Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Freedom of expression gone too far

rated by 0 users
This post has 16 Replies | 2 Followers

Top 50 Contributor
Posts 1,711
Points 29,285
SkepticalMetal Posted: Wed, Oct 17 2012 8:12 PM

I was once having a talk with somebody about anarcho-capitalism, and what that person was worried about, above all things (go figure) was "freedom of expression gone too far." This is him asking how something like, say, public nudity would be handled in a free society, or racist talk being "speech used to oppress others mentally."

How do you respond to something like that?

  • | Post Points: 65
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,018
Points 17,760

Private property rights.

You can say anything in your property, but in other people's property you must follow their rules.

“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence."
"The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 1,711
Points 29,285

Would there be any place that isn't owned by someone?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 432
Points 6,830
Groucho replied on Wed, Oct 17 2012 8:32 PM

Personally, I'm partial to Penn Jillette's response that "the answer to BAD speech is MORE speech."

If someone is walking around naked, point and laught at his tiny willy. Or if he's hung like a bear, make fun of him for being a mutant freak. If it's a hot chick, just sit back and enjoy.

If it's some racist lunatic, they usually make themselves look like fools more than anyone else.

Or just ignore them. It's a very small contingent that would ever actually do these things anyway. Go to any large city with a considerable vagrant population and you can witness this "excessive" freedom of expression already, so it's not as though the state shields us from it now.

What keeps most people in line is how they're regarded by their peers, not the fear of a cop swooping in and dragging them off to jail.

An idealist is one who, on noticing that roses smell better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup. -H.L. Mencken
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 1,711
Points 29,285

Very good point, thanks.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Wed, Oct 17 2012 8:37 PM

Racist speech is currently legally allowed, so...

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 1,711
Points 29,285

Yes, but there are people out there who view it as a form of oppressing others. I personally find racism despicable, but I'm all for freedom of speech. How do you reconcile the two?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Wed, Oct 17 2012 8:48 PM

You don't trade with them?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 1,711
Points 29,285

What?

Oh and congrats on the 4000th post.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 432
Points 6,830
Groucho replied on Wed, Oct 17 2012 8:54 PM

I think Wheylous means vote with your dollars - exclude them from any business dealings.

(and congrats to Mr. W on post # 4,000!)

An idealist is one who, on noticing that roses smell better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup. -H.L. Mencken
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 1,711
Points 29,285

Ah, I see. I have a feeling that at some point we will eventually evolve past racism in the same way we are evolving past the state right now. Just look at little kids - they don't see each other as black, white, or brown. It's the adults who pass that on.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Wed, Oct 17 2012 9:40 PM
 
 

SkepticalMetal:

I was once having a talk with somebody about anarcho-capitalism, and what that person was worried about, above all things (go figure) was "freedom of expression gone too far." This is him asking how something like, say, public nudity would be handled in a free society, or racist talk being "speech used to oppress others mentally."

How do you respond to something like that?

As for public nudity, the streets, sidewalks, "public" areas would all be owned and have terms of use. The owners would simply escort them off the property if they go nude against their will. Public-access areas will be things like shopping malls, streets, parks--all privately owned.

As for racism, it is its own punishment. Let's say that X only like tall blond swedes. He refuses to rent to anyone but those kinds of people. He will have to spend a very long time and go through very many applicants looking for his prefered tenant, thus costing him very much money.

Similarly, any company that refused to hire say, hispanic women, would expose itself both to boycott risks and gaining a bad name for it, and also have to turn away any hispanic women from working or shopping there, which would be direct financial harm.

This is why businessman typically are very conservative, not wanting to piss off any customer group at all.

SkepticalMetal:
Would there be any place that isn't owned by someone?

No, none at all. Anything not owned by someone is by definition unowned. This is why gov claims to own land within its jurisdiction is illegitimate. The US gov claims ownership on some 25% of the country, which claim it made by fiat, without homesteading, without trading for the land.

 

SM: Suggest you read Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty asap. It's both an enjoyable read and addresses this and many other such questions directly :)

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 1,711
Points 29,285

Interesting.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,018
Points 17,760

Masterchief,

We are all racists.

It is merely a preference.

Some people like black girls, some like white girls, some like asian (i love asian), some like hispanics....

Some dislike other kinds of races, etc, etc

It is merely a preference. But the time when it is despicable is when you outright use force to harm a person, that is when its wrong.

And also yes, a store owner that rejects blacks, and hispanics will lose money (decreased amount of customers) and suffer from shitty reputation wheras other customers (like you) wont buy from them.

So economically it is the best policy to maintain a race neutral policy.

“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence."
"The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 305
Points 7,165

I agree, I think it's ridiculous and counter productive to crusade for "eradicating racism". The best cure for racism is allowing people to decide for themselves that it's foolish. It just takes time, real education, and for the state and leftists to quit reinforcing the same old elements of racism in their rhetoric and policy.

That being said, I think "racism" (which has basically become nothing more than a toxic branding tool) is endemic to humanity and cannot be eradicated in the first place. It's the same natural discrimination that we all develop naturally in the course of experience, environment, and genetics. It's neither good nor bad. And it's not even about race per se. It's every physical and personality factor. So what? As long as it's not manifested in something that is explicitly destructive, then all of the other aspects of our natural preferences will regulate themselves. Like Kelvin said, a store owner that rejects blacks will go out of business very quickly.

http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2010/06/02/the_right_to_discriminate/page/full/ 

I know, it's TownHall, but I confess that I appreciate Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell regardless.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 1,711
Points 29,285

Hmm. Very good points, all of you. I've always viewed racism as an ugly form of collectivism that goes against the very fabric of individualism, but I guess "discrimination" in the true sense of the word is used everyday by people who don't even know they are doing it.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 452
Points 7,620

Let's use the term racism correctly. Racism is the belief in the inherent superiority of one race over another. I don't know anyone who espouses such views. There are, however, many racial stereotypes predicated on behavior. Stereotypes are based in reality, and there is nothing wrong with the observations they make. Unfortunately, racism has been used as a blanket term by the Democrat Party to include any statement merely involving the aspect of race.

There's also nothing wrong with discrimination, such as in preference for the opposite sex.

http://thephoenixsaga.com/
  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (17 items) | RSS