5 ms·
Public squares are also owned by the public and managed by the government. Does that mean the government should be able to pick and choose which viewpoints are
by scarmig 9y ago
Public squares are also owned by the public and managed by the government. Does that mean the government should be able to pick and choose which viewpoints are valid enough to use the public square, for the sake of the public good?
- nemo44x 9y agoThey already do. You are given a permit and if it's judged to be out of hand and a threat to the public then they can and do force the crowd to disperse. This happens all the time.
- mindslight 9y agoSo, one manner in which rights are violated is justification for another? The idea of that a "permit" could be possibly required to exercise one's "rights" is a nonsensical Orwellian sleight of hand - if something is a right, then one does not need permission! Your comments seem to be advocating for democratic totalitarianism, which is directly opposed the concept of individual rights.
- nemo44x 9y agoYou sound like an anarchist. If you want to organize a group of people to use a public facility you need to request a permit. This is so that proper actions can be taken to make the event safe and to ensure that others have not planned access to that resource for that day. The state can not refuse to give a permit because of the content of the protest or organization - that would be a rights violation. However, if the gathering becomes unruly and dangerous to the public then of course it can be broken up. You are now violating the rights of others and that's where your rights end. Society and civilization does not survive in chaos.
- mindslight 9y agoAny advocating for distributed power is going to sound like "anarchy" to someone thinking in a centralized paradigm. But despite our tendency to explain things by creating singular narratives, society is not a top-down entity. "Dangerous to the public" is simply one of the standard refrains used by groups in power looking to suppress others under the color of law. It's easy to argue that dissent should be contained when you're part of the majority.
- nemo44x 9y agoDemocracy is distributed power. Dissent has its voice in a democracy but should also respect that it is a not a majority opinion. It should work to peacefully persuade enough of its virtue to become the oppressive majority. Otherwise it's totalitarianism.
- ThrustVectoring 9y agoThere's more than one kind of power. Democracy has one power available to it - the ability to make people submit to the laws they pass and enforce. There's another type: the ability to do things and reshape the environment in the ways you want. Call it "agency" instead. Democracy isn't necessarily conducive to fostering agency.
- mindslight 9y agoDemocracy is distributed voice, but its power is centralized. It invites every one of us to fashion ourselves as mini-autocrats, and then bicker over which specific top-down vision should be implemented. > It [dissent] should work to peacefully persuade enough of its virtue to become the oppressive majority The existence of my rights does not depend on my ability to convince a majority that I have those rights. Your assertion sounds like someone who comfortably enjoys the power of the majority, lording it over the oppressed. > Otherwise it's totalitarianism Democracy and totalitarianism are orthogonal, but most adherents of democracy seem to fall back on totalitarianism, because they mistakenly believe that having a voice is sufficient freedom. In actuality, tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. Which is why we have the concept of rights that can be appealed to beyond whatever the local mob decides.
- scarmig 9y agoThat's policing actions, not the content of the messaging. Obviously setting fire in a movie theater is something policed, because it's not a purely communicative action.