4 ms·

Your original claim was that it infringes on my free speech to be forced to say something I don't agree with. So, if a cigarette manufacturer doesn't believe h

by dbecker 14y ago

Your original claim was that it infringes on my free speech to be forced to say something I don't agree with. So, if a cigarette manufacturer doesn't believe his products cause cancer, your original argument would suggests that requiring a label infringes on his right free speech. The cyanide example seems like it is a red herring because it is ridiculous. But it follows logically from your original claim. It is legal to buy/sell cyanide. In practice, you couldn't sell it as a soft drink... but if someone believed cyanide "Tastes Great. Very Healthy. Just Drink it," they would be allowed to say that according to the position you are arguing for.

javert 14y ago
if someone believed cyanide "Tastes Great. Very Healthy. Just Drink it," they would be allowed to say that according to the position you are arguing for. I don't know why you're claiming I argue that, because in my last post, I pre-emptively explained why I am not claiming that (because to do so would be fraudulent). Let me reiterate. The basic principle is: The only time force is acceptable, is in order to undo or prevent someone else's initiation of force or fraud. You likely don't agree with that principle, but I think everyone ought to. That is what freedom actually consists of, and it's a necessary and sufficient condition for human flourishing. How does that apply here? The government should not tell someone what they cannot (or must) say, excepting cases where that person is initiating force by what they're saying. Selling someone cianide would be such a case. Disputing whether someone copied someone else or not in a design is not such a case.
- dbecker 14y ago
  It's unclear whether you are failing to read the example, or whether you are using your own definition of fraud that you haven't shared. Fraud requires intentional deception. My example is unequivocally NOT fraud, since the seller believes they are telling the truth.

by dbecker 14y ago

javert 14y ago

if someone believed cyanide "Tastes Great. Very Healthy. Just Drink it," they would be allowed to say that according to the position you are arguing for. I don't know why you're claiming I argue that, because in my last post, I pre-emptively explained why I am not claiming that (because to do so would be fraudulent). Let me reiterate. The basic principle is: The only time force is acceptable, is in order to undo or prevent someone else's initiation of force or fraud. You likely don't agree with that principle, but I think everyone ought to. That is what freedom actually consists of, and it's a necessary and sufficient condition for human flourishing. How does that apply here? The government should not tell someone what they cannot (or must) say, excepting cases where that person is initiating force by what they're saying. Selling someone cianide would be such a case. Disputing whether someone copied someone else or not in a design is not such a case.

dbecker 14y ago
It's unclear whether you are failing to read the example, or whether you are using your own definition of fraud that you haven't shared. Fraud requires intentional deception. My example is unequivocally NOT fraud, since the seller believes they are telling the truth.