Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
did you mean, like, on anything in particular, or...
Am I missing something?
Edit: JJ ninjad me, so not to seem like a complete idiot, I suggest you talk to Anenome or Johannes who happen to hang out here. But imho Anenome is an AnCap ;)
This board really needs to get it's bugs fixed. I kept trying to place the original thing I wrote in the op, but it simply won't appear. It was something for one of my classes, but I think I figured it out. Not to keep you in suspense, here is the op: "Alright, so I'm so stuck in an volutuntaryist perspective, that I need someone with a minarchist prospective to help me out with one of my poli sci classes. Our professor asks how the government should balance security and freedom of speech, and if one value is more important then the other. Also, it asks if the judge of the following case created an appropriate solution httpen.wikipedia.orgwikiSchenck_v._United_States"
Who's to say there isn't a natural balance between security and freedom of speech?
Minarchist position would be that government is necessary to protect individual property/freedom and prevent others from initiating force or coercion; i.e., government is necessary to enforce the NAP and individual property rights. So as long as security and freedom of speech fit within these boundaries, they may coexist.
Anarchists argue that such government intervention is not only unnecessary, but it tends to result in bad intentions. As long as government may act without being held accountable for its actions, government will tend toward tyranny.
how the government should balance security and freedom of speech
Freedom of speech is unlimited as long as you're not creating a fraudalent contract.
Block wrote about yelling "fire" in a crowded theater:
http://mises.org/books/defending.pdf (Ctrol + F + crowded )
if one value is more important then the other
I suggest you point out that currently, free speech is apparently more important, as you can say almost whatever, but you have near 0 security from the government (eminent domain, taxes, drug laws, etc). Which is odd, given that free speech is not scarce (as long as you live and have functionaing vocal chords), while property and your body (which is also property) are scarce.
About Schenck:
Completely wrong decision! 1) violation of free speech 2) supporting the draft
1) Violating free speech violates the individual
2) The draft is indeed involuntary servitude. If a country can't get enough people to defend itself, their problem. Plus, it's not like the US was even being invaded.
As long as Schenck didn't actively tell people to hurt others or their property, he's in the clear.
About a minarchist perspective: Anenome is a self-proclaimed minarchist. However, he believes in voluntary contributions to the government, not compulsory taxes. It seems like he believes in some magical power behind the government which gives it legitimacy over court cases. But anyway, you can play the same game if you want a minarchist perspective.
The easiest answer to the question? Free speech should be denied when security is in peril! The Scenck case was correct. The government must protect the people. Horray Uncle Sam!
That's kind of funny as I'm in a similar position. I started a law class that treats the subject material very deeply, but it's an odd feeling to keep saying to yourself, "all of this is mostly bogus, and the discussion about the law is mostly just a huge reaffirmation of the status quo without any fundamental questioning." One poster here mentioned how ironic it was for Thomas DiLorenzo to be an anarchist in a room full of Congressman and I feel the same way.
/off-topic
Wheylous:Anenome is a self-proclaimed minarchist. However, he believes in voluntary contributions to the government, not compulsory taxes. It seems like he believes in some magical power behind the government which gives it legitimacy over court cases. But anyway, you can play the same game if you want a minarchist perspective.
I think of myself as merely a free capitalist. The derivation of 'minarch' came from trying to fit into other people's rubrics, 'AnCap' probably is better, though I'd say any label with the word 'anarch' in it is incorrect :P As for the legitimacy of courts, only those cases which require coercion to either compel attendance or to solve require a government court, since the law has a monopoly on responsive-coercion within society to right such wrongs.
Any case of honest disagreement between willing parties over contractual agreements can be solved by non-gov courts just fine, eg: binding arbitration. It's when one party won't come to the table that you have a problem.
An anarch society would encourage the Madoff's of the world, would encourage people to gain a reputation for honesty and then abuse it in one foul swoop. Why would Madoff care if people shunned him for investments for the rest of his life, he stole billions of dollars. The shun solution is not solution at all.
Libertyandlife: "Alright, so I'm so stuck in an volutuntaryist perspective, that I need someone with a minarchist prospective to help me out with one of my poli sci classes. Our professor asks how the government should balance security and freedom of speech, and if one value is more important then the other. Also, it asks if the judge of the following case created an appropriate solution httpen.wikipedia.orgwikiSchenck_v._United_States"
The problem with this case is that the draft itself is an aggression! It's a complete inversion to attack someone for denouncing the draft when the draft itself is illegal. As for free speech, it is absolute and there's no need to ever limit it by the use of coercion.
The example of 'yelling fire in a crowded theater' should be handled not by government coercion, but by free contract of the theater owner. The theater need only have rules for attendees, one being not to falsely yell fire, and any violating such should be escorted off the premises. And if the yeller caused a panic, they're liable for damages, and potentially criminally liable shoudl someone die, etc. End of story.
A free society never has need of a draft. No rational person will refuse to defend themselves against aggressors in a case of legitimate war. Look at what happened during WWII, some kids who were refused to join the military actually committed suicide out of their inability to go to war. There was no need of a draft. And look at the horror of Vietnam.
Besides which is the practical effect. Vietnam showed how poor a draft military is, how corrupt. We had very little national interest in Vietnam and they had to draft people because we weren't threatened.
Military professionals will tell you that a professional army, a volunteer army, is orders of magnitude more effective than a draft army, and modern warfare bears that out.
So the real issue in that case is why the justices allowed the draft and punished free speech (I know the draft wasn't at issue in that case, but such could've gone into the ruling on speech). Speech only becomes an issue of liability when somone is warranting something, such as speaking as a witness in a court case, yelling fire when there's no fire, defrauding another, etc. What possible abuse could there be about denouncing an immoral draft?
Libertyandlife:
???
Libertyandlife: ???
He's playing mind games with you, Anenome. Don't give in.
Libertyandlife:Alright, so I'm so stuck in an volutuntaryist perspective, that I need someone with a minarchist prospective to help me out with one of my poli sci classes. Our professor asks how the government should balance security and freedom of speech, and if one value is more important then the other. Also, it asks if the judge of the following case created an appropriate solutionhttpen.wikipedia.orgwikiSchenck_v._United_States"
A question like this has unlimited answers unless there is some sort of rule set to operate under or some intended goal; and asking if one value is more important than the other is just beyond meaning unless we put this entire thing in context. What is the aim when balancing security and freedom? What are the means at the governments disposal to actually "balance" between the two? When and where and to whom is one value more important than the other? Even the abstractions of 'security" and "freedom" need to be brought back to earth for discussion. The effects (and more importantly cost) of prohibiting anti-war speech vs. racial hate speech will vary with place and time depending on how much of it is going on. What constitutes appropriate when it comes to a supreme court decision? Appropriate to the judge, the government, the victims, to you, or to me?
But I think you could give a very good answer consistent with your own voluntaryist perspective: the government should not even try to "balance" between freedom and security because (1) they are not mutually exclusive and (2) security that emerges from a market order is more efficient than top-down state beuracracies. You needn't consult ethical theories about the legitimacy of the state this way, and same with the court case. You can point out that the cost of improsining political dissidents and enforcing speech policies is passed on to taxpayers who are not much safer, and that these rulings set precedents that lead down a slippery slope.
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage