How/why Liberals Attack Free Speech

J2

I will take a peek in my small but excellent local library, they can usually procure most things for me.

I am aware of some of the background and, with the Rosenberg case and the backdrop of the Korean war not going particualrly well after the Chinese intervention, there was a natural sense of unease in the corridors of power that things were unravelling.

However, by the Professor's own yard stick much that occurred during the McCarthy period would/should? be considered a roll back of personal liberty and freedom. To be black-listed and prevented from working because of affiliations to a political point of view (which, like Fascism, was actually slightly trendy back in the 20s and 30s) is hardly an example of the model he is seeking to develop.

With regards Liberal vs Libertarian, I have never really understood the US intrepretation of Liberal. In Europe, Liberals tend to be the party of small businesses, Conservatives the party of big business and the Socialists the party of the worker. Perhaps one of the greatest Libertarians thinkers, J. S. Mill, was a Liberal.

I have no problem with John's definition above and I think perhaps the question regarding child pornography is ill thought out. By definition, the property (body) of another has been exploited without consent and therefore has broken the guiding principle of Libertarianism. As I understand it (from talking to a Libertarian back in my University days) where there is consent there is no crime. If a woman chooses to be a prostitute the contract between her and her client is of no concern to anyone else (well the Inland Revenue might have a call). If she is a prostitute through force then the crime is commited by the Pimp not the woman. I find this to be reasonably consistent thinking.

I tend to view Libertarianism much like Anarchy. I like it when I see it written down but in actual fact the logic of both would suggest that a poltical party to oversee implementation is in fact a redundant concept. I suspect they are ideals that will only be achieved through some kind of evolutionary development that transcends our current flesh. Although the idea of personal property is strong in Libertarian thinking and perhaps separates it at face value from the collective ownership advocated in Anarchy, I think the gulf between the two is narrower than first appears. Global multi-nationals are not the embodiment of Libertarian ideals and can in themselves deprive and crush the small owner of property. My view is that there may come a time when the two positions will merge and collective ownership and individual ownership will appear one and the same (a bit like those quarks that can occupy two places at the same time).

"You may say I am I dreamer but I am not the only one" - think I will go and light a joss stick now :D

vidcc of course I + the views of the Libertarian party are strongly AGAINST any form of abuse against children, including child porn!! People who take advantage of kids in that terrible way are should die slow and painful deaths!

biggles
How could you say the question was ill thought out?. It doesn't matter if there was no consent in the act of making the vile film, the fact is that it is there and the question was would they censor it (which thankfully they would).
i doubt if there was consent in films where people have been killed, but we don't censor those instead we lable them as "news"
fortunatly the media on the whole knows where to draw the line, but what about the war footage released by the USA military forces. One could argue that they were rightious acts of war but what if the person crossing that bridge had been a civilian? could we have known for sure at the height of the plane? where was his consent to being filmed ?
Many times on the news i have seen the bodies of dead people, where was their consent to show such disrespect to the remains and what about the family of those victims?
how do you define what is actually a crime "against the body", it all depends on where you live. In the UK there are several men in prison for making an S&M video. They wern't arested because they made the video instead the video was used in evidence against them when the police charged them with assalt. The ruling was that the assalt took place even though all of the men involved gave express consent.
Porography in itself is not always consentual. There have been cases where girls have been bought into a country via illegal immigration and have been forced into prositution and pornography...how could you tell the difference?
without establishment control what is to stop someone broadcasting deep throat on unscrambled national TV at 3 in the afternoon? I think all but the sickest mind would not agree to something like that happening.
My question was rasied on the fact that they are against "all censorship" and he included pornogrphy in his example so i chose a particularly vile type of porn as a question and the point was "well it's out there, should it be censored when we disagree with censorship"

Vidcc

I simply thought the answer was self evident from his definition of what constituted Libertarian thinking. However, I have, as I said, spoken to Liberatarians before so perhaps I brought a priori knowledge into the discussion and what was apparent to me was not immediately discerable from the text above.

With regards what should and should not be shown on TV, or in the media, is an interesting question. Should Africans be shown starving to death. I recall back in the 60s people complained that it was distressing to see Biafrans starving, although the implication was that it didn't much matter if they starved they just simply didn't want to see. I personally don't want a sanitised TV experience, I would prefer to see the world, warts and all. Wars with no dead bodies makes war look fun and clean and easily repeatable. It patently is not.

The question regarding sex on TV leaves me non-plussed. I have no strong feelings on the subject but it has always struck me as odd that children are shielded from a natural function of being a mammal but are almost, it would seem, encouraged to watch violent programmes. I think if a channel did show oral sex at 3 o'clock in the afternoon my reaction would be 'there is an off button'. I do not watch programmes I don't want to see. No one forces us to read books, watch films or television or go to art galleries to see disturbing conceptual art. So in that respect I agree with John, censorship can over reach itself.

Are those gentlemen still in jail? I recall the case from some years ago. I cannot imagine why they are still hosted at (considerable) taxpayers expense for simply giving each other pleasure, no matter how bizarre we may find their particular bent. There are hardened criminals who have been in and out of jail in less time.

You would appear to be arguing for extremely tight controls on absolutely everything. In which case although I do not share your view I can respect your position.

However, I do accept that you may simply be posing a general question regarding where a line should be drawn over censorship. In which case I would reply we in the UK have a little way to go yet but things are certainly a lot better than they were say in the 60s/70s when the satirical magazine Oz was tried under the obscenities laws for work that had a clearly political edge.

biggles.
yes it is a general question about where the line should be drawn, and i believe even in the one party there will be conflicting views as to where that line should be.
I am not argueing for tight controls on everything at all...in my original post i stated that even though i don't particularly want to look at porn i don't want to be told i can't.
What worries me about the Liberatarians stance is that it may be too far to the right to be acceptable. You in the Uk ( i was born and raised there ) have a watershed on the tv. after 9 pm. more adult content is allowed because children should be in bed. I don't think that the content should be tamed down because certain households lack parental discipline. You did mention the off button, i have had that view for many years and i still do, if i don't want to watch something i just don't watch it. that said the media carries a great reponsibility to practice restriant appropriately. I totally agree that there is too much violence portrayed on TV and movies that children get exposed to, but again i too wouldn't like a sanitised only TV.
Here in the States there is a lot of talk about freedom, in many ways they are a lot less free than in the Uk, but in some ways they are free to do things that would be considered insane in the UK...firearms is an example.
Freedom of speech without interference from government or authority in leiu of is important in all democratic society, but the nature of man makes it a very dangerous thing as well.
Tight control....NO WAY....reasonable control....well what is reasonable anyway? but i would rather live in a society where i don't have to sit with my kids every time they do watch TV just in case there is something bad on.
As for the convicted S&M men....i have no idea if they are out on parole/released or if they begged to be locked up with the mad anal rapist for a bit longer...it was just a point as to what is considered a crime against the body is different in all cultures.....here it could be different depending on which state you live in.

Biggles


I find it upsetting and unfortunate for you to compare the views of Libertarians with any form of anarchy! Libertarians promote freedom to the greatest extent possible!


Here is a Statement of true Libertarian principles:


We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

Vidcc

Yous last makes your position much clearer, and a reasonable and balanced position it is too. You are right there will always be conflicts, even within oneself, regarding what is and is not allowable. I believe in free speech but there have always been a couple of politicians that have me reaching for the off button after only a couple of words. :D

John

Anarchy tends to be associated with fringe lunatics with a penchant to blow things up. However, the intellectual body of work, notably Gramsci, but others too, also spoke at length about the oppression of the state and freedom of the individual. Your first two points would be music to their ears. Libertarians only really part company with Anarchists at point 3 of your piece. Anarchists also believe that property ultimately enslaves people and should be shared collectively (not owned by the State, as was the case in the Soviet Union). The logic being that if we all collectively own the wealth then we are all rich.

The difficulty of course is that although as a theoretical concept it looks good, practice is a tad tricky - in much the same that Libertarians find Governments determinedly reluctant to relinquish power.

Although the current Bush administration has perhaps lessened some of the general tax burden, measures taken by Ashcroft et al could hardly be described as loosening the grip of the authority of the State. In fairness to them they would probably not describe themselves as Libertarians. So in that respect and with a casual nod towards the thread topic, it is not just liberals who erode freedoms. I suspect the good Professor with his "natural moral order" would seek to control people just as much - only in a different way (or as he would see it, the right way :rolleyes: )

john.
i am following your views with great interest. On the face of it the policy does seem attractive and admirable and yes they do stop short of total anarchy ( i will have to look for a copy of all the party policies ).
I am not in any way as far right as you, nor am i a far left socialist (a socialist is someone that has nothing and wants to share it with you) i tend to take a middle ground. The first reading had me thinking of the lord of the flies.
The idea of a free market is something that holds very strong here in the states and would it would be as hard to change that view as it would be to convince the pope that there is no God. That said i feel that sometimes certain things in national hands are more benificial. In the Uk the main utilities used to be in the hands of the Government i shall use water for this example.
Mrs. Thatcher decided in her wisdom that instead of using taxpayers money to pay for needed modernisation she would privatise the utility so that private money would pay for it. The share price was set at a bargain and many people bought shares to make a fast "buck"...they sold them at twice the purchase price, now the companies are in the hands of corporations. the money for the modernisation didn't come from the companies, it came from increased water bills, therefore maximising profit and minimising investment (the whole idea of business).
The point is that the consumer can in certain areas ultimately pay a heavy price for the free market. In the case of water they have no other choice but to buy from the company.
Just look at the cost of healthcare in our country.
I am all for the free market but it can run hand in hand with with the general social good. If there was a sudden lack of water in the country and one person has a well then i feel that the well should be used to keep others alive.
I believe though that the meaning behind the policy is that you shouldn't have to go to war to secure oil supplies for a few corporations profit margins which i fully agree with.
Should a Libertarian party come to power i would hope that they look after the interests of all as well as the individual. Would you have a consumers rights policy? and if so how would you administer it without interference of the free market ethics? how would you decide who would run it and just how much power it would have?
Government has its place and it has areas where it doesn't belong and i do believe you are genuinely on track in many things on this particular post (free speech) and are trying to seperate governing from interference.
There are winners and losers in any system, i just feel that the system you promote might make more indiviual losers that winners. That said i haven't read a complete copy so i have no idea what your social safety net would be.

One thing i have always found amusing is that the USA is very vocal in promoting its way of life as being better than everyone elses (this is a generalisation) yet we insist on the right to bear arms to protect ourselves from our democratically elected government :lol:

Biggles

Quote:

---

Anarchists also believe that property ultimately enslaves people and should be shared collectively (not owned by the State, as was the case in the Soviet Union). The logic being that if we all collectively own the wealth then we are all rich.

---

Libertarians DO NOT believe that property enslaves people!!!!!!! :ermm:
Or that it should be shared collectively like communists!!!! :angry: THE SUGGESTION OF THAT MAKES ME FEEL SICK. :fear: :x

Libertarians strongly support the rights of owners of private property to the greatest extent... WE CONDEMN EXCESSIVE GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN INDIVIDUALS PRIVATE PROPERTY... (SUCH AS TAXATION)




The Right to Property (libertarian outlook) :beerchug:

There is no conflict between property rights and human rights. Indeed, property rights are the rights of humans with respect to property, and as such, are entitled to the same respect and protection as all other human rights.

All rights are inextricably linked with property rights. Such rights as the freedom from involuntary servitude as well as the freedom of speech and the freedom of press are based on self-ownership. Our bodies are our property every bit as much as is justly acquired land or material objects.

We further hold that the owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade done in the name of national security. We also condemn current government efforts to regulate or ban the use of property in the name of aesthetic values, riskiness, moral standards, cost-benefit estimates, or the promotion or restriction of economic growth. We specifically condemn all government interference in the operation of private businesses, such as restaurants and airlines, by either requiring or prohibiting designated smoking or non-smoking areas for their employees or their customers.

We demand an end to the taxation of privately owned real property, which actually makes the State the owner of all lands and forces individuals to rent their homes and places of business from the State. We condemn attempts to employ eminent domain to municipalize sports teams or to try to force them to stay in their present location.

Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.

I LOVE DEBATING THIS WITH YOU GUYS AND I CAN SEE WE DIFFER ON SOME ISSUES BUT AGREE WITH MANY OTHERS :D