PDA

View Full Version : When Speech Becomes a Crime


BIG_DADDY
06-28-2006, 02:46 PM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2006/06/28/cstillwell.DTL


Roman Catholic Robert Smith is fired from an appointment on the Washington Metro transit authority board by Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich for the crime of saying that he doesn't approve of homosexuality.

Journalist and author Oriana Fallaci cannot visit her native country of Italy for fear of being thrown in prison because of a lawsuit brought against her by the Italian Muslim Union for the crime of "defaming Islam."

British neo-Nazi David Irving is sentenced to three years in prison in Austria for a 1989 speech in which he committed the crime of Holocaust denial.

College Republican Steve Hinkle is found guilty by California Polytechnic State University (San Luis Obispo) for "disruption" for the crime of putting up a flyer advertising a black conservative speaker.
What do the above examples have in common? They are the logical outgrowth of a dangerous trend sweeping the Western world: the criminalization and censorship of speech.

Outright censorship and draconian speech codes have long been a staple of Third World authoritarian regimes. But Western democracies and in particular the United States (where the First Amendment is supposed to reign supreme) have always prided themselves on protecting free speech. Yet because of the creeping reach of political correctness, one can now be put in prison, lose a job, be kicked out of school or be otherwise censored simply for uttering an unpopular opinion.

It's called hate speech. If there ever were a more Orwellian concept, it would be difficult to find. For much like the concept of "thought crimes" in George Orwell's novel "1984," hate crimes and hate speech suppose intent on the part of the "perpetrator" that may or may not have any basis in reality. What is often mere criticism or disapproval is labeled "hatred" and thus made worthy of punishment. Such a perspective demands that one think only nice thoughts about others. But when it did it become law that we have to like everyone?

While bigotry is indeed unpleasant, it is not in and of itself a crime. Whether one acts on that bigotry or incites others to violence in accordance is another matter. The old adage, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me," comes to mind.

Creating Revisionist Martyrs


Even highly objectionable speech such as Holocaust denial should not be criminalized. Such speech would be better fought on the battlefield of ideas than in the courtroom. The academic frauds and conspiracists pushing Holocaust denial should have their work thoroughly discredited and challenged, not censored.

Furthermore, throwing Holocaust deniers in prison merely creates martyrs, which is quite obvious upon perusing any one of the many Web sites that push such views. David Irving, for instance, was turned into a folk hero by his fellow neo-Nazis after being sentenced to three years in prison in Austria for Holocaust denial. While Irving has a long history of promoting Nazism, anti-Semitism, and, yes, Holocaust denial, whether such beliefs constitute criminal acts is questionable.

Author and Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt agrees. Lipstadt knows David Irving well, having gone head to head with him in a libel suit that dragged on for years. In the end, Irving lost the suit against Lipstadt for accusing him of Holocaust denial, yet she too is opposed to the sort of speech codes that sent him to prison. As Lipstadt told the BBC: "I am not happy when censorship wins, and I don't believe in winning battles via censorship. ... The way of fighting Holocaust deniers is with history and with truth."

Far from protecting those on the receiving end, in this case Jews, such restrictions on speech may actually provide succor to worldwide anti-Semitism. It has certainly given anti-Semites within the Muslim world yet another "Jewish conspiracy" to focus on. Instead of accepting responsibility for the intolerance and backwardness demonstrated in the reaction to the manufactured Danish cartoon "controversy," such Muslims instead point to the hypocrisy of Jews in Western countries who promote free speech in some cases while advocating the imprisonment of Holocaust deniers.

Protecting Islamists From Criticism


Meanwhile, the push to silence what's been labeled "Islamophobia" is giving rise to further restrictions on speech. In the United States and Canada, groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations have instigated numerous lawsuits and brought pressure to bear on writers, radio talk-show hosts and anyone else guilty of criticizing Islam or Islamic culture in any way, shape or form.

Talk-show host Michael Graham was fired by Washington radio station WMAL for calling Islam a "terrorist organization" on his show, after CAIR instituted a letter-writing campaign and demanded an apology. CAIR has used a series of libel or defamation suits to go after those who dare bring to light some of the group's own unsavory ties.

On an international level, the specter of speech codes governing "Islamophobia" has grown exponentially. The United Nations has become the repository for international laws banning the publication of anything deemed insulting to religion and, more specifically, Islam.

Born out of the flap over the Danish cartoons, a series of investigations by the United Nations at the urging of Muslim leaders has led to a slew of resolutions aimed at controlling speech. European and other Western newspapers that dare to publish images of Mohammed in the future or to simply criticize or question aspects of Islamic religion and culture could find themselves on the receiving end of U.N.-sanctioned censorship. Were the United States to adopt such international laws, as some have urged, Americans too could be bound by such restrictions.

Prison for 'Homophobes'?


Gays are another group included in the growing ranks of the "protected classes," as columnist John Leo has noted on several occasions. While one can be sued, fired or expelled from school in the United States for expressing disapproval of homosexuality or what's come to be known as "homophobia," in Canada one just might be thrown in prison.

In 2004, Canadian "genocide and hate crimes" legislation was amended to make it illegal under certain circumstances to "incite hatred" against gays, bisexuals or anyone else based on their sexual orientation. Although the law allows an exemption for religious expression, Christians in particular fear that they will incur the bulk of such offenses, with the citing of biblical passages forbidding homosexuality being the most common "crime." Indeed, even before the amended law went into effect, job loss, fines, censures and visits by the police were part of the repressive political landscape. One need only turn to the European Union, where clergy find themselves the targets of speech code laws intended to protect gays.

But as in other cases meant to shield one group from offense, the freedom of all is compromised in the process. It's no coincidence that Canada's and Europe's descent into speech-code mania began with restrictions on anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.


Even leftists are not immune. University of British Columbia professor Sunera Thobani, a self-described Marxist feminist and multiculturalism activist, was hit with a hate crimes investigation several years ago for a lecture in which she harshly criticized Americans and American foreign policy.

The PC Left

Here in the United States, leftists often decry what they see as censorship emanating from the right, when in fact most of the true silencing of speech has come from within their own ranks. These days, liberal-dominated universities and colleges are one of the major promulgators of speech codes and draconian punishments for hate speech. Beginning in the 1980s, campus speech codes took on a life of their own, leading to countless trumped-up cases based on misunderstandings, perceived insensitivity or the ever-elusive crime of committing offense.

All too often, those on the receiving end are conservative or Christian students who are falsely accused of hate speech when they exercise their rights to free speech. It seems that putting forward a political or religious viewpoint on campus that is considered politically incorrect is now grounds for persecution and possible expulsion. Students have found themselves so beleaguered by what often appear to be politically motivated witch hunts that they have felt the need to turn to organizations such as the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education for legal assistance.

In what may be a good sign, the group has been highly successful in protecting students' rights to free speech and religious freedom. At least one judge has barred the implementation of such draconian campus speech codes in the interest of protecting students' First Amendment rights. In a 2003 lawsuit brought by a conservative student at Shippensburg University in Philadelphia and supported by FIRE, federal judge John E. Jones III ruled against enforcement of student code provisions that prohibited racist, sexist and homophobic speech. As he wrote at the time, the speech code may have been a well-intentioned means of achieving "a utopian community," but it "prohibit[ed] a considerable amount of speech" in the process.

It is indeed the pursuit of a utopian society from which such speech codes emanate. For when George Orwell wrote "1984," his dystopian vision of a future society governed by totalitarianism, it was the excesses of communism he had in mind. Orwell's novel foreshadowed the current movement toward thought control. Except that today's "thought crimes" are called hate speech and hate crimes.

BIG_DADDY
07-26-2006, 05:48 PM
How could you miss it dude?

WilliamTheIrish
07-26-2006, 06:33 PM
After reading that I can only conclude that this country needs to get away from catering to the infantile whiners that have such delicate ears.

Adept Havelock
07-26-2006, 06:50 PM
After reading that I can only conclude that this country needs to get away from catering to the infantile whiners that have such delicate ears.

:clap:

It's all BS, and no side is innocent. The Left and Right both have their pet causes when it comes to silencing free speech.

These PC bozos on the left are no different IMO than the bozos who want to use the FCC to keep anything they find remotely offensive from being broadcast.

penchief
07-26-2006, 06:52 PM
Dude, How could you miss it dude?

Dude, you posted a website that didn't work. If this is the article you posted all I can say is go back and read page 10 of the thread that you are pointing to as an example of my unobjectivity. If you do, you will see that I pretty much answered your questions without even seeing the article. In fact, here's my last meaningful post on the subject from that conversation.

First off, I've told you repeatedly that the link doesn't work for me.

Secondly, you've never heard me criticize someone for speaking their mind. Although I am very opinionated I believe I have shown respect for others who have different opinions. I don't believe I advocate hypocricy when I advocate freedom of speech. I believe that free speech applies to everyone equally. And that includes extremists on both ends of the spectrum. That's the only way it's going to work.

I agree with you about the hate speech part. People should be allowed to express their hate even if it is misguided or ignorant (racism, etc.).

If you are for freedom of speech (even unpopular speech), then you and I agree. If the giste of the article you posted suggests that "political correctness," when gone amuck can stifle free speech I'd have to agree with that, too. I'm not a fan of politically correct speech. I am a fan of common courtesy and respect, though.

It seems to me that people are equipped with the mental capacity to communicate ideas and differences without resorting to offensive language or petty behavior. There are times when I am offended enough to speak against what is being said but that doesn't mean I'm speaking out against the right to express that type of language. There's a difference, IMO.

penchief
07-26-2006, 06:53 PM
I might add that politically correct speech is hardly restricted to liberals.

penchief
07-26-2006, 06:55 PM
:clap:

It's all BS, and no side is innocent. The Left and Right both have their pet causes when it comes to silencing free speech.

These PC bozos on the left are no different IMO than the bozos who want to use the FCC to keep anything they find remotely offensive from being broadcast.

Agreed.

BIG_DADDY
07-27-2006, 10:03 AM
I might add that politically correct speech is hardly restricted to liberals.

Obviously our recollection was a little different but it doesn't really matter. I agree both are guilty. When you said liberals are for free speech my only point was they are only for it as long as your saying what they want to hear. Don't say anything that could offend anyone but by all means burn the flag in front of people who gave of their life for this country and others who lost loved ones serving it. Pretty ****ed up if you ask me.

BTW I am still interested in hearing what policies you hate on the left. Good see you own a gun and will use it too. There still may be some hope for you dude. :thumb:

Cochise
07-27-2006, 10:41 AM
Thoughtcrime does not entail death. Thoughtcrime is death.

penchief
07-27-2006, 12:05 PM
Obviously our recollection was a little different but it doesn't really matter. I agree both are guilty. When you said liberals are for free speech my only point was they are only for it as long as your saying what they want to hear. Don't say anything that could offend anyone but by all means burn the flag in front of people who gave of their life for this country and others who lost loved ones serving it. Pretty ****ed up if you ask me.

BTW I am still interested in hearing what policies you hate on the left. Good see you own a gun and will use it too. There still may be some hope for you dude. :thumb:

I think I answered your hate speech question and your PC speech question in the previous thread, and specifically in the post from that thread that I pasted above in this thread. Read it carefully and tell me what you hear. Keep in mind I'm trying to guess what is in the article by reading what you were posting, which didn't give me a whole lot to work with at the time.

Please give me some kind of indication that you are reading my posts.

BIG_DADDY
07-27-2006, 12:10 PM
I think I answered your hate speech question and your PC speech question in the previous thread, and specifically in the post from that thread that I pasted above in this thread. Read it carefully and tell me what you hear. Keep in mind I'm trying to guess what is in the article by reading what you were posting, which didn't give me a whole lot to work with at the time.

Please give me some kind of indication that you are reading my posts.

Please give me some indication you're reading mine.

penchief
07-27-2006, 12:22 PM
Please give me some indication you're reading mine.

I would not have responded to your posts the way I did if I wasn't reading them. I'm making an honest effort to answer your questions (and your charges) as sincerely as I can and it seems like you aren't acknowledging what I'm saying as if I'm not even saying it at all.

What did I say in the post above that I pasted from this thread?:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=142890&page=9&pp=15

What am I saying about hate speech and what am I saying about politically correct speech?

Please tell me what I said so that I can have a sign that you are actually reading my posts.

BIG_DADDY
07-27-2006, 12:36 PM
I would not have responded to your posts the way I did if I wasn't reading them. I'm making an honest effort to answer your questions (and your charges) as sincerely as I can and it seems like you aren't acknowledging what I'm saying as if I'm not even saying it at all.

What did I say in the post above that I pasted from this thread?:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=142890&page=9&pp=15

What am I saying about hate speech and what am I saying about politically correct speech?

Please tell me what I said so that I can have a sign that you are actually reading my posts.

We are so past this. You have already admitted both parties are only for free speech when you're saying what they want. That's the whole enchilada. What am I missing?

Chief Faithful
07-27-2006, 01:23 PM
I might add that politically correct speech is hardly restricted to liberals.

Do you have any examples I would like to put them to use.

penchief
07-28-2006, 05:45 AM
Do you have any examples I would like to put them to use.

I would think that the right-wing's attempts to squash dissent in this country is the ultimate example of political correctness. The Iraq war is a perfect example. If you don't support the war it's because you're with the enemy. If you don't support the war you hate the troops. If you criticize the administration it's because you want to see America fail.

In fact, I'd argue that the right-wing has perfected political correctness.

And let's not forget about moral correctness.

chagrin
07-28-2006, 06:04 AM
I would think that the right-wing's attempts to squash dissent in this country is the ultimate example of political correctness. The Iraq war is a perfect example. If you don't support the war it's because you're with the enemy. If you don't support the war you hate the troops. If you criticize the administration it's because you want to see America fail.

In fact, I'd argue that the right-wing has perfected political correctness.

And let's not forget about moral correctness.


Most violent crime in this country is commited by blacks, gay people whine to get special protection (not gay marriage, that's not what I am talking about) Hispanics are more likely to steal or use the welfare system than blacks are. White people are statistically more likely not to accept those of another color. I was walking down the street yesterday and I saw two black kids walking with their pants hanging down below their ass, yes, their entire asses were outside of the pants, I immediately decided they were not they kind of people I want my 9 yr old step daughter to associate with, or move into my neighborhood.
Most Hispanic males between 15-30 have at least 2 children out of wedlock and rely of our tax dollars to pay for them.

If I were to boldy proclaim this in a speech, with the actual statistics on an overhead projector, I would be cast out and probably prosecuted; at the very least I would lose my job and receive death threats.

Politically incorrect or free speech or "crime"?

It's Freedom of speech, just watch what you say ON BOTH SIDES.

I can't say to a liberal, I really don't like gay people, black people, hispanic people, "Orientals" - yeah F8ck that, I don't say Asian Spanish speaking, America hating, baby popping out - people. That would be the same as your whining about the war and trying to claim the same sort of hatred against you.

Please

penchief
07-28-2006, 06:14 AM
I can't say to a liberal, I really don't like gay people, black people, hispanic people, "Orientals" - yeah F8ck that, I don't say Asian Spanish speaking, America hating, baby popping out - people. That would be the same as your whining about the war and trying to claim the same sort of hatred against you.

Who said anything about hatred? I'm not feeling any hatred toward me. And complaining about statistics is no less whining than complaining about people needlessly dying. The world's not perfect. I've already stated that I'm not a fan of politically correct speech.

What about the ban on the showing of the flag-draped coffins of our fallen sons and daughters who gave their lives for their country? Isn't that a form of dictating what is politically correct?

How do you view a flag-burning amendment to the constitution?

chagrin
07-28-2006, 06:31 AM
Who said anything about hatred? I'm not feeling any hatred toward me. And complaining about statistics is no less whining than complaining about people needlessly dying. The world's not perfect. I've already stated that I'm not a fan of politically correct speech.

What about the ban on the showing of the flag-draped coffins of our fallen sons and daughters who gave their lives for their country? Isn't that a form of dictating what is politically correct?

How do you view a flag-burning amendment to the constitution?

Sorry I used the word, hatred, but your point is, and always is. clear - just using other words.

Anyway, as far a flag burning goes, it really angers me to see that - I personally feel that one must be truly ignorant, to think that is a good thing somehow. I also recognize the right to do it.

Freedom of expression seems to be one sided these days, with respect to private citizens being able to express themselves in the way I did above. The only ones getting away with stating the truths I have illustrated above, are political figures - goes with the territory I suppose.

My point still stands, and it is, in fact, the left wing stopping those truths from coming out. "Celebrate Diversity", just don't point out the diferences or you will be made an example of. For example, I asked a friend of mine about a certain hairstyle that several hispanic women are wearing, it offended him. I was simply trying to UNDERSTAND the damn culture, and I was castigated for it. PERFECT EXAMPLE of what the left wing folks do.
I don't know you personally, so I can't speak for your stance on it, but we all know it's true.

patteeu
07-28-2006, 08:31 AM
I would think that the right-wing's attempts to squash dissent in this country is the ultimate example of political correctness. The Iraq war is a perfect example. If you don't support the war it's because you're with the enemy. If you don't support the war you hate the troops. If you criticize the administration it's because you want to see America fail.

In fact, I'd argue that the right-wing has perfected political correctness.

And let's not forget about moral correctness.

Those aren't examples of the type of thing this thread is about. Those are examples of free speech being used to combat free speech. You're not against free speech are you, penchief?

BIG_DADDY
07-28-2006, 10:36 AM
Those aren't examples of the type of thing this thread is about. Those are examples of free speech being used to combat free speech. You're not against free speech are you, penchief?

Exactly. Last time I checked you could go off about the not liking the war without any real reprecussions. Do what Chagrin did which is nothing more than stating indisputable facts and you will be treated like a criminal.


I noticed you managed to overlook the question I asked you about what you don't like about the left about 5 times now.

patteeu
07-28-2006, 11:00 AM
I noticed you managed to overlook the question I asked you about what you don't like about the left about 5 times now.

I'm assuming this is for penchief. If not, you'll have to repeat the question for me one more time.

BIG_DADDY
07-28-2006, 11:22 AM
I'm assuming this is for penchief. If not, you'll have to repeat the question for me one more time.

It's for Pen. He tries to act very objective but when I give him the opportunity to show just how objective he is he declines to show me. I want to know what policies promoted by the left really piss him off.

penchief
07-28-2006, 11:31 AM
Those aren't examples of the type of thing this thread is about. Those are examples of free speech being used to combat free speech. You're not against free speech are you, penchief?

Disagreeing with bigoted or prejudiced speech is also a form of free speech. How is labeling someone as prejudiced any different than lableling someone as unAmerican?

I don't know why people are arguing with me about free speech. I've been advocating it on this thread and others. Even unpopular speech.

I just think it's a little one-sided to say that it's the liberals who are at fault. What about the FCC fining people for using language that the president uses freely everyday?

When people argue about the merits of flag-burning/free expression, that IS both sides utilizing free speech but when the government passes a law criminalizing flag-burning, that's the government stifling free expression. When the government prevents the showing of flag-draped coffins that's not the people advocating free speech. That's the government dictating in order to manipulate information. And when the government sets up Orwellian "free-speech" zones that is stifling free speech, as well.

penchief
07-28-2006, 11:36 AM
Exactly. Last time I checked you could go off about the not liking the war without any real reprecussions. Do what Chagrin did which is nothing more than stating indisputable facts and you will be treated like a criminal.


I noticed you managed to overlook the question I asked you about what you don't like about the left about 5 times now.

Big Daddy, you have to be fair. You haven't asked me five times. But I'm not going to answer another question until you respond to the post where I answered two of your questions before you even asked them.

Will you acknowledge that you've read that post by telling me what I said? Once you acknowledge the two things that I agree with you about then I'll proceed to answer more of your questions. But you can't sit there and continue to act like I'm dodging you when you haven't addressed a single thing I've said to you.

Are you going to be fair about this or not? Do you want me to repost the thread for the third time so that you can read it again? Because I don't think you're reading them at all.

Tell me what I said about hate speech and tell me what I said about political correctness. Can you do that or are you just trying to play games?

penchief
07-28-2006, 11:42 AM
It's for Pen. He tries to act very objective but when I give him the opportunity to show just how objective he is he declines to show me. I want to know what policies promoted by the left really piss him off.

That's not true. I've been trying to get you to acknowledge that I already agree with you about two of the things you've listed but for some unexplained reason you continue to behave as though I haven't said a word at all. Why?

I'm not going to prove anything more to you until you can prove something back to me. Prove to me that you can be objective. Tell me what I said about hate speech and tell me what I said about political correctness. And while you're at it, tell me what I said about freedom of speech. That might put a close to this discussion once and for all.

The only reason I'm here now is because people are saying that political correctness is a one-way street and that's just not true.

BIG_DADDY
07-28-2006, 11:43 AM
Big Daddy, you have to be fair. You haven't asked me five times. But I'm not going to answer another question until you respond to the post where I answered two of your questions before you even asked them.

Will you acknowledge that you've read that post by telling me what I said? Once you acknowledge the two things that I agree with you about then I'll proceed to answer more of your questions. But you can't sit there and continue to act like I'm dodging you when you haven't addressed a single thing I've said to you.

Are you going to be fair about this or not? Do you want me to repost the thread for the third time so that you can read it again? Because I don't think you're reading them at all.

Tell me what I said about hate speech and tell me what I said about political correctness. Can you do that or are you just trying to play games?

I have already acknowledged. Just becasue I don't go back through everything you have posted and quote you a bunch of times doesn't mean jack. If you have something to add just say it. If you don't want to acknowledge my acknowledgement fine. If you don't want to tell me what you don't like about the left that is fine too. It's kind of what I expected to tell you the truth. I guess we are done.

penchief
07-28-2006, 11:52 AM
I have already acknowledged. Just becasue I don't go back through everything you have posted and quote you a bunch of times doesn't mean jack. If you have something to add just say it. If you don't want to acknowledge my acknowledgement fine. If you don't want to tell me what you don't like about the left that is fine too. It's kind of what I expected to tell you the truth. I guess we are done.

You didn't acknowledge. You kept pressing for answers to the some of the same questions even though I kept asking you to review my previous answers. You have still given me no indication that you know what my stated stance is on hate speech, politically correct speech, and free speech (in general).

You haven't acknowledged that post. It seems as though you're just trying to ignore it. If you stated what my positions were then I wouldn't think you were trying to make it look like I'm avoiding the truth. Sometimes I think some of these debates are more about showmanship than they are about honest discussion.

Please quit trying to make it look like I'm trying to avoid answering questions that I've already answered and tell me what I said and whether or not you agree or disagree.

Again, do you want me to post the thread again?

BIG_DADDY
07-28-2006, 01:07 PM
You didn't acknowledge. You kept pressing for answers to the some of the same questions even though I kept asking you to review my previous answers. You have still given me no indication that you know what my stated stance is on hate speech, politically correct speech, and free speech (in general).

You haven't acknowledged that post. It seems as though you're just trying to ignore it. If you stated what my positions were then I wouldn't think you were trying to make it look like I'm avoiding the truth. Sometimes I think some of these debates are more about showmanship than they are about honest discussion.

Please quit trying to make it look like I'm trying to avoid answering questions that I've already answered and tell me what I said and whether or not you agree or disagree.

Again, do you want me to post the thread again?

Just say what your point is already. I'm going back and start rereading a bunch of stuff if you have something to say just post it dude. I already said I acknowleged you saying both sides are only for free speech if it was a part of their agenda. If you have something else to say post it. Control C, control V, you know how to use them.

penchief
07-28-2006, 03:11 PM
Just say what your point is already. I'm going back and start rereading a bunch of stuff if you have something to say just post it dude. I already said I acknowleged you saying both sides are only for free speech if it was a part of their agenda. If you have something else to say post it. Control C, control V, you know how to use them.

I'll make it easy for you. Go to post five in this thread (page 1) and you will see where I copied and pasted the post I keep referring to and that you keep ignoring. If you look at that (and you have to read the entire thing carefully as opposed to just scanning it) you will see that you and I agree about two things (hate speech and politically correctness). Also, if you agree with my beliefs about free speech, in general, then you and I agree about three things.

If you could do that for me I'd be more than happy to move on to other issues related to how evil liberals are.

BIG_DADDY
07-28-2006, 03:40 PM
I'll make it easy for you. Go to post five in this thread (page 1) and you will see where I copied and pasted the post I keep referring to and that you keep ignoring. If you look at that (and you have to read the entire thing carefully as opposed to just scanning it) you will see that you and I agree about two things (hate speech and politically correctness). Also, if you agree with my beliefs about free speech, in general, then you and I agree about three things.

If you could do that for me I'd be more than happy to move on to other issues related to how evil liberals are.

You are truly amazing. I have read that already and even cut an posted off of your next post as well as acknowledging what you said. I still am not sure what you're looking for.

Where did I say liberals are evil?

penchief
07-28-2006, 04:36 PM
You are truly amazing. I have read that already and even cut an posted off of your next post as well as acknowledging what you said. I still am not sure what you're looking for.

Where did I say liberals are evil?

Where did you respond to that post? Nowhere. And you're still not willing to concede that I gave you what you asked for at first. You seem more interested in exposing me as a hyporcrite than you do actually acknowledging what I said and that we agree on the topic.

I don't ever recall you saying, "liberals are evil," but as a professed libertarian it appears that you are unwilling to acknowledge the libertarian roots of the progressive movement while at the same time ignoring the libertarian digressions of the modern-day conservative movement.

It seems to me that you're always bashing liberals for their anti-libertarian motives, while at the same time, ignoring the fact that it's the freakin' retrocons that are currently hijacking our freedoms and our privacy. Isn't your resentment slightly misplaced at this time in our history?

If you really are a libertarian, for once, I'd like to see you post a thread that reads, "See, this is why I hate republicans/conservatives/neocons." Maybe you could talk about the robber barons and all that.

BucEyedPea
07-28-2006, 05:19 PM
... the libertarian roots of the progressive movement ...

Plu-eeease!
Unless you're referring to left-libertarianism and not right-libertarianism.
The left version is more communitarianism...or anarcho-socialism.

penchief
07-28-2006, 05:30 PM
Plu-eeease!
Unless you're referring to left-libertarianism and not right-libertarianism.
The left version is more communitarianism...or anarcho-socialism.

You're kidding, right?

In this country it was the left that fought for an end to child labor practices and unfair labor practices, in general. It was the left that fought for universal sufferage. It was the left that stood with African Americans in THEIR fight for civil liberties. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

But it has always been the reactionary right that has resisted (tooth and nail) all of these humanitarian reforms throughout history.

To say that the left in this country doesn't have libertarian roots would be a denial of historical fact, IMO.

BucEyedPea
07-28-2006, 05:39 PM
Your kidding, right?

In this country it was the left that fought for an end to child labor practices and unfair labor practices, in general. It was the left that fought for universal sufferage. It was the left that stood with African Americans in THEIR fight for civil liberties. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

But it has always been the reactionary right that has resisted (tooth and nail) all of these humanitarian reforms throughout history.

To say that the left in this country doesn't have libertarian roots would be a denial of historical fact, IMO.

Most of that is not libertarianism.
Libertarianism is much more laissez-faire than that.
Some of the first child labor laws was passed in England in 1802 way before the Progressive movement.

penchief
07-28-2006, 05:47 PM
Most of that is not libertarianism.
Libertarianism is much more laissez-faire than that.
Some of the first child labor laws was passed in England in 1802 way before the Progressive movement.

While I'll concede somewhat, I also believe that libertarianism is freedom from oppression. True laissez-faire is not even possible when the power elite can inhibit the progress of a society or an individual via stacking the deck. That's not total freedom and, by definition, it's not laissez-faire.

This is where we disagree. The totalitarianism of of the power elite is no different than the totalitarianism of the Czar. Balance is the key and it has been that delicate balance that's separated this country's vision from all others.

JMO.

BucEyedPea
07-28-2006, 06:09 PM
While I'll concede somewhat, I also believe that libertarianism is freedom from oppression. True laissez-faire is not even possible when the power elite can inhibit the progress of a society or an individual via stacking the deck. That's not total freedom and, by definition, it's not laissez-faire.

This is where we disagree. The totalitarianism of of the power elite is no different than the totalitarianism of the Czar. Balance is the key and it has been that delicate balance that's separated this country's vision from all others.

JMO.


Balance isn't libertarianism either. It's pretty close to anarchy whether it's the right or the left.

Totalitarianism of the power elite? Well that's not libertarianism either. Free-markets prevent that. It's progressives,that think otherwise and they are not in the balanced center either. In fact they believe in pervasive regulation to create an egalitarian society. Progressives are left of center quite a bit and have concentrated and centralized power for their own brand of elitism. The NeoCons are a type of progressive as well.

I agree with a balanced center but that balance was pretty much our original formula not the post FDR era.

penchief
07-28-2006, 07:10 PM
Balance isn't libertarianism either. It's pretty close to anarchy whether it's the right or the left.

Totalitarianism of the power elite? Well that's not libertarianism either. Free-markets prevent that. It's progressives,that think otherwise and they are not in the balanced center either. In fact they believe in pervasive regulation to create an egalitarian society. Progressives are left of center quite a bit and have concentrated and centralized power for their own brand of elitism. The NeoCons are a type of progressive as well.

I agree with a balanced center but that balance was pretty much our original formula not the post FDR era.

It could hardly be said that balance was the recipe before FDR.

BucEyedPea
07-28-2006, 07:53 PM
It could hardly be said that balance was the recipe before FDR.
Well, respectfully that's a matter of opinion. One I'd expect naturally from a progressive. But to have that opinion and claim it to be a libertarian is where was having the problem. Hence my earlier post starting this discussion.
These things are not libertarianism....not the one I know.

penchief
07-29-2006, 02:33 AM
Well, respectfully that's a matter of opinion. One I'd expect naturally from a progressive. But to have that opinion and claim it to be a libertarian is where was having the problem. Hence my earlier post starting this discussion.
These things are not libertarianism....not the one I know.

Explain the one you know. I suppose armed insurrection could be viewed as the epitomy of libertarianism to some people.

I guess one could argue that slaveowners were libertarians, too. But my ideal of libertarianism doesn't allow for one person's free will to impose on another person's liberty. Government can be a regulatory vehicle that promotes liberty. Our founding fathers and their efforts seem to be a fairly good example of that.

BucEyedPea
07-29-2006, 05:51 AM
Explain the one you know. I suppose armed insurrection could be viewed as the epitomy of libertarianism to some people.

I guess one could argue that slaveowners were libertarians, too. But my ideal of libertarianism doesn't allow for one person's free will to impose on another person's liberty. Government can be a regulatory vehicle that promotes liberty. Our founding fathers and their efforts seem to be a fairly good example of that.


Slavery is not libertarianism either.

As for armed insurrection....not necessarily.

Your question would really take a book to answer but it's the writings of: Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard,Frédéric Bastiat,Lew Rockwell, Hayek and that crowd.

Basically: Libertarianism believes in not using force to compel others to do as you wish (slavery) including enforcing equality between private citizens because govt is force; therefore there should be hardly any govt except to enforce fundamental rights like life, property, freedom to contract and to be free from govt social engineering for utopian concepts of justice based on egalitarianism. Such as forcing others to associate with others who they don't want to associate with, forcibly extracting income to pay for the needs of others, a conviction that market forces can and do handle many social problems that we feel the govt is needed to handle and that trade fosters peace.

In its fullest version this includes: private roads, private police, no compulsory education laws, no gaurantee to an education by govt, no affirmative action, no income tax, no borders, no standing armies, no interference in other nations with self defense strictly at borders ( which supposedly don't exist). Pollution is handled via lawsuits, not an epa, if that pollution comes onto your property as the fullest protection of property rights. This would include the portion of a river that crosses your land, little to no regulation of industry, no social security, no medicare, medicaid etc. These are just a few.

You're a left libertarian which is the opposite of the above. That's a type of communitarianism in it's fullest version.

penchief
07-29-2006, 07:50 AM
Slavery is not libertarianism either.

As for armed insurrection....not necessarily.

Your question would really take a book to answer but it's the writings of: Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard,Frédéric Bastiat,Lew Rockwell, Hayek and that crowd.

Basically: Libertarianism believes in not using force to compel others to do as you wish (slavery) including enforcing equality between private citizens because govt is force; therefore there should be hardly any govt except to enforce fundamental rights like life, property, freedom to contract and to be free from govt social engineering for utopian concepts of justice based on egalitarianism. Such as forcing others to associate with others who they don't want to associate with, forcibly extracting income to pay for the needs of others, a conviction that market forces can and do handle many social problems that we feel the govt is needed to handle and that trade fosters peace.

In its fullest version this includes: private roads, private police, no compulsory education laws, no gaurantee to an education by govt, no affirmative action, no income tax, no borders, no standing armies, no interference in other nations with self defense strictly at borders ( which supposedly don't exist). Pollution is handled via lawsuits, not an epa, if that pollution comes onto your property as the fullest protection of property rights. This would include the portion of a river that crosses your land, little to no regulation of industry, no social security, no medicare, medicaid etc. These are just a few.

You're a left libertarian which is the opposite of the above. That's a type of communitarianism in it's fullest version.

Sounds like libertarianism is a pipe dream. I'd settle for people being able to pursue happiness without infringing on another person's pursuit of happiness. But I think that make's libertarianism impossible in this country. The idea of getting ahead at the expense of others is too ingrained into our culture. The libertarian right would hardly stand by and allow all those frivolous lawsuits.

IMO, government is a vehicle by which we facilitate the wishes of the governed, protect the public good, and aid progress. I'm beginning to think that true libertarianism would be nothing but chaos.

BucEyedPea
07-29-2006, 07:59 AM
Sounds like libertarianism is a pipe dream. I'd settle for people being able to pursue happiness without infringing on another person's pursuit of happiness. But I don't think that's possible in this country. The idea of getting ahead at the expense of others is too ingrained into our culture. The libertarian right would hardly stand by and allow all those frivolous lawsuits.

IMO, government is a vehicle by which we facilitate the wishes of the governed, protect the public good, and aid progress. I'm beginning to think that true libertarianism would be nothing but chaos.


Well, you were claiming that "progressivism" was libertarian in it's roots. This was all I was trying to clarify. Libertarianism is pretty close to anarchy, both right and left versions.

I, however, do not think it's the govt's job to aid "progress" but mainly to protect rights and let the people get the show on the road as that has been when the greatest progress has been made. That is closer to the founding principles of America—not European-style big govt.

I believe in a lot less govt then we currently have, however I would not describe my self as a pure or full libertarian—have a good streak of it more.

Between no govt and total govt there is a balanced center where the rights of the individual balance with the rights of the group to survive—a sort of ordered liberty. That center is to the right of today (as in less govt) as a whole, and is where I stand. So I'd favor a good deal less govt than what we have today but not to the point where we'd have to have a toll on every road for private roads etc. Of course this applies to foreign policy as well. This to me is conservatism.

stevieray
07-29-2006, 08:41 AM
I find it amusing that those who cry the most about less gov't are always the first to blame the gov;t for not wiping everyones ass when any problem arises.

CHIEF4EVER
07-29-2006, 08:48 AM
I find it amusing that those who cry the most about less gov't are always the first to blame the gov;t for not wiping everyones ass when any problem arises.

I am the exception brother. I want less government and wish they would leave me alone. Heck, if I was given the choice between paying SSI and getting the nebulous promise of Social Security which I will likely never see when I am 65 or not paying SSI and taking care of myself I choose the second option.

penchief
07-29-2006, 09:21 AM
Well, you were claiming that "progressivism" was libertarian in it's roots. This was all I was trying to clarify. Libertarianism is pretty close to anarchy, both right and left versions.

I, however, do not think it's the govt's job to aid "progress" but mainly to protect rights and let the people get the show on the road as that has been when the greatest progress has been made. That is closer to the founding principles of America—not European-style big govt.

I believe in a lot less govt then we currently have, however I would not describe my self as a pure or full libertarian—have a good streak of it more.

Between no govt and total govt there is a balanced center where the rights of the individual balance with the rights of the group to survive—a sort of ordered liberty. That center is to the right of today (as in less govt) as a whole, and is where I stand. So I'd favor a good deal less govt than what we have today but not to the point where we'd have to have a toll on every road for private roads etc. Of course this applies to foreign policy as well. This to me is conservatism.

We are both at that balanced center.

I'll settle for government just not standing in the way of progress. Which seems to be the status quo right now. I don't even have a problem with the center being just a little to the right. But now it's extreme.

Maybe my choice of words is bad but I believe that the liberal tradition, which includes progressives, I guess, has always valued individual liberty. I'll agree that there's that whole equity and justice thing that muddies it up a little. But, I'd also contend that a true liberal wants less government, as well. It seems to me that it's the liberals, these days, that are more concerned about the erosion of our privacy and our liberties.

BucEyedPea
07-29-2006, 11:32 AM
We are both at that balanced center.

I'll settle for government just not standing in the way of progress. Which seems to be the status quo right now. I don't even have a problem with the center being just a little to the right. But now it's extreme.

Maybe my choice of words is bad but I believe that the liberal tradition, which includes progressives, I guess, has always valued individual liberty. I'll agree that there's that whole equity and justice thing that muddies it up a little. But, I'd also contend that a true liberal wants less government, as well. It seems to me that it's the liberals, these days, that are more concerned about the erosion of our privacy and our liberties.


Today's faux "right-wing" ( NeoConservatism) is not right-wing nor conservative, not the way traditional conservatives or right libertarians see it anyhow. We see it as left. It's big govt conservativism and actually has progressive points about it, such as replacing rogue regimes with democracies ( like the great progressive Wilson) only via force and American hegemony. NeoConservativism does not roll back the welfare state either.

The correct word for me is "classical liberalism" this was what our Framers were...but this is not what the progressive movement is about either as the progressive movement does not protect economic liberty or property rights as much as they should in fact they diminish them in the name of social justice for the collective good which requires pervasive regulation and big govt. It is really socialist without outright state ownership.