Free Speech

[nickcoons]

http://www.nickcoonsforcongress.com/blog/view.php?id=26

Libertarians support the rights of individuals to unrestricted free speech and freedom of the press. This, like other libertarian positions, is based on the principle of self-ownership, and being able to make your own decisions so long as you harm no one else. What exactly does this mean? What about yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?

"Unrestricted" in this context means "unrestricted by government." It means that government cannot make any law infringing on the individual's right to speech, because speech itself causes no harm to anyone.

What about yelling "fire" in a theater, or spreading misinformation about someone in order to harm them? In a free society, these issues are all addressed by libertarian principles without government restricting speech.

For instance, speech can be limited by property owners on their property. If I come in to your house, you can make rules about what can and cannot be said, and ask me to leave if I don't abide by these rules. Most of us do this today, even if only implicitly. Likewise, a theater is private property, and in the interest of safety and customer satisfaction, a theater owner can remove or even ban an individual from re-entry if they become a nuisance.

Fraud is also a no-no in a free society, so intentionally spreading misinformation can be prevented or prosecuted on those grounds without an explicit restriction on the freedom of speech.

The original intent of the concept of free speech and a free press was because the founders believed it important that individuals have the right to dissent from government. Previous forms of government often considered it a criminal offense to denounce those in power. Today, we understand the importance of speaking out against government actions when we believe they are wrong. Libertarians believe that it's important to use reason to persuade others, not force and coercion to make them bend to your will.

[heavenlyboy34]

Since you bring up the topic ""unrestricted by government"-are you, Nick, like Tannehill, are in favor of elimination of "public property" in favor of a completely privatized nation (that is, all real estate is owned by individual citizens rather than government)? I think it's a great concept, and very workable in the real world (if people have the courage to do it).

[nickcoons]

Since you bring up the topic ""unrestricted by government"-are you, Nick, like Tannehill, are in favor of elimination of "public property" in favor of a completely privatized nation (that is, all real estate is owned by individual citizens rather than government)? I think it's a great concept, and very workable in the real world (if people have the courage to do it).

I'm not specifically opposed to government ownership of property, but I am opposed to government owning property in the way it does now, because it does so basically by a couple of methods:

- By default, if no one else has homesteaded it, then the government presumes to own it.
- By eminent domain.
- By purchasing it with stolen (taxed) money.

If government were to accept voluntary donations for its operations, or to run a lottery to raise funds, and then it wanted to use those funds to purchase property, I don't think I'd have any philosophical arguments against that.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm not specifically opposed to government ownership of property, but I am opposed to government owning property in the way it does now, because it does so basically by a couple of methods:

- By default, if no one else has homesteaded it, then the government presumes to own it.
- By eminent domain.
- By purchasing it with stolen (taxed) money.

If government were to accept voluntary donations for its operations, or to run a lottery to raise funds, and then it wanted to use those funds to purchase property, I don't think I'd have any philosophical arguments against that.

In your ideal world, who would give the government the authority to own property? I am inclined to agree with Bastiat when he said "Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

If he is right (and I think he is) could we not say that by "owning"(perhaps "hording" is a better word) property, government's existence is parasitical, and harmful to truly free people?:confused:

Thanks,
Matvei.

[nickcoons]

In your ideal world, who would give the government the authority to own property? I am inclined to agree with Bastiat when he said "Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

If he is right (and I think he is) could we not say that by "owning"(perhaps "hording" is a better word) property, government's existence is parasitical, and harmful to truly free people?:confused:

In my "ideal" world, government is a group of individuals with a specific goal, very much like a corporation. And like any group of individuals, it would have no authority to initiate force against anyone (very different from what we have now). Whether or not we call it "government" at this point would be a matter of semantics.

My general view is that a given act should be allowed unless there's a reason that it should not be allowed. Murder is not allowed because it infringes on the rights of the victim. So instead of looking for reasons why government should be allowed to own property in order to say that they have that ability, I'd be looking for reasons why they should not be allowed to own property in order to deny them that ability.

As I mentioned in my previous post, they generally either steal the property, or they steal the money to buy the property. If I did those things, no one would argue that I legitimately owned the property. I have to get someone to give me money (usually by producing something of value for them), which I can then use to purchase property. Given those same conditions of voluntary exchange, I don't see any reason why government should not be allowed to purchase and own property.

One may argue that government would never engage in only voluntary transactions, and so these conditions wouldn't exist, and I wouldn't recognize their ability (just as I wouldn't recognize anyone else's ability under those conditions) to own property. Or one may argue that if government did engage only in voluntary transactions (so as to not be parasitic) that it's no longer government because government is force, and without force there is no government. This is the semantics argument I mentioned a few sentences up, and we'd effectively have an anarcho-capitalist society, of which I have no problem.

So in summary, I would argue that government can only own property if it arrives at that ownership through voluntary transactions (not just in purchasing the property, but in acquiring the assets with which to make the purchase). If government cannot do this, then it cannot own property.

Does that clarify it?

[heavenlyboy34]

So, you're advocating voluntarism (that is, the government cannot act without explicit consent), if I'm not mistaken. It's a nice idea, but I don't see it as sustainable. To borrow a cliched, but true quote from Jefferson,

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."

Please explain how you could control any kind of "government" or authority hierarchy over a long period of time.

Thanks! :) I appreciate your time and effort.


In my "ideal" world, government is a group of individuals with a specific goal, very much like a corporation. And like any group of individuals, it would have no authority to initiate force against anyone (very different from what we have now). Whether or not we call it "government" at this point would be a matter of semantics.

My general view is that a given act should be allowed unless there's a reason that it should not be allowed. Murder is not allowed because it infringes on the rights of the victim. So instead of looking for reasons why government should be allowed to own property in order to say that they have that ability, I'd be looking for reasons why they should not be allowed to own property in order to deny them that ability.

As I mentioned in my previous post, they generally either steal the property, or they steal the money to buy the property. If I did those things, no one would argue that I legitimately owned the property. I have to get someone to give me money (usually by producing something of value for them), which I can then use to purchase property. Given those same conditions of voluntary exchange, I don't see any reason why government should not be allowed to purchase and own property.

One may argue that government would never engage in only voluntary transactions, and so these conditions wouldn't exist, and I wouldn't recognize their ability (just as I wouldn't recognize anyone else's ability under those conditions) to own property. Or one may argue that if government did engage only in voluntary transactions (so as to not be parasitic) that it's no longer government because government is force, and without force there is no government. This is the semantics argument I mentioned a few sentences up, and we'd effectively have an anarcho-capitalist society, of which I have no problem.

So in summary, I would argue that government can only own property if it arrives at that ownership through voluntary transactions (not just in purchasing the property, but in acquiring the assets with which to make the purchase). If government cannot do this, then it cannot own property.

Does that clarify it?

[nickcoons]

So, you're advocating voluntarism (that is, the government cannot act without explicit consent), if I'm not mistaken. It's a nice idea, but I don't see it as sustainable. To borrow a cliched, but true quote from Jefferson,

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."

Please explain how you could control any kind of "government" or authority hierarchy over a long period of time.

Thanks! :) I appreciate your time and effort.

I'm not trying to make any claim as to whether or not it's sustainable.

From the standpoint of a free society, the Constitution is flawed. The founders gave the power to government to initiate force. Any government that starts out with this power is not sustainable in protecting the rights of individuals, because it never did that from the beginning. Even the ability to initiate force to the smallest degree will ultimately snowball into tyranny.

What I am suggesting, at most, is that a government exists to protect the rights of the individual, that it cannot itself infringe on those rights to justify any ends, and that this be the sole mantra in determining whether or not government is allowed a certain act.

Now, let's look at it this way. If we have a society in which police, courts, and defense are all provided by private organizations paid for voluntarily by those that want the services (essentially anarcho-capitalism); or we have an entity (or multiple entities) providing police, courts, and defense paid for voluntarily by those that want the services, and we call this later entity "government"; what's the difference? It would have zero power over people because it wouldn't have the one tool that it has today; the legal ability to initiate force. So isn't calling it "government" just semantics? In a free society, this is the only government that can exist.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Im sorry, but you did not post this in the free speech zone of the internet. You will be moderated shortly.

[heavenlyboy34]

Im sorry, but you did not post this in the free speech zone of the internet. You will be moderated shortly.

:eek::(