5 ms·

>free speech absolutism is a giant "kick me" sign on the back of society How does this work? What danger represents freedom of speech? With lack of it dangers

by Ray20 2y ago

>free speech absolutism is a giant "kick me" sign on the back of society How does this work? What danger represents freedom of speech? With lack of it dangers is understandable: it is a giant "welcome" sign for bloody totalitarian dictatorship.

danaris 2y ago
If megacorporations can lie to you about what they're selling you (which is one of the things that free speech absolutists generally argue for), then you will have no way of knowing if what you buy is going to kill you.
- Ray20 2y ago
  >If megacorporations can lie to you about what they're selling you But this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not in any way cancel out responsibility for fraud.
  - flir 2y ago
    Then you are not a free speech absolutist, and reasonable people will disagree about where the tipping point is. Fire in a crowded theatre? CP? Threats of violence? Hate speech?
- pdonis 2y ago
  I don't know any "free speech absolutists" who argue that fraud should be legal. Misrepresentation of a product or service you're selling is fraud. We already have laws against that.
  - danaris 2y ago
    Then consider yourself lucky, but I've seen that position argued strenuously right here on HackerNews in the past.
  - rvense 2y ago
    This has actually been a fairly common position among American libertarians. Alan Greenspan, for instance, was strongly against fraud laws until some time after the financial crisis. The idea was that the market would sort it out. (And no, I don't understand how this is a serious position that serious people can seriously hold, but then that is how I feel about libertarianism in general.)
    - pdonis 2y ago
      > American libertarians The term "libertarian" I feel is almost useless as a description of the political views of Americans, because it gets used to describe views that don't make any sense with that label. Greenspan, for instance, often described himself as a libertarian (or "libertarian Republican", whatever that means), but that seems a bit rich for someone who was chairman of one of the most powerful central planning organizations on the planet for so long. If central planning is libertarian then I'm a blue whale. The term "free market" gets misused just as much. It's not a free market if the government (or the Fed, which is just an arm of the government) has its thumb on the scales.
      - rvense 2y ago
        > It's not a free market if the government... has its thumb on the scales See, this is why libertarianism doesn't make sense. If there's no government intervention, then monopolies, incumbents, and rich and powerful people in general take their place. The point of having democratic institutions intervene in the market instead is to keep the intervention under control and in check. The alternative is Oliver Twist, ecological disaster, maybe even feudalism. But we agree that there's a lot of hypocrisy on the Right in general. A lot of insider trading and "I'm a free speech absolutist" and then buying up mass media to censor people who don't agree with you.
        pdonis 2y ago
        > If there's no government intervention, then monopolies, incumbents, and rich and powerful people in general take their place. Historically, if there is government intervention, then monopolies--created by governments--incumbents, and rich and powerful people run things. Of course if you take a society which has managed to regulate some aspect of all that using government, and then take away that particular government regulation--while leaving all the other ways the governments puts its thumb on the scale in place--then things will get worse, at least in the short term. But that in no way shows that the absence of a government's thumb on the scale in every aspect, long term makes things worse. Historically, there have been societies that had little or no government intervention in things (for example, saga period Iceland, or some of the American colonies before the British tried to tighten up on them after the French and Indian War), and they did not have the bad things you mention; they had the opposite, people being able to run their own lives and getting along just fine, precisely because there was no government that could force them to do stupid things because of some government granted monopoly or incumbent, or because rich and powerful people were using their wealth and power to co-opt the government--the way they do in societies that do have government intervention. > The point of having democratic institutions intervene in the market instead is to keep the intervention under control and in check. That's the ostensible purpose, but it doesn't work. Giving a government the power to intervene in what would otherwise be a free market just means the rich and powerful use their wealth and power to co-opt the government. Having a government actually makes their job easier: it's cheaper to buy a government than it is to buy an entire society. > there's a lot of hypocrisy on the Right in general There's a lot of hypocrisy on all sides of the political spectrum. I don't think the Right is any worse than others in that respect.

by Ray20 2y ago

danaris 2y ago

If megacorporations can lie to you about what they're selling you (which is one of the things that free speech absolutists generally argue for), then you will have no way of knowing if what you buy is going to kill you.

Ray20 2y ago
>If megacorporations can lie to you about what they're selling you But this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not in any way cancel out responsibility for fraud.
- flir 2y ago
  Then you are not a free speech absolutist, and reasonable people will disagree about where the tipping point is. Fire in a crowded theatre? CP? Threats of violence? Hate speech?
pdonis 2y ago
I don't know any "free speech absolutists" who argue that fraud should be legal. Misrepresentation of a product or service you're selling is fraud. We already have laws against that.
- danaris 2y ago
  Then consider yourself lucky, but I've seen that position argued strenuously right here on HackerNews in the past.
- rvense 2y ago
  This has actually been a fairly common position among American libertarians. Alan Greenspan, for instance, was strongly against fraud laws until some time after the financial crisis. The idea was that the market would sort it out. (And no, I don't understand how this is a serious position that serious people can seriously hold, but then that is how I feel about libertarianism in general.)
  - pdonis 2y ago
    > American libertarians The term "libertarian" I feel is almost useless as a description of the political views of Americans, because it gets used to describe views that don't make any sense with that label. Greenspan, for instance, often described himself as a libertarian (or "libertarian Republican", whatever that means), but that seems a bit rich for someone who was chairman of one of the most powerful central planning organizations on the planet for so long. If central planning is libertarian then I'm a blue whale. The term "free market" gets misused just as much. It's not a free market if the government (or the Fed, which is just an arm of the government) has its thumb on the scales.
    - rvense 2y ago
      > It's not a free market if the government... has its thumb on the scales See, this is why libertarianism doesn't make sense. If there's no government intervention, then monopolies, incumbents, and rich and powerful people in general take their place. The point of having democratic institutions intervene in the market instead is to keep the intervention under control and in check. The alternative is Oliver Twist, ecological disaster, maybe even feudalism. But we agree that there's a lot of hypocrisy on the Right in general. A lot of insider trading and "I'm a free speech absolutist" and then buying up mass media to censor people who don't agree with you.
      - pdonis 2y ago
        > If there's no government intervention, then monopolies, incumbents, and rich and powerful people in general take their place. Historically, if there is government intervention, then monopolies--created by governments--incumbents, and rich and powerful people run things. Of course if you take a society which has managed to regulate some aspect of all that using government, and then take away that particular government regulation--while leaving all the other ways the governments puts its thumb on the scale in place--then things will get worse, at least in the short term. But that in no way shows that the absence of a government's thumb on the scale in every aspect, long term makes things worse. Historically, there have been societies that had little or no government intervention in things (for example, saga period Iceland, or some of the American colonies before the British tried to tighten up on them after the French and Indian War), and they did not have the bad things you mention; they had the opposite, people being able to run their own lives and getting along just fine, precisely because there was no government that could force them to do stupid things because of some government granted monopoly or incumbent, or because rich and powerful people were using their wealth and power to co-opt the government--the way they do in societies that do have government intervention. > The point of having democratic institutions intervene in the market instead is to keep the intervention under control and in check. That's the ostensible purpose, but it doesn't work. Giving a government the power to intervene in what would otherwise be a free market just means the rich and powerful use their wealth and power to co-opt the government. Having a government actually makes their job easier: it's cheaper to buy a government than it is to buy an entire society. > there's a lot of hypocrisy on the Right in general There's a lot of hypocrisy on all sides of the political spectrum. I don't think the Right is any worse than others in that respect.