5 ms·

Because it would be _not_ legitimate for the government to _stop_ us from doing so. That's because it's not legitimate for the government to use non consensual

by javert 14y ago

Because it would be _not_ legitimate for the government to _stop_ us from doing so. That's because it's not legitimate for the government to use non consensual physical force against us. Unless we've given up my right to not consent by using or threatening to use non consensual physical force against someone else. As a sidenote, the point where you have to use violence to advocate for political goals instead of persuasion is when free speech is disallowed.

run4yourlives 14y ago
Because it would be _not_ legitimate for the government to _stop_ us from doing so. One could argue that the ability of anyone to know what and with whom they are dealing with in everyday life is essential, and therefore the role of the government to attribute an action to a source is paramount. We place a tremendous value on reputation and authenticity. I highly doubt you would send an anonymous source a large sum of money, for example. As an aside, we already do this with our legal systems (assuming western ideals). Everyone has the right to face their accuser in a public court. (I appreciate that right has been degraded in certain cases over the last 20 years or so.)
- javert 14y ago
  > One could argue that the ability of anyone to know what and with whom they are dealing with in everyday life is essential Only in some cases, so that's not a very good argument. > the role of the government to attribute an action to a source is paramount It is paramount in, say, the case of a crime. It is not paramount when it's outside the scope of crime or threat of a crime (i.e., outside the scope of initiated violence). > I highly doubt you would send an anonymous source a large sum of money, for example. That's true. If I want to send a large sum of money to someone, I know who they are. That's not something I need the government to adjudicate. (I do think the government should prosecute fraud as an initiation of force, though.)
  - run4yourlives 14y ago
    >Only in some cases, I'd argue in every case where you aren't completely gullible to everything you read or hear. Anonymous speech is nothing more than rumour. It has little to no positive value. If you require the identity of a person you would give money to, why then to you not require the same standards of the person who's thought you would entertain?

by javert 14y ago

run4yourlives 14y ago

Because it would be _not_ legitimate for the government to _stop_ us from doing so. One could argue that the ability of anyone to know what and with whom they are dealing with in everyday life is essential, and therefore the role of the government to attribute an action to a source is paramount. We place a tremendous value on reputation and authenticity. I highly doubt you would send an anonymous source a large sum of money, for example. As an aside, we already do this with our legal systems (assuming western ideals). Everyone has the right to face their accuser in a public court. (I appreciate that right has been degraded in certain cases over the last 20 years or so.)

javert 14y ago
> One could argue that the ability of anyone to know what and with whom they are dealing with in everyday life is essential Only in some cases, so that's not a very good argument. > the role of the government to attribute an action to a source is paramount It is paramount in, say, the case of a crime. It is not paramount when it's outside the scope of crime or threat of a crime (i.e., outside the scope of initiated violence). > I highly doubt you would send an anonymous source a large sum of money, for example. That's true. If I want to send a large sum of money to someone, I know who they are. That's not something I need the government to adjudicate. (I do think the government should prosecute fraud as an initiation of force, though.)
- run4yourlives 14y ago
  >Only in some cases, I'd argue in every case where you aren't completely gullible to everything you read or hear. Anonymous speech is nothing more than rumour. It has little to no positive value. If you require the identity of a person you would give money to, why then to you not require the same standards of the person who's thought you would entertain?