Libertarianism/individual freedom

[Rhyfelwyr]

OK, to try to turn this thread in a more positive direction, I will try to suggest some alternatives to the libertarian system I am complaining about.

In my ideal world, or perhaps state, there would be a confederacy of many smaller societies. I find the libertarian world of today is not ideal for many people. They want to live in a society which reflects their ideals, rather than having them confined to the private sphere. The libertarian ideal of inidividual freedom is noble, but as I said earlier, we are a social species, and much of our life is carried out in the public rather than the private sphere. Therefore, I think people would have true freedom (in that their ideals may be realised in the public and not just private sphere) if they could choose to form their own autonomous societies and have their own laws, education systems, etc.

For an example, well I think perhaps America in the early days of its colonisation works somewhat. There, people weren't forced to comply to a libertarian society. If you were a Puritan, you could go to Massachusetts, take their declaration of faith, and live in a society governed by Puritan laws. Even within this Puritan society there were further mini-societies to pick from. For example New Plymouth, a colony run on communalist principles, had its own system of governance, and provided an outlet for the Diggers who were unable to have their own society back in England. Of course, if you were not a Puritan, you could go and colonise other areas.

So, instead of me just complaining, maybe if people put forward their ideas it will generate some discussion. I am of course being very idealistic here and I realise my ideas are far from practical, but why not get a bit philosophical every once in a while?

[Beskar]

Problem with Total Freedom of Speech, is that some people believe absolutely everything some people say, and you get in the murky water of people for pure example: Some one purposefully accuses an .org member sitting around bushes near children playing on swings to discredit them/give them a bad name. Them and others keep attacking this .org member, even though this .org member doesn't do it and attempts to defend themself, they are soon vocally outmatched and ostracised from the .org.

Anyway one has played a mafia-game knows about these types of bandwagons.

Freedom goes towards, freedom to do something, freedom against something.

Freedom to do intelligent and damaging critiques based on fact. Freedom against racism, lander/libel, hate campaigns based on false information.

[Craterus]

Problem with Total Freedom of Speech, is that some people believe absolutely everything some people say, and you get in the murky water of people for pure example: Some one purposefully accuses an .org member sitting around bushes near children playing on swings to discredit them/give them a bad name. Them and others keep attacking this .org member, even though this .org member doesn't do it and attempts to defend themself, they are soon vocally outmatched and ostracised from the .org.

Anyway one has played a mafia-game knows about these types of bandwagons.

Freedom goes towards, freedom to do something, freedom against something.

Freedom to do intelligent and damaging critiques based on fact. Freedom against racism, lander/libel, hate campaigns based on false information.

It's pretty obvious where certain freedoms are starting to impinge on other's freedoms there though. The Harm Principle isn't difficult to understand.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Problem with Total Freedom of Speech, is that some people believe absolutely everything some people say, and you get in the murky water of people for pure example: Some one purposefully accuses an .org member sitting around bushes near children playing on swings to discredit them/give them a bad name. Them and others keep attacking this .org member, even though this .org member doesn't do it and attempts to defend themself, they are soon vocally outmatched and ostracised from the .org.

But freedom of speech also allows him to stand up for himself. You don't give people enough credit - some will believe the fictional version of events, but most people are rational and have common sense.

[Beskar]

But freedom of speech also allows him to stand up for himself. You don't give people enough credit - some will believe the fictional version of events, but most people are rational and have common sense.

You have more optimisms then what I do. I wish I could agree with the statement.

Freedom of Speech allows him to stand-up for himself, but during a vicious hate-campaign, it is akin to pee-ing in the wind. Have you ever seen what happens when the media decide to turn on some one? Ever seen what happens when the media decides to praise some one? End of the day, the person has almost be judged, tried and found guilty in the eyes of the public.

Freedom of Speech doesn't stop authoritarian institutions, but does help a lot against them, which is why I would still support it. Though, If people were rational and have common sense, the world would be a far greater place

[Centurion1]

but when does freedom of speech begin to harm society. In a perfect world we could have total freedom of speech, but at some point you need to set some ground rules down for the good of society.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm interested no one has mentioned personal restraint at all as far as I can see.

[Furunculus]

You have more optimisms then what I do. I wish I could agree with the statement.

Freedom of Speech allows him to stand-up for himself, but during a vicious hate-campaign, it is akin to pee-ing in the wind. Have you ever seen what happens when the media decide to turn on some one? Ever seen what happens when the media decides to praise some one? End of the day, the person has almost be judged, tried and found guilty in the eyes of the public.

Freedom of Speech doesn't stop authoritarian institutions, but does help a lot against them, which is why I would still support it. Though, If people were rational and have common sense, the world would be a far greater place

maybe its a mis-characterisation on my part, i always percieve lefty politics as pessimistic and with zero trust in humans to get along without guidelines, strictures, and conditioning.

[Beskar]

maybe its a mis-characterisation on my part, i always percieve lefty politics as pessimistic and with zero trust in humans to get along without guidelines, strictures, and conditioning.

It depends. Individuality with people, on a grander scale, I think it is a possibility on what I deducted is "right" to occur. It is only realistic to know that if I stood up saying what to do as an end result, I will be shot down to pieces by 60 odd people, on this sub-forum alone, never mind at a political congress. Many criticisms would be the practicality, if not ideological opposition, and many people cannot see the steps and stages part, but only looking at end results which right now, would be completely unviable.

Aren't politics inherently pessimistic? I as a whole, see many laws as pointless and if anything, against the idea of laws (I approve of rights though). On the downside, some of these are in place to deter people, and they are 100% successful in that either.

In a sense, I wish I was more egocentric as in, I believe this can be a certain way, as by "people" I mean those just like myself, think on the same morale beliefs and guidelines as I do. Unfortunately, I am quite empathic and I know exactly that people aren't like me.

In many ways, a conditioning which occurs to us everyday and everywhere, needs to be conducted in some way to help people go along the path to obtain some characteristics. It is a powerful tool that can be used for good purposes, or evil purposes.

More towards your point, I will comment on each bit.

Guidelines: Are these bad? From your mother saying not to put your hand in acid, to packaging saying "this substance is flammable". I be honest, I need need more specification on what you mean, because I am failing to see how this is bad.

Strictures: "A rule restricting behaviour or action" this can be summed up as "Do not murder". I think we can all agree there are restrictions on behaviour. On one-hand, to me and you, I know going out into the streets murdering bystanders is a pretty much a good thing to have a rule against. What I think you are meaning, is regulation of sorts or more personal affairs? The left is pretty open, a quote a youtube video I saw ages ago,in reference to sex for example.. I can't seem to find it at the moment, so I will edit in later if I do... however, main message is what people do in the bedroom is not my business, it is not your business, it is not our business, etc. It is generally what is classed as ont he right, with especially the religious ones that do believe on strictures in these regards.

Conditioning: We are conditioned constantly, right now, on the TV, in magazines and newspapers. We cannot be helped but be conditioned. As for outright conditioning, I propose a model which gets you thinking, and legitimises certain points of view, such as the value of human life, etc through your own understanding, actually getting people to develop these thoughts, opposed to just telling then, and shutting them up.

[Furunculus]

i guess it hangs on:
1. a value judgment on the degree of micromanaging that is required to effect a given level of social control
2. a value judgment on the how much anarchy is permissible vs how much interference is tolerable to the individual
3. a value judgment on how appropriate it is to try and exercise social control via government legislation & mandate

my answers to the above:
1. not much, people are inherently good, and the longer their shared cultural history the easier they will rub along
2. quite a lot, do whatever you want as long as you don't scare the horses (within the confines of common law)
3. very inappropriate, as the state is very ineffective at achieving social cohesion, and often makes things worse

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

You have more optimisms then what I do. I wish I could agree with the statement.

Freedom of speech is akin to pee-ing in the wind. Have you ever seen what happens when the media decide to turn on some one? Ever seen what happens when the media decides to praise some one? End of the day, the person has almost be judged, tried and found guilty in the eyes of the public.

The fact that in areas with extensive freedom of speech that National Socialists and Communists have been pushed to the margins rather proves my point. People aren't stupid. I would remind you that you are one of them. What gives the government the right to control what I say? Why should someone else tell me what I cannot say? There is no good reason for it.

[Beskar]

The fact that in areas with extensive freedom of speech that National Socialists and Communists have been pushed to the margins rather proves my point. People aren't stupid. I would remind you that you are one of them. What gives the government the right to control what I say? Why should someone else tell me what I cannot say? There is no good reason for it.

Don't worry, I wasn't advocating against freedom of speech, I was merely pointing out how it can be abused. Freedom of Speech is better than the alternative. With freedom of speech, you can listen to what people are saying, allowing you to understand their situation or feeling better, thus, can hopefully be improved, or relevance facts and information can be provided to assist them form alternatives if what they are saying is too incorrect.

[Kralizec]

For an example, well I think perhaps America in the early days of its colonisation works somewhat. There, people weren't forced to comply to a libertarian society. If you were a Puritan, you could go to Massachusetts, take their declaration of faith, and live in a society governed by Puritan laws. Even within this Puritan society there were further mini-societies to pick from. For example New Plymouth, a colony run on communalist principles, had its own system of governance, and provided an outlet for the Diggers who were unable to have their own society back in England. Of course, if you were not a Puritan, you could go and colonise other areas.

The Netherlands had a long period of what we call pillarization. It wasn't so much a society as a whole bunch of voluntarily self-segregating parts.
I'm glad it was all over by the time I was born.