4 ms·

> Personally, I don't trust the government to do food regulation (FDA is reactionary and IMO corruptible), social safety net (Social Security has serious issues

> Personally, I don't trust the government to do food regulation (FDA is reactionary and IMO corruptible), social safety net (Social Security has serious issues), and defense (our military seems to be used more for offense, not defense). I accept your argument, but most people against net regulation generally have good opinions on food regulation agencies and the social safety net, so while you seem consistent, I have a feeling a lot of people aren't in this matter. I suspect the case is even greater for European countries, which do food regulation and social safety better than the US in many ways. Either way, it would follow that a government which does those things right could, in principle, regulate the net. I think the case is stronger when one considers that everyone except anarchists accepts the rule of law, and the democratic decision process to arrive to the law. I think it's very reasonable to say that there are government institutions that are run well, and those institutions have greater consequences than the regulation of the net. The real target of my criticism was the fact that people tend to engage in special pleading when it comes to regulating the net, or regulating speech, without much reason for it. Brison has argued that there is no meaningful metaphysical difference between what we class as "speech" and "action".

nyxtom 7y ago
Regulating a market is entirely different than regulating a right that preordains the existence of a nation state at all. We have the right to speech coded in law because it is meant to keep the state at bay - it isn’t given to us by the state, it exists apriori.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  >We have the right to speech coded in law because it is meant to keep the state at bay - it isn’t given to us by the state, it exists apriori. That's certainly true, but it's worth asking what the justification is for the 1st amendment, i.e. what makes speech so special (after all, we have lively debate on most other amendments, such as the 2nd and in the past the 18th), and to say that freedom of speech exists a priori is just as true of speech as it is any other action, including actions we would count as murder, or theft, etc.
  - nyxtom 7y ago
    The problem with this formulation is that all other laws, all other rights, only exist as a result of the first a-priori assumption: that you are allowed to engage in discussion of any idea. Without that, people self censor and can’t feel free to think. That isn’t to say that there are no regulations on content. Plenty of media has standards and regulations about how it produces content, rating systems for media, and a system of classifying content that is acceptable for different degrees. For instance, I could see better regulation around a rating system for YouTube content to prevent children from stumbling upon poor content. This is still different than banning speech.
- nyxtom 7y ago
  Speech is special because it is the only thing that a person can do in order to think and formulate a structure about the world outside of direct interaction. If you prevent people from being able to think stupidly then you prevent them from increasing that potential structure to a more articulated form. You can’t force people to think at a certain level, they have to discover this. Besides, who says what formulated structure of reality you come up with is the right one anyways? Seems a bit presumptuous. Action has consequence, this is certain. Thought has consequence only artificially. People have to be allowed to do this. If you don’t allow this, then they can’t think at all
nyxtom 7y ago
I wrote this a while ago but it seems relevant to the idea of distinguishing speech from action (e.g. the articulation about how action works vs the action itself) It is my view that the purpose of writing, talking, or producing content in any form is a way of furthering ones thoughts (or rather: to think). Thinking is more than just having something come to the surface and accepting it as is. Thinking is actually a system of steps to produce structure through: Allowing anything to come to the surface of realization To notice that it exists, or to take notice of a thought/realization Generate one-to-many sort of multi-dimensional avatars that represent something that can generate alternative countering arguments, agreeing statements, appeals, or even basic realization of whether content is germane Engage in a discussion that allows the conceptualization/realization to be advanced so that more structure is ultimately produced Thinking can be done in many ways. This system, when done only in your head, is actually quite difficult to do, and it's not obvious that you actually have all the information you need to construct some form of reality around what you're trying to do, although sometimes you do. Instead, one other way to think is to talk with other people. Talking to other people provides a space for exploration and thinking to be dynamic and interactive as a result of being able to rely on "other people's brains" to generate more realizations and avatars for countering arguments/agreements/appeals. This is also why it's important to allow people to speak freely when given the chance because if you aren't allowed to talk stupidly, then you won't be able to think, and if you can't think then you won't have any new additional structure to reality. If you don't have additional structure to reality (or the way things might be) then there is less potential that you will be able to manifest yourself appropriately in the space that is conducive for everyone to work productivly together.
- nyxtom 7y ago
  There’s also another idea about speech: Speech can be thought of as simulating action without having to actually do anything. Your thoughts die so you don’t have to.

nyxtom 7y ago

Regulating a market is entirely different than regulating a right that preordains the existence of a nation state at all. We have the right to speech coded in law because it is meant to keep the state at bay - it isn’t given to us by the state, it exists apriori.

claudiawerner 7y ago
>We have the right to speech coded in law because it is meant to keep the state at bay - it isn’t given to us by the state, it exists apriori. That's certainly true, but it's worth asking what the justification is for the 1st amendment, i.e. what makes speech so special (after all, we have lively debate on most other amendments, such as the 2nd and in the past the 18th), and to say that freedom of speech exists a priori is just as true of speech as it is any other action, including actions we would count as murder, or theft, etc.
- nyxtom 7y ago
  The problem with this formulation is that all other laws, all other rights, only exist as a result of the first a-priori assumption: that you are allowed to engage in discussion of any idea. Without that, people self censor and can’t feel free to think. That isn’t to say that there are no regulations on content. Plenty of media has standards and regulations about how it produces content, rating systems for media, and a system of classifying content that is acceptable for different degrees. For instance, I could see better regulation around a rating system for YouTube content to prevent children from stumbling upon poor content. This is still different than banning speech.
nyxtom 7y ago
Speech is special because it is the only thing that a person can do in order to think and formulate a structure about the world outside of direct interaction. If you prevent people from being able to think stupidly then you prevent them from increasing that potential structure to a more articulated form. You can’t force people to think at a certain level, they have to discover this. Besides, who says what formulated structure of reality you come up with is the right one anyways? Seems a bit presumptuous. Action has consequence, this is certain. Thought has consequence only artificially. People have to be allowed to do this. If you don’t allow this, then they can’t think at all

nyxtom 7y ago

I wrote this a while ago but it seems relevant to the idea of distinguishing speech from action (e.g. the articulation about how action works vs the action itself) It is my view that the purpose of writing, talking, or producing content in any form is a way of furthering ones thoughts (or rather: to think). Thinking is more than just having something come to the surface and accepting it as is. Thinking is actually a system of steps to produce structure through: Allowing anything to come to the surface of realization To notice that it exists, or to take notice of a thought/realization Generate one-to-many sort of multi-dimensional avatars that represent something that can generate alternative countering arguments, agreeing statements, appeals, or even basic realization of whether content is germane Engage in a discussion that allows the conceptualization/realization to be advanced so that more structure is ultimately produced Thinking can be done in many ways. This system, when done only in your head, is actually quite difficult to do, and it's not obvious that you actually have all the information you need to construct some form of reality around what you're trying to do, although sometimes you do. Instead, one other way to think is to talk with other people. Talking to other people provides a space for exploration and thinking to be dynamic and interactive as a result of being able to rely on "other people's brains" to generate more realizations and avatars for countering arguments/agreements/appeals. This is also why it's important to allow people to speak freely when given the chance because if you aren't allowed to talk stupidly, then you won't be able to think, and if you can't think then you won't have any new additional structure to reality. If you don't have additional structure to reality (or the way things might be) then there is less potential that you will be able to manifest yourself appropriately in the space that is conducive for everyone to work productivly together.

nyxtom 7y ago
There’s also another idea about speech: Speech can be thought of as simulating action without having to actually do anything. Your thoughts die so you don’t have to.