Post by Clyde on Apr 29, 2015 19:04:05 GMT -5
The recent events i.e. the idiot who threatened to repeat 4/16, have sparked a discussion in the GroupMe. It was suggested that GroupMe was not an appropriate platform to discuss such topics. This was indicated by the popularity of Katy Perry. So before going on a tangent, here are my two cents on the issue. As libertarians, we hold on to freedom of speech very dearly, as we should. Someone could claim that threats like the one that started this discussion are free speech and should not be prosecuted. Such claim would not be completely unreasonable in my opinion. Here is why.
-The first amendment doesn't categorize different types of speech.
-The NAP (Non-Aggression Principle) takes a stance against aggression, but does not define aggression. If someone interpreted the NAP as referring only to physical aggression, and not verbal aggression, I can understand that position. Of course, threats are verbal aggression, but if we were to take a stand against verbal aggression, where do we draw the line, and more importantly, who draws that line.
Having said that, I hope we can all agree that such threats should not be tolerated and there must be a way to deal with them.
In a voluntaryist (anarcho-capitalist) society this would not be an issue. It could be solved very easily. Someone could make a threat and everyone who owns private property could ban such person from their property. Of course, everyone has the right to free speech, but I have property rights that allow me to keep idiots away from my property. Every property owner would deal with this as he/she saw fit. To sum up, you have the right to exercise free speech in your property, but get the fuck out of mine. Now, why is this a delicate issue in the current society?
Well, we have what we call "public spaces", that are "owned" by everyone. So as libertarians we can't stop someone from exercising their free speech or stop them from being in an area which they own (Remember, everyone "owns" the public spaces". So how do we deal with it? The answer is that you cannot deal with it without violating someone's rights. So we have to use some common sense and violate the rights of someone in order to protect multitudes of people from potential risk. The bottom line is situations like this reveal the flaws of a system which relies on a government. In the end you have to violate someone's rights. You either violate free speech or freedom of association for the people who don't want to be around idiots. Yet, the majority still claims that voluntaryism is the impractical system. In this case, voluntaryism provides a perfectly practical solution that does not violate anyone's rights. Looking forward to hear from you guys.
-The first amendment doesn't categorize different types of speech.
-The NAP (Non-Aggression Principle) takes a stance against aggression, but does not define aggression. If someone interpreted the NAP as referring only to physical aggression, and not verbal aggression, I can understand that position. Of course, threats are verbal aggression, but if we were to take a stand against verbal aggression, where do we draw the line, and more importantly, who draws that line.
Having said that, I hope we can all agree that such threats should not be tolerated and there must be a way to deal with them.
In a voluntaryist (anarcho-capitalist) society this would not be an issue. It could be solved very easily. Someone could make a threat and everyone who owns private property could ban such person from their property. Of course, everyone has the right to free speech, but I have property rights that allow me to keep idiots away from my property. Every property owner would deal with this as he/she saw fit. To sum up, you have the right to exercise free speech in your property, but get the fuck out of mine. Now, why is this a delicate issue in the current society?
Well, we have what we call "public spaces", that are "owned" by everyone. So as libertarians we can't stop someone from exercising their free speech or stop them from being in an area which they own (Remember, everyone "owns" the public spaces". So how do we deal with it? The answer is that you cannot deal with it without violating someone's rights. So we have to use some common sense and violate the rights of someone in order to protect multitudes of people from potential risk. The bottom line is situations like this reveal the flaws of a system which relies on a government. In the end you have to violate someone's rights. You either violate free speech or freedom of association for the people who don't want to be around idiots. Yet, the majority still claims that voluntaryism is the impractical system. In this case, voluntaryism provides a perfectly practical solution that does not violate anyone's rights. Looking forward to hear from you guys.
