4 ms·

> Do we want hammers to be restricted to only those whose political ideologies align with ours? Do you want a hardware store to have a "free fertilizer for whi

> Do we want hammers to be restricted to only those whose political ideologies align with ours? Do you want a hardware store to have a "free fertilizer for white supremacists" sign? Sorry for the extreme example. Point I'm trying to make is, at a certain point, yes, we want to restrict things based on political ideology, and always have. The question is where and how to draw that line, and, the process we currently use to do that is public discussion, civil society, and democratic government. So I think it's perfectly appropriate to talk and think about this.

lliamander 6y ago
> Do you want a hardware store to have a "free fertilizer for white supremacists" sign? That would be explicitly promoting an ideology through commercial action, which is pretty much the opposite of what I see the OP advocating for. > Point I'm trying to make is, at a certain point, yes, we want to restrict things based on political ideology, and always have. Who is this "we"?
- bArray 6y ago
  > That would be explicitly promoting an ideology through > commercial action, which is pretty much the opposite of > what I see the OP advocating for. Exactly. There is a major difference between neutrality and support. But let's re-imagine this. The person walks into the hardware store and expresses aloud "I plan to use this for dubious purposes". Then this person has expressed illegal intent and the store owner should inform the authorities, if nothing else for their own safety. > Who is this "we"? Somebody who believes they are in the category of being a "good" person. Almost everybody believes they are in this group, not matter what "side" they are on.
  - lliamander 6y ago
    > But let's re-imagine this. The person walks into the hardware store and expresses aloud "I plan to use this for dubious purposes". Then this person has expressed illegal intent and the store owner should inform the authorities, if nothing else for their own safety. I agree, though I'm not sure I have good words to describe an operating principle that would allow one to sell a hammer to an coal company but would allow one to deny a hammer to someone declaring their intent to commit assault with it. You could say something like "I will sell to anyone for any lawful purpose", but then you get into questions like "what about lawful behavior that I consider to be a grave wrong?". The devil is in the details. In general, I think the solution is free association. The problem I see is that there are some very cynical third parties out there attacking their ideological foes at an economic level, by using social manipulation to direct other people's free associations in a coordinated manner to push those foes out of normal economic life altogether. I say these third parties are cynical, because if Autodesk did stop working with the coal industry these third parties would defend Autodesk's right to "free association" in that choice, but those same third parties would happily use force of law to ban Autodesk from doing business with the coal industry if they could. >> Who is this "we"? > Somebody who believes they are in the category of being a "good" person. Almost everybody believes they are in this group, not matter what "side" they are on. This pretense of consensus is one such rhetorical device of the social manipulators.
    - adamsea 6y ago
      It’s complicated, no doubt. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colo... The point I’m trying to make is that because these things are complicated, I think that discourse around them is valuable. And “we” - members of a relatively democratic society and citizens of a relatively democratic government - are a part of that discourse, although I suppose we can choose to remove ourselves from it if we want. As I’m pretty sure that every person has moral beliefs of one kind or another, and politics is a tool for enforcing consensus on human society (even if it’s a negative consensus not do do something - like, not limit speech), thus, on one level or another I think it’s fair to say that every person has a series of moral and political beliefs - an ideology. So if someone doesn’t want the government to place any restrictions on who can buy what, that is a political ideology they would like to see established in law. I suppose maybe certain Buddhists or people with a very well developed philosophy of deliberate disengagement from human society may not fit the bill. But otherwise, I stand by my “we” statement which, I hope it’s now clear, isn’t a rhetorical trick about consensus, unless that consensus is that human beings live in societies and believe things and societies figure out ways to create rules based on some of those beliefs.
- adamsea 6y ago
  Fair. It was not the best example. The comment below creates a better thought-experiment. For the purposes of the discussion “we” is everyone. Or all US citizens if you prefer to focus on a political entity. Even total libertarians want to restrict others from restricting them, no? I don’t think that last bit is a challenging statement. Think about it. I’m pretty sure pretty much everyone believes there should be some sort of law, though there’s disagreement about what laws should be. And any law is ultimately an expression of a political belief. Politics in the sense of society deciding how to regulate itself.

lliamander 6y ago

> Do you want a hardware store to have a "free fertilizer for white supremacists" sign? That would be explicitly promoting an ideology through commercial action, which is pretty much the opposite of what I see the OP advocating for. > Point I'm trying to make is, at a certain point, yes, we want to restrict things based on political ideology, and always have. Who is this "we"?

bArray 6y ago
> That would be explicitly promoting an ideology through > commercial action, which is pretty much the opposite of > what I see the OP advocating for. Exactly. There is a major difference between neutrality and support. But let's re-imagine this. The person walks into the hardware store and expresses aloud "I plan to use this for dubious purposes". Then this person has expressed illegal intent and the store owner should inform the authorities, if nothing else for their own safety. > Who is this "we"? Somebody who believes they are in the category of being a "good" person. Almost everybody believes they are in this group, not matter what "side" they are on.
- lliamander 6y ago
  > But let's re-imagine this. The person walks into the hardware store and expresses aloud "I plan to use this for dubious purposes". Then this person has expressed illegal intent and the store owner should inform the authorities, if nothing else for their own safety. I agree, though I'm not sure I have good words to describe an operating principle that would allow one to sell a hammer to an coal company but would allow one to deny a hammer to someone declaring their intent to commit assault with it. You could say something like "I will sell to anyone for any lawful purpose", but then you get into questions like "what about lawful behavior that I consider to be a grave wrong?". The devil is in the details. In general, I think the solution is free association. The problem I see is that there are some very cynical third parties out there attacking their ideological foes at an economic level, by using social manipulation to direct other people's free associations in a coordinated manner to push those foes out of normal economic life altogether. I say these third parties are cynical, because if Autodesk did stop working with the coal industry these third parties would defend Autodesk's right to "free association" in that choice, but those same third parties would happily use force of law to ban Autodesk from doing business with the coal industry if they could. >> Who is this "we"? > Somebody who believes they are in the category of being a "good" person. Almost everybody believes they are in this group, not matter what "side" they are on. This pretense of consensus is one such rhetorical device of the social manipulators.
  - adamsea 6y ago
    It’s complicated, no doubt. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colo... The point I’m trying to make is that because these things are complicated, I think that discourse around them is valuable. And “we” - members of a relatively democratic society and citizens of a relatively democratic government - are a part of that discourse, although I suppose we can choose to remove ourselves from it if we want. As I’m pretty sure that every person has moral beliefs of one kind or another, and politics is a tool for enforcing consensus on human society (even if it’s a negative consensus not do do something - like, not limit speech), thus, on one level or another I think it’s fair to say that every person has a series of moral and political beliefs - an ideology. So if someone doesn’t want the government to place any restrictions on who can buy what, that is a political ideology they would like to see established in law. I suppose maybe certain Buddhists or people with a very well developed philosophy of deliberate disengagement from human society may not fit the bill. But otherwise, I stand by my “we” statement which, I hope it’s now clear, isn’t a rhetorical trick about consensus, unless that consensus is that human beings live in societies and believe things and societies figure out ways to create rules based on some of those beliefs.
adamsea 6y ago
Fair. It was not the best example. The comment below creates a better thought-experiment. For the purposes of the discussion “we” is everyone. Or all US citizens if you prefer to focus on a political entity. Even total libertarians want to restrict others from restricting them, no? I don’t think that last bit is a challenging statement. Think about it. I’m pretty sure pretty much everyone believes there should be some sort of law, though there’s disagreement about what laws should be. And any law is ultimately an expression of a political belief. Politics in the sense of society deciding how to regulate itself.