Radio personality and comic Ron Bennington once related a story about how he'd occasionally encounter or hear of someone who'd share, "I was prescribed Vicodin ten years ago after a surgery.
Sound analogy. I have a liquor cabinet full of opened bottles, some I've been sipping on for years. I also have a friend who can't buy a bottle without finishing it within a day or so of opening it. We otherwise have a lot in common, but on that point, there's no common ground. Your piece opened my eyes - there's just no reasoning with people on issues where there's no common ground. Pointing out the failure and destructiveness of "policies" certainly doesn't help.
“It's like compromising on gun rights. Despite a plethora of regulations and infringements enacted across the past century or more, gun control advocates continue to demand more "common sense" gun laws. We all know their end game is prohibition of civilian ownership, so why would we facilitate that end game by ceding even more of our rights?”
"The exceptions to First Amendment protection are well-known and well-defined: slander, libel, perjury, intimidation, incitement. "
I see this so often and I always make a point of trying to clarify it as I think it does much damage to rights - because if some exceptions are valid, then why not make a whole lot of other exceptions ("hate speech" has become a notable one - justified by this very confusion on rights).
These are not *exceptions* to the right of free speech for the very reason you then go on to note: "All these do quantifiable harm to others, therefore they violate others' rights".
A right - all definable rights - are reciprocal, which means one cannot have a right to *violate* the same or any other right. This is not a limit or exception, it is the only possible meaningful *definition* of rights.
The fact that slander or a threat can be spoken (or written), does not make it "speech" that is excepted from protection, it makes it a violation of rights, period. When one makes a threat, or engages in any of these other acts, one is NOT engaging in "free speech" in the first place, thus there is nothing to be excepted.
The *right* to free speech (and all other legitimate rights), when understood in this context, are *absolute*, NO exceptions.
It's more than just semantics. Your 1st Amendment protects *freedom of speech*. Full stop. There is no need for exceptions because, *as a right* freedom of speech cannot violate others' rights - no right violates any other (or else it is not in fact a right).
Threats, and the like, being violations of rights, are crimes, and crimes are not, and can never be considered, *an expression of any right*, speech or otherwise.
Think about it as it applies to religion. Do you consider murdering in the name of some god to be an "exception" to the right of religion or 1A's protection of it? No, because no matter the reason for it, murder - a crime - has nothing to do with that right. It does not matter that the culprit claims religion as his motivation, he simply committed a crime. Likewise, threats, slander, etc, have in fact nothing to do with one's right of speech.
Compromise sometimes seems like the impossible dream. It's like ideoligies and individual social viewpoints automatically have built-in safeguards against it. Of course, it's not true because people have to make the effort to tread those extra nine yards where there's a roadblock sign. Suddenly, I got the urge to hear the song "Get Together" by the Youngbloods.
I would say to the lads holding the Marxist Student Federation flag: “you chaps have your hands firmly wrapped around the throat of the goose that lays the golden eggs”😁
Peter, I believe you are my fave Greek author, even more so than Plato or Aristotle! 😁 I would like more details as to the issues over which you disagree vehemently with Libertarians. My two fave Conservatives are Drs. Krauthammer & Sowell: I would like to know the issues about which you disagree with them. Keep up the great work! 👍👍
I'd have to go point by point to find specific examples for specific people. My point is that even the most closely aligned persons will have areas of disagreement, and since any category, libertarianism included, covers a spectrum, there will always be disagreements, especially when you get into details.
Just as one example, you'll find a range of ideas on foreign policy within the umbrella.
Foreign policy indeed strikes me as the arena where we would find a wide range of opinions. Domestically, I wonder when and how the heck we’re gonna deal with the National Debt. I wonder if a necessary first step will be a balanced budget law or even amendment.
Sound analogy. I have a liquor cabinet full of opened bottles, some I've been sipping on for years. I also have a friend who can't buy a bottle without finishing it within a day or so of opening it. We otherwise have a lot in common, but on that point, there's no common ground. Your piece opened my eyes - there's just no reasoning with people on issues where there's no common ground. Pointing out the failure and destructiveness of "policies" certainly doesn't help.
“It's like compromising on gun rights. Despite a plethora of regulations and infringements enacted across the past century or more, gun control advocates continue to demand more "common sense" gun laws. We all know their end game is prohibition of civilian ownership, so why would we facilitate that end game by ceding even more of our rights?”
"The exceptions to First Amendment protection are well-known and well-defined: slander, libel, perjury, intimidation, incitement. "
I see this so often and I always make a point of trying to clarify it as I think it does much damage to rights - because if some exceptions are valid, then why not make a whole lot of other exceptions ("hate speech" has become a notable one - justified by this very confusion on rights).
These are not *exceptions* to the right of free speech for the very reason you then go on to note: "All these do quantifiable harm to others, therefore they violate others' rights".
A right - all definable rights - are reciprocal, which means one cannot have a right to *violate* the same or any other right. This is not a limit or exception, it is the only possible meaningful *definition* of rights.
The fact that slander or a threat can be spoken (or written), does not make it "speech" that is excepted from protection, it makes it a violation of rights, period. When one makes a threat, or engages in any of these other acts, one is NOT engaging in "free speech" in the first place, thus there is nothing to be excepted.
The *right* to free speech (and all other legitimate rights), when understood in this context, are *absolute*, NO exceptions.
We are in agreement, certainly. The only difference is semantics, isn't it?
I didn't write that they were exceptions to speech, but to 1A protection.
It's more than just semantics. Your 1st Amendment protects *freedom of speech*. Full stop. There is no need for exceptions because, *as a right* freedom of speech cannot violate others' rights - no right violates any other (or else it is not in fact a right).
Threats, and the like, being violations of rights, are crimes, and crimes are not, and can never be considered, *an expression of any right*, speech or otherwise.
Think about it as it applies to religion. Do you consider murdering in the name of some god to be an "exception" to the right of religion or 1A's protection of it? No, because no matter the reason for it, murder - a crime - has nothing to do with that right. It does not matter that the culprit claims religion as his motivation, he simply committed a crime. Likewise, threats, slander, etc, have in fact nothing to do with one's right of speech.
Compromise sometimes seems like the impossible dream. It's like ideoligies and individual social viewpoints automatically have built-in safeguards against it. Of course, it's not true because people have to make the effort to tread those extra nine yards where there's a roadblock sign. Suddenly, I got the urge to hear the song "Get Together" by the Youngbloods.
I would say to the lads holding the Marxist Student Federation flag: “you chaps have your hands firmly wrapped around the throat of the goose that lays the golden eggs”😁
Peter, I believe you are my fave Greek author, even more so than Plato or Aristotle! 😁 I would like more details as to the issues over which you disagree vehemently with Libertarians. My two fave Conservatives are Drs. Krauthammer & Sowell: I would like to know the issues about which you disagree with them. Keep up the great work! 👍👍
I'd have to go point by point to find specific examples for specific people. My point is that even the most closely aligned persons will have areas of disagreement, and since any category, libertarianism included, covers a spectrum, there will always be disagreements, especially when you get into details.
Just as one example, you'll find a range of ideas on foreign policy within the umbrella.
Foreign policy indeed strikes me as the arena where we would find a wide range of opinions. Domestically, I wonder when and how the heck we’re gonna deal with the National Debt. I wonder if a necessary first step will be a balanced budget law or even amendment.