Several years ago I taught English in China for a bit. The classes were composed of working adults and were very informal. One class that was a lot of fun and rather lively was when we talked about the concept of transparency.
To help illustrate the concept I took a student outside through a sliding glass door and said "tiao wu ba" ("let's dance"...I actually used the class to work on my Chinese). Then we went back inside and I asked the class what we did outside. Of course they responded that we danced and a few chimed in that we danced poorly. Then I took another student outside but closed the curtain on my way out. When we went back inside and I asked the class what we did outside, they responded that they couldn't see. From there we went on to discuss the US vs China in terms of transparency.
For those of you that aren't aware...the other day ProIndividual was banned from this forum.
I'm guessing he was banned for "excessively?" protesting against being banned from chat? But as a huge fan of transparency it feels weirdly wrong that I need to be guessing about why somebody was banned from a self-titled "Liberty Forum".
I'm curious why none of you anarchists have spoken up? Is it because you're scared of getting banned too? Is it because if he was justly banned then that demonstrates that an ultimate authority is necessary? Or is it because if he was unjustly banned then that demonstrates the danger of the private courts that you say that Ron Paul supports?
In my thread on the Redundancy Test I quoted Milton Friedman as saying..."If we can't persuade the public that it's desirable to do these things, then we have no right to impose them even if we had the power to do it."
Here in this "Freedom" community should we have to be convinced that it's "desirable" to ban a member? Or...is no convincing required? We'll take your word for it...? Wield your power as you see fit...?
On the other hand, Conza88 posted this thread...Democracy: The God that Failed [Ron Paul recommended] from which we get the idea that
Hmmm...since Congressmen are selected by means of popular elections......whereas both monarchies and democracies are deficient as states, democracy is worse than monarchy [...] In sharp contrast, the selection of government rulers by means of popular elections makes it essentially impossible for a harmless or decent person to ever rise to the top. Presidents and prime ministers come into their position as a result of their efficiency as morally uninhibited demagogues. Hence, democracy virtually assures that only dangerous men will rise to the top of government.
So given how authority is used on this forum should we say that the Freedom Forum is a democratic state...or a monarchy...or a dictatorship...or a model of the type of volunteer based society that so many of the anarchists on here say that Ron Paul supports?
I'm guessing many of us define liberty as the ability to do anything that does not violate the harm principle. In other words, the freedom to swing your fist ends where somebody else's nose begins. So did ProIndividual punch you in the nose? In other words...how long should he be banned for?