4 ms·

> ...I am not aware of any single system of ethics where free speech is a higher value than preventing all forms of intimidation. I'm not sure how you define "

• pron 11y ago
  > but systems that eschew relativity and focus on universal principles (as defined by the philosophy) are more likely to value freedom over prior restraint. Every system of ethics contains a relative ordering of values (the alternative is having a single value or none) to decide how to act when values conflict. "Freedom" is not such a well-defined (single) value -- i.e. it contains internal contradictions -- and therefore requires finer-grained prioritization at the very least, because all it implies is a lack of restraint, which is impossible in a system with more than one principal (two individuals can't both be completely unrestrained as it yields a logical contradiction: one is either allowed to restrain the other or not, either choice contradicts lack of restraint). In short, anarcho-capitalism most certainly doesn't value speech over freedom from intimidation absolutely. It might have different relative priorities of different forms of speech vs. different forms or measures of intimidation. But this is just a difference in measure. An example that requires resolving the contradiction with prioritization is as follows: am I allowed to say, "if you deny evolution, I will stab you"? Prohibiting this speech is a restriction of speech, and allowing this speech is also a restriction of speech (and bear in mind that every kind of law requires intimidation for enforcement -- otherwise laws are not laws, but voluntary behavior -- so we have two options here, both involving intimidation, and both involving speech). This applies even in anarchic systems that don't have laws at all, up until the point that you get an anarchic system that has no values (other than individual values). The latter, BTW, is my personal preference, but short of that I prefer a socialist liberal democracy. Any system that places the limit at physical violence (basically all American-style libertarian thought) seems to me to be both arbitrary and not truly anarchic (i.e. far from free). And if we can't have true anarchy, we might as well prioritize freedoms in a more principled way. Drawing a single line at physical violence to me seems not only arbitrary but ignorant of how social systems work (both human and animal), where freedoms are often restrained but only rarely through physical violence (and commonly through intimidation). This can be easily observed empirically.
  • woodman 11y ago
    > Every system of ethics contains a relative ordering of values... > ...anarcho-capitalism most certainly doesn't value speech over freedom from intimidation absolutely. It has been several years since I last gave this a lot of thought, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I only remember one universal principle in anarcho-capitalism: aggression is immoral. From that single precept every other value is derived - property rights, self ownership, etc. As I said, it has been a while, but I do remember being impressed by the logical consistency. So do you have a contradiction that you can point to? > ...am I allowed to say, "if you deny evolution, I will stab you"? Yes. I don't understand how you view that as a restriction on free speech, maybe the point of confusion is around your use of the word "allowed" - because there is no central authority to grant permission in a state of anarchy. > This applies even in anarchic systems that don't have laws at all, up until the point that you get an anarchic system that has no values (other than individual values). An anarchic system that has laws is not an anarchic system... maybe this is another hint at the point of confusion. Anarcho-capitalism is not really a form of governance, it is a philosophy that informs thinking related to interaction between individuals. It leads to a highly distributed system of justice, where each individual relies upon their own system of ethics to mete out justice - you decide if you want to do business with murders or those who consort with murders. I am very interested to hear about any logical inconsistencies you've found, because absent that your first two paragraphs are totally wrong.
    • pron 11y ago
      > I do remember being impressed by the logical consistency While I'm very fond of anarchism (not its libertarian interpretations), I've always find its libertarian forms completely inconsistent (and very, very restrictive and far from free) under a guise of consistency (and freedom). The key is that everything can look consistent if you ignore the facts. It's ethics for spherical cows, and it's not simple but simplistic. Every ethics begins that way, but then there are lots of complications that stem from how the world works. Libertarian anarchism stops there, at the logic stage. It describes a consistent model -- for spherical cows -- and chooses not to examine whether the model fits the real world. The main issue is what constitutes aggression. A clever teenager could say, "let's draw the line at physical harm!" but an educated scientist knows that physical aggression is rare, and is only used in those circumstances where common aggression fails. Common aggression works by intimidation (as I've shown -- even in the animal kingdom) and emergent social forces (like economics). You can only draw those arbitrary lines if you choose not to study aggression. If you choose not to learn something, then everything seems simple and consistent because it remains a Platonic ideal. Once you study aggression and see how it really works you realize that preventing aggression requires a very intricate ethics. Which is why I'm for anarchism without false and arbitrary restrictions on aggression (which only serve to increase it in its common forms), or an intricate system of ethics and law that serves to really reduce aggression, but is a far cry from anarchy. Just to very quickly explain the difference, in a real anarchy, the threat of physical harm must always be present to offset other forms of aggression. If it isn't, there's no balance in the system. The rich can inflict economic aggression without fear of reprecussion. Once you add "no-agression" to anarchy, you've basically created a very lopsided, very non-free, and a very inconsistent system. > Yes. I don't understand how you view that as a restriction on free speech, maybe the point of confusion is around your use of the word "allowed" - because there is no central authority to grant permission in a state of anarchy. I used the word "allowed" loosely in this case, to mean a combination of ethics and a possible enforcement structure. The belief that only a central authority grants permission is a common mistake among libertarians, that, as I said, stop at the logical reasoning stage and don't examine the facts. Centralized government is a recent invention, at least in the Western world -- 400 years or so (that the Roman Empire appears to us like a central authority is an anachronism based on extrapolation from what we know). Yet enforcement has existed throughout human history in much more diffuse ways. Now, back to the example. So you say it's OK to say, "if you deny evolution, I will stab you". Fine. Now what happens when I deny evolution? If I know you'll never stab me then there must be some enforcement at play. But that means that I know your threat to be empty to begin with, and so no intimidation took place. In the real world, that's not the case. The possibility that you will stab me is always on the table. If so, stabbing me for denying evolution is most certainly a restriction of my free speech. And if that option exists, intimidating me with the threat also restricts my free speech. > It leads to a highly distributed system of justice, where each individual relies upon their own system of ethics to mete out justice Because that's how human society existed until not too long ago, it isn't some thought exercise, and we know how that looks in practice. That is a form of governance, but without a central authority. > your first two paragraphs are totally wrong No, they are not. Your confusion stems from the anachronistic conflation of laws with a central state. Laws are rules based on ethics with some enforcement mechanism. That enforcement can be excommunication. In fact, that was the primary form of enforcement until not long ago. A highly distributed system of justice was the norm (again, at least in the West; I haven't studied the history of Asia).