not, he is clearly talking about opinions and not orders.

I'm an anarchist and decentralist who combines many different traditions, right and left, capitalist and socialist, so I'm well aware that pure axiomatic logic is not always the best course of action, even if I prefer it usually.

[Bonniedundee]

Then you need to create a universe quite unlike this one where clearly definable plots of land, air and water exist that have no interaction or impact upon any other plots of land, air and water. OTherwise, the notion of everything being privately owned is an absurd unworkable fantasy that never has nor ever could come to be.Umm you need to take a look at property rights theory.

I take it Toth8 is a lockean, lockeanism means that you appropriate unowned natural resources by mixing your labour with them, with the proviso that you do not waste natural resources and that there is enough left for others, I fail to see how your argument rebuts this.

And although perhaps not strictly lockean, community property is fine with self-ownership, as is local syndaclist or communist property.

[Canard DuJour]

Rothbard is not perfect.No shit.

And who says ordering killings is not a concrete invasions?Speakers of the English language.

Rothbard here says words and opinions are not, he is clearly talking about opinions and not orders.He is clearly talking about concrete physical invasion and not words.

I'm an anarchist and decentralist who combines many different traditions, right and left, capitalist and socialist, so I'm well aware that pure axiomatic logic is not always the best course of action, even if I prefer it usually.Yep, another pick'n'mix Libertarian.

[Mike Rosoft]

:confused:
Now I am confused. How do your responses go together with this (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4481025#post4481025) post?


Mike Rosoft

[Canard DuJour]

:confused:
Now I am confused. How do your responses go together with this (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4481025#post4481025) post?


Mike Rosoft

Sorry, yeah - I believe the Libertarian "aggression principle" to be the most dishonest horseshit in all political philosophy. It basically licenses any shitty trick man can perpetrate upon man by way of contract. The Rothbard clarifications were for Euro_Agnostic's benefit. Rotbarf was honest but out of his mind.

[toth8]

"Only invasive actions should be declared illegal, and combated with the full power of the law. The invasion must be concrete and physical. [...] Words and opinions are not physical invasions.[...] Legal and political theory have committed much mischief by failing to pinpoint physical invasion as the only human action that should be illegal and that justifies the use of physical violence to combat it." - Murray N. Rothbard.

.

And what is wrong with this?

[Canard DuJour]

"Only invasive actions should be declared illegal, and combated with the full power of the law. The invasion must be concrete and physical. [...] Words and opinions are not physical invasions.[...] Legal and political theory have committed much mischief by failing to pinpoint physical invasion as the only human action that should be illegal and that justifies the use of physical violence to combat it."


And what is wrong with this?

I think I already answered that in the post immediately preceding yours. Perhaps you missed it. I'll let Rothbard give you an example :



"Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die."

[Bonniedundee]

No shit.What do you actually know of Rothbard? You seem to know extremely little.

Speakers of the English language.To speakers of the English language ordering killings is generally a concrete invasion, I'm sure Rothbard would not of supported letting Himmler or Hitler off because they never personally killed anyone.

And I'm sure in a stateless society that ordering or paying for killings could easily be made criminal without any lose of liberty.


He is clearly talking about concrete physical invasion and not words.Words means opinions, he even says it, he is clearly not talking about the ordering of killings by superiors.

Yep, another pick'n'mix Libertarian.What are you talking about? I'm a libertarian but have never been the sort you are talking about ie a American style libertarian, I admire Kropotkin alongisde Rothbard, Nock alongside Tucker, so I really don't know what you are talking about.

You're just some "libertarian" social democrat aren't you, what do you have to boast about?

[Dryhad]

Yes, free speech on your own property.
Ah, but the speech isn't free. It's expensive. You can make up your own speech freely on your own property, but nobody else can use it, not even on their own property. If they could, wouldn't the speech itself be public domain?

[Canard DuJour]

What do you actually know of Rothbard? You seem to know extremely little.What I've read of his online. For reasons I wont go into I read a lot of Libertarian websites and there's a lot of Rothtard out there.


To speakers of the English language ordering killings is generally a concrete invasion,It certainly is not. Concrete physical invasion is quite a bag of qualifiers and clearly meant to distinguish first person fait accompli from statements of intent or opinion.

I'm sure Rothbard would not of supported letting Himmler or Hitler off because they never personally killed anyoneI'm sure you're sure of all sorts of things that seem questionable to others. In Rothtard's scheme, even deliberate starvation of a helpless infant is deemed a lesser injustice than physical invasion of property in order to feed said infant.

And I'm sure in a stateless society that ordering or paying for killings could easily be made criminal without any lose of liberty.Then a nice holiday in Somalia should relieve you of that misapprehension.


Words means opinions, he even says it, he is clearly not talking about the ordering of killings by superiors.No he doesn't, he says "words and opinions are not physical invasions"

What are you talking about? I'm a libertarian but have never been the sort you are talking about ie a American style libertarian, I admire Kropotkin alongisde Rothbard, Nock alongside Tucker, so I really don't know what you are talking about.

You're just some "libertarian" social democrat aren't you, what do you have to boast about? I'm a libertarian insofar as I believe people should enjoy the real freedom concomitant with control of their material sustenance. Whatever its stated aims, anarcho-capitalism would concentrate that control in fewer hands and is irreconcilable with socialism.

[Bonniedundee]

What I've read of his online. For reasons I wont go into I read a lot of Libertarian websites and there's a lot of Rothtard out there.So nothing then.
It certainly is not. Concrete physical invasion is quite a bag of qualifiers and clearly meant to distinguish first person fait accompli from statements of intent or opinion.
Not really, conspiracy to murder is much the same as doing the murder.

I'm sure you're sure of all sorts of things that seem questionable to others. In Rothtard's scheme, even deliberate starvation of a helpless infant is deemed a lesser injustice than physical invasion of property in order to feed said infant.
Right, please stop bring up strawman, are you capable of actual debate, this is an upper forum.

Then a nice holiday in Somalia should relieve you of that misapprehension.
Again this is a upper forum, that kind of crap is not needed here.

No he doesn't, he says "words and opinions are not physical invasions"Yeah, but an order is different, he is clearly not talking about conspiracy or orders.

I'm a libertarian insofar as I believe people should enjoy the real freedom concomitant with control of their material sustenance. Whatever its stated aims, anarcho-capitalism would concentrate that control in fewer hands and is irreconcilable with socialism.You don't know anything about, you seem not too know much of socialism either.

As Marx said as long as there is free land and/or cheap credit wage labour is almost impossible to find at any wage, ancap property rights would dramatically lower interest rates and end land monopoly, hence there would be little wealth disparity and little wage labour.

Now I wouldn't expect you to understand this, you have shown your poor graps of complex issues like this, so if you are going to reply actually make sure you have something worth reading next time.

[Canard DuJour]

So nothing then.No, quite a lot. It's no use just repeating that I'm ignorant or lying, you need to advance some counterargument re the matter at hand.


Not really, conspiracy to murder is much the same as doing the murder.Not according to Rothtard.


Right, please stop bring up strawman, are you capable of actual debate, this is an upper forum.I'm afraid it's no strawman. Rothtard unequivocally makes that case. It is the inevitable corollary of the Libertarian "non-agression" principle and it wont go away.


Again this is a upper forum, that kind of crap is not needed here.Oh but I'm serious. If you're "sure in a stateless society that ordering or paying for killings could easily be made criminal without any lose of liberty," I'm sure a nice holiday in Somalia would convince you otherwise.

Yeah, but an order is different, he is clearly not talking about conspiracy or orders.He is clearly talking about concrete physical invasion and not intent or opinion. If delibertaley allowing a helpless infant to starve to death while preventing concrete physical invasion of property in order to save her is not conspiracy or intent, what is it? An accident?

You don't know anything about, you seem not too know much of socialism either.

As Marx said as long as there is free land and/or cheap credit wage labour is almost impossible to find at any wage, ancap property rights would dramatically lower interest rates and end land monopoly, hence there would be little wealth disparity and little wage labour.and Marx was right about the time of the enclosures, but the advantages of scale and specialisation in mechanised production are, by now, insurmountable - state or no state. There's no government official preventing me from buying enough land to scratch a living off. I don't because it would be a back-breaking miserable existence.

The state was essential to the inception of capitalism, no question. But if the advantages of capital intensive production are still something to do with the state, then anarcho-capitalism is simply less efficient than a mixed economy. Otherwise the advantages are inherent and anarcho-capitalism will not have the effect you imagine.

What ancaps need to show is that the state actively disadvantages less capital intensive forms of production which would otherwise be the more efficient. But they show nothing of the kind. They simply claim any perceived negative is "an artefact of the state" by virtue of the fact that states exist at all.


Now I wouldn't expect you to understand this, you have shown your poor graps of complex issues like this, so if you are going to reply actually make sure you have something worth reading next time. It's no use just repeating that I'm ignorant or lying, you need to advance some counterargument re the matter at hand.

[toth8]

Ah, but the speech isn't free. It's expensive.

THat's not what free speech means.

[Bonniedundee]

No, quite a lot. It's no use just repeating that I'm ignorant or lying, you need to advance some counterargument re the matter at hand.What matter? You posted a link and then made some stupid comments.

Not according to Rothtard.Yes it is according to Rothbard, he says words and opinions ie works you publish, views etc
He clearly was not talking about murder plots.

I'm afraid it's no strawman. Rothtard unequivocally makes that case. It is the inevitable corollary of the Libertarian "non-agression" principle and it wont go away.And what is the basis of your beliefs? Let me guess, vague feelings.

Oh but I'm serious. If you're "sure in a stateless society that ordering or paying for killings could easily be made criminal without any lose of liberty," I'm sure a nice holiday in Somalia would convince you otherwise.
I will report you for spamming, go to Somalia is not needed here.

and Marx was right about the time of the enclosures, but the advantages of scale and specialisation in mechanised production are, by now, insurmountable - state or no state. There's no government official preventing me from buying enough land to scratch a living off. I don't because it would be a back-breaking miserable existence. Actually the state increases land values greatly. Without the state there would likely be plenty of good land that is free. And they are not insurmountable without the state, distribution and adversting costs more than makes up for any economics of scale gained from large plants.

The state was essential to the inception of capitalism, no question. But if the advantages of capital intensive production are still something to do with the state, then anarcho-capitalism is simply less efficient than a mixed economy. Otherwise the advantages are inherent and anarcho-capitalism will not have the effect you imagine. What do you mean? Capitalism to anarcho-capitalists just means free exchange, we leftists use a different meaning than them.
What ancaps need to show is that the state actively disadvantages less capital intensive forms of production which would otherwise be the more efficient. But they show nothing of the kind. They simply claim any perceived negative is "an artefact of the state" by virtue of the fact that states exist at all. I realise this, this has been my whole argument for months.

Didn't you attack my thread on this?

It's no use just repeating that I'm ignorant or lying, you need to advance some counterargument re the matter at hand.You actually remind me of Loren. You have only given a quote and then your interpretation of that quote,.
Paying or ordering someone to kill someone is a concrete invasion, the killing could not have happened otherwise and Rotbhard would of agreed.

[Dryhad]

THat's not what free speech means.
I know. It's a joke. But it's a joke with a point. And that point is that your system has free speech without free information. As far as I'm concerned, they're equally important.

[Canard DuJour]

What matter? You posted a link and then made some stupid comments.The matter of the Libertarian "non aggression" principle. I posted direct quotes, not a link. It's no use just repeating that I'm ignorant or lying, you need to advance some counterargument. Calling me stupid doesn't cut it either.

Yes it is according to Rothbard, he says words and opinions ie works you publish, views etc
He clearly was not talking about murder plots.So if delibertaley allowing a helpless infant to starve to death while preventing concrete physical invasion of property in order to save her is not conspiracy to murder, what is it? An accident?

And what is the basis of your beliefs? Let me guess, vague feelings.No, this :

"Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die." - Murray N. Rothbard


I will report you for spamming, go to Somalia is not needed here.If you think I'm spamming, you should have reported it already.

Actually the state increases land values greatly. Without the state there would likely be plenty of good land that is free.So? I repeat : no government official prevents me from acquiring enough "good" land to scratch a living off NOW. I don't because it would be a back-breaking miserable existence whether I have to buy land or mix my labour with it.

And they are not insurmountable without the state, distribution and adversting costs more than makes up for any economics of scale gained from large plants.How so? The state doesn't pay for private advertising and specialised division of labour overwhelmingly advantages centralised production in terms of distribution costs

What do you mean? Capitalism to anarcho-capitalists just means free exchange, we leftists use a different meaning than them.That your argument is self-defeating. If the advantages of capital-intensive production really were impossible without the state, then a mixed economy is simply more efficient than laissez faire. Market forces dictate that the mixed economy should prevail. If capital-intensive production currently prevails due to inherent advantages (which, of course, it fucking does), then anarchocapitalism would, if anything, consolidate inequality. It's the insoluble flaw in all laissez faire arguments.

The only way ancaps could square that cicrle is by showing that the state actively disadvantages smaller scale production which would, otherwise, out-produce what we see now. But they show nothing of the kind.
I realise this, this has been my whole argument for months.

Didn't you attack my thread on this?I think you need to read that again. Are you saying you realise that ancaps **fail** to show that the state actively disadvantages less capital intensive forms of production which would otherwise be the more efficient ? Or that you've shown it somewhere?

You actually remind me of Loren. You have only given a quote and then your interpretation of that quote,.Poor Loren. Whatever, the Rothtard quote is unequivocal.
Paying or ordering someone to kill someone is a concrete invasion, the killing could not have happened otherwise and Rotbhard would of agreed.Rubbish. If you ordered pizza that never came, no one would say you'd had a concrete physical meal. Only words and intent. Rothtard might disavow any nazi apologetics but that cannot be squared with his infanticide apologetic. What's the difference between deliberately starving someone in a concentration camp and deliberately starving not feeding a helpless infant in the back bedroom? Nothing more than a semantic quibble about passive vs active verb forms.

[Bonniedundee]

I'm just gonna ignore the rest of your that post, you seem to just be going on about your interpretation of one quote, you really do remind me of Loren right now.
I have no wish to argue with you about what Rothbard meant.

The only way ancaps could square that cicrle is by showing that the state actively disadvantages smaller scale production which would, otherwise, out-produce what we see now. But they show nothing of the kind.
I think you need to read that again. Are you saying you realise that ancaps **fail** to show that the state actively disadvantages less capital intensive forms of production which would otherwise be the more efficient ? Or that you've shown it somewhere?Many of them fail to show this, some don't like Agorists and the left leaning ones. I know the state makes large industry profitable, hence I know ancapism is okay. Which is why I accept it along with most other kinds of radical decentralism left and right, socialist and capitalism.

[Canard DuJour]

I'm just gonna ignore the rest of your that post, you seem to just be going on about your interpretation of one quote, you really do remind me of Loren right now.Rotbath is unequivocal and spells out the inevitable of corollary of the Libertarian "non aggression" principle. Nothing to do with me. Libertarians cannot recognise any coercion other than direct physical force. Otherwise they'd have to recognise coercion through bargaining power > unconscionability > contract arbitration etc and the whole rickety ideology falls apart.


I have no wish to argue with you about what Rothbard meant.Probably best not to mention him in a debate forum then.


Many of them fail to show this, some don't like Agorists and the left leaning ones. I know the state makes large industry profitable, hence I know ancapism is okay. Which is why I accept it along with most other kinds of radical decentralism left and right, socialist and capitalism.I just know is a slightly better argument than you're ignorant/lying/stupid. But only slightly.

[Bonniedundee]

Rotbath is unequivocal and spells out the inevitable of corollary of the Libertarian "non aggression" principle. Nothing to do with me. Libertarians cannot recognise any coercion other than direct physical force. Otherwise they'd have to recognise coercion through bargaining power > unconscionability > contract arbitration etc and the whole rickety ideology falls apart.It is not unequivocal, it is far from clear from that quote whether Rothbard considered paying or ordering physical aggression as okay, and in fact I happen to know he considered the actions taken on your behalf by your protection agency as making you liable in some situations.

Also ancaps like many anarchists believe that behind these other kinds of coercion you mention lie physical coercion.

And lastly the kind of definition of coercion you advocate has just as many, if not more problems, at least for anti-authoritarians and decentralists, it can lead to things like victimless crimes, moral laws and smoking bans being considered as okay, so you can hardly brag.


Probably best not to mention him in a debate forum then.You mentioned him here, and you quoted him, I will mention him when I feel like it other contexts.

He is an anarchist and I admire him as I admire Kropotkin and Tucker, he is also useful in debates with the vulgar kinds of American style libertarians as like Loren likes to do, they cannot just immediately dismiss him as a dodgy source and they are the main ones I debate here.

Loren etc can easily wave away a piece or opinion by Kropotkin they can't do this to Rothbard or Mises or Friedman.


I just know is a slightly better argument than you're ignorant/lying/stupid. But only slightly.

You have already seen some of the evidence I have for this view.

[Canard DuJour]

It is not unequivocal, it is far from clear from that quote whether Rothbard considered paying or ordering physical aggression as okay, and in fact I happen to know he considered the actions taken on your behalf by your protection agency as making you liable in some situations.This :

"Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die."

is unequivocal.

Whether it exculpates paying or ordering coercion is indeed "far from clear" rather than "clearly not talking about conspiracy or orders" as you originally tried to claim. It comes down to no more than semantic quibbling about active and passive verb forms. The purpose is to conceal the coercion in contracts between parties with discrepant bargaining power. Hence all the qualifiers about 'only concrete physical invasive actions'. Hence ancaps even defend blackmail.


Also ancaps like many anarchists believe that behind these other kinds of coercion you mention lie physical coercion.Really? Then why do they argue for the inviolability of what should then be deemed unconscionable contracts ?

And lastly the kind of definition of coercion you advocate has just as many, if not more problems, at least for anti-authoritarians and decentralists, it can lead to things like victimless crimes, moral laws and smoking bans being considered as okay, so you can hardly brag.

You mentioned him here, and you quoted him, I will mention him when I feel like it other contexts.Fine. Expect more of the same.

He is an anarchist and I admire him as I admire Kropotkin and Tucker, he is also useful in debates with the vulgar kinds of American style libertarians as like Loren likes to do, they cannot just immediately dismiss him as a dodgy source and they are the main ones I debate here.

Loren etc can easily wave away a piece or opinion by Kropotkin they can't do this to Rothbard or Mises or Friedman.And I'm afraid you cannot wave away the fundamental incompatibility of Rothbard or Mises or Friedman with any cogent left wing view.


You have already seen some of the evidence I have for this view. Where? I hope you don't mean that crank article about people weaving electric cables in their backyards etc. Otherwise ancaps simply attribute any perceived negative as "an artefact of the state" by virtue of the fact that states exist at all. Like claiming cancer is an artefact of chemotharapy.

[Bonniedundee]

This :

"Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die."

is unequivocal.What the hell does this have to do with anything? It seems you just want to drag up quotes that make Rothbard look bad and inset them randomly into posts.

Whether it exculpates paying or ordering coercion is indeed "far from clear" rather than "clearly not talking about conspiracy or orders" as you originally tried to claim. It comes down to no more than semantic quibbling about active and passive verb forms. The purpose is to conceal the coercion in contracts between parties with discrepant bargaining power. Hence all the qualifiers about 'only concrete physical invasive actions'. Hence ancaps even defend blackmail.
Only if these situations can occur through none coercive means, and this is unlikely in almost all situations and coercive states aren't worth having for the few situtations that could occur, if indeed they could.

You have not proved the opposite.

Really? Then why do they argue for the inviolability of what should then be deemed unconscionable contracts ? What are you talking about, when have I ever argued for these? I'm a mutualist not an ancap, I just realise that left and right, capitalist and socialist are meaningless, only authority and liberty mean anything.

Fine. Expect more of the same.I see you missed the really important about the slippery slope of your views on coercion.
And I'm afraid you cannot wave away the fundamental incompatibility of Rothbard or Mises or Friedman with any cogent left wing view.No its not, you simply cannot look past the left and right, socialist and capitalist crap to what is really important.


Where? I hope you don't mean that crank article about people weaving electric cables in their backyards etc. Otherwise ancaps simply attribute any perceived negative as "an artefact of the state" by virtue of the fact that states exist at all. Like claiming cancer is an artefact of chemotharapy. Again you remind me greatly of Loren, calling an article crank on your own authority without any kind of back up, you supplied no evidence of your own.
It was the decentralisted leftists Borsodi and Sale that made that claim, you and no one else offered anything in return.

[Canard DuJour]

What the hell does this have to do with anything? It seems you just want to drag up quotes that make Rothbard look bad and inset them randomly into posts.It is the inevitable corollary of the Libertarian "non-agression" principle and it wont go away.


Only if these situations can occur through none coercive means, and this is unlikely in almost all situations and coercive states aren't worth having for the few situtations that could occur, if indeed they could.

You have not proved the opposite...Eh?

What are you talking about, when have I ever argued for these? I'm a mutualist not an ancap, I just realise that left and right, capitalist and socialist are meaningless, only authority and liberty mean anything.doesn't relate to the comment it ostensibly addresses. We're discussing anarchocapitalism and the Libertarian "non-agression" principle. People can't be expected to second guess your pick'n'mix variant.

I see you missed the really important about the slippery slope of your views on coercion.I didn't think it worth commenting on. Smoking bans vs infanticide? People can judge for themselves where the slippery slope is.

No its not, you simply cannot look past the left and right, socialist and capitalist crap to what is really important.

Again you remind me greatly of Loren, calling an article crank on your own authority without any kind of back up, you supplied no evidence of your own.
It was the decentralisted leftists Borsodi and Sale that made that claim, you and no one else offered anything in return. I'm sure Loren will resent that deeply. IIRC that article was ridiculed by everyone, left and right, who commented. That's probably because they have some idea how things are actually made in the real world.

[Bonniedundee]

It is the inevitable corollary of the Libertarian "non-agression" principle and it wont go away. And more and more statism is the inevitable corollary of your argument, I wonder which one I prefer?
I didn't think it worth commenting on. Smoking bans vs infanticide? People can judge for themselves where the slippery slope is.Sure I can, and you are on it. it's a brave new world!

I'm sure Loren will resent that deeply. IIRC that article was ridiculed by everyone, left and right, who commented. That's probably because they have some idea how things are actually made in the real world.
About three people replied to it actually, two statist liberals(one was you.) and one statist rightwinger, none of you three made anything like an intelligent comment, one of you insisted that Schumacher wanted to force scientists at gunpoint to make smaller technology.

You realise Schumacher was a friend of Keynes and at one point his protege? He was not some crank. He ran the British coal board for years, he knew more than you do about this subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._F._Schumacher

Ernst Friedrich "Fritz" Schumacher (16 August 1911 – 4 September 1977) was an internationally influential economic thinker with a professional background as a statistician and economist in Britain.

According to The Times Literary Supplement, his 1973 book Small Is Beautiful is among the 100 most influential books published since World War II. It was soon translated into many languages and brought international fame to Schumacher, after which Schumacher was invited to many international conferences, university guest speaker lectures and consultations.

How many of your books have been declared in the top 100 most influencial since world war two?

[toth8]

I'm just gonna ignore the rest of your that post, you seem to just be going on about your interpretation of one quote, you really do remind me of Loren right now.Rotbath is unequivocal and spells out the inevitable of corollary of the Libertarian "non aggression" principle. Nothing to do with me. Libertarians cannot recognise any coercion other than direct physical force.

Yes because libertarians believe in upholding rights to person and property.

Otherwise they'd have to recognise coercion through bargaining power > unconscionability > contract arbitration etc and the whole rickety ideology falls apart.


These aren't force against person or property.

[Bonniedundee]

Yes because libertarians believe in upholding rights to person and property.Actually not all libertarians believe in this, anarcho-communists don't believe in this(althoug hit is possible to make an equally valid argument for communism starting from self-ownership, see Kropotkin The conquest of bread.), I realise you meant the American kind of libertarian, but the word isn't restricted to them, they are relatively new users of the word.


These aren't force against person or property.Although they generally rely on force somewhere to come about.

[Canard DuJour]

It is the inevitable corollary of the Libertarian "non-agression" principle and it wont go away. And more and more statism is the inevitable corollary of your argument,That's an interesting assertion. Well, it's certainly an assertion.



I didn't think it worth commenting on. Smoking bans vs infanticide? People can judge for themselves where the slippery slope is.Sure I can, and you are on it. it's a brave new world!..that hath such no smoking areas in it. ..The horror ..the horror..

I'm sure Loren will resent that deeply. IIRC that article was ridiculed by everyone, left and right, who commented. That's probably because they have some idea how things are actually made in the real world.
About three people replied to it actually, two statist liberals(one was you.) and one statist rightwinger, none of you three made anything like an intelligent comment, one of you insisted that Schumacher wanted to force scientists at gunpoint to make smaller technology.

You realise Schumacher was a friend of Keynes and at one point his protege? He was not some crank. He ran the British coal board for years, he knew more than you do about this subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._F._Schumacher

Ernst Friedrich "Fritz" Schumacher (16 August 1911 – 4 September 1977) was an internationally influential economic thinker with a professional background as a statistician and economist in Britain.

According to The Times Literary Supplement, his 1973 book Small Is Beautiful is among the 100 most influential books published since World War II. It was soon translated into many languages and brought international fame to Schumacher, after which Schumacher was invited to many international conferences, university guest speaker lectures and consultations.

How many of your books have been declared in the top 100 most influencial since world war two?The answers to that are here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem).

[Canard DuJour]

These aren't force against person or property.Neither is starving not feeding a helpless infant to death, apparently. That's why Libertopia could only be imposed against peoples' will. Hence it's a joke ideology by its own basic tenets.



But watch out..

Although they generally rely on force somewhere to come about...looks like somebody wants to interfere with your right of free association :eek:

[Bonniedundee]

That's an interesting assertion. Well, it's certainly an assertion.
All you have done is make assertions.



here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority) What's wrong with this? Do you try and correct your surgeon or your plumber?

And you have spent the whole time doing things like this or worse, I'm done with this crap.:wave:

[toth8]

These aren't force against person or property.Neither is starving not feeding a helpless infant to death, apparently. That's why Libertopia could only be imposed against peoples' will. Hence it's a joke ideology by its own basic tenets.

But this is Rothbard's own opinion. Why do assume that all libertarians think this way? Statism is a joke ideology by its own basic tenets.

[Canard DuJour]

All you have done is make assertions.All I've done is quote Rothtard's assertions.


What's wrong with this? Do you try and correct your surgeon or your plumber?No, I recognise that where surgeons (or plumbers) disagree, they cannot both be right by virtue of being surgeons.

And you have spent the whole time doing things like this or worse, I'm done with this crap.:wave:[/QUOTE]
Good for you. That's the Libertarian "non aggression" principle for you.

[Canard DuJour]

But this is Rothbard's own opinion. Why do assume that all libertarians think this way?Because letting a helpless infant starve to death is not a "concrete physical invasion". If Libertarians recognise any coercion other than direct physical force they'd have to recognise coercion through bargaining power -> unconscionability -> contract arbitration etc and their whole ideology falls apart.


Statism is a joke ideology by its own basic tenets.I wouldn't know. What basic tenets are they?