The Right To Free Expression

[willy]

"It will take some imagination, but a thinking population would (virtually?) make every piece of legislation unnecessary. This would be true freedom, and probably lay the groundwork for a true democracy. "

I do appreciate the support but your interpretation of my statement was off.

You have an underlying premise of utilitarianism, that people do everything out of self interest. If they then were thinking, they would do the right thing. (I do hope I got at the premis of your statetment, if I am wrong, do correct me)

I don't buy this.

People are not rational and are inconsistent with what is the right thing. This is not because of lack of thought. This is because we have an inability to convince of every possible outcome of our action and thus have no idea what is in the best interest. This lack of control is then expressed in many ways, some individuals are constrained by social conformity and others reject it. My comments are only that I wish for people to at least question why they do what they do, and if they did the outcome may not be better but it would be intentional.

[KrustyKidd]

My comments are only that I wish for people to at least question why they do what they do, and if they did the outcome may not be better but it would be intentional.

Very wise Willy. 'Willy the Wise' you shall be known as from this day forward.

Here is another that says the same thing. I quote myself

If one has a belief that so weak it can’t stand legitimate, fact-based questioning and challenge, then quite possibly, it may be a mistaken belief

I have to say, that I, over the course of the last couple of years have had a few beliefs changed through argument and analysis. I still lean to the right, but don't have the ferverent defensiveess of what I had before, as I understand that not only are thngs not black and white, they are not even grey either. There are streaks of white in the grey, black in the white and all quite often, many events are 'Catch 22' situations that give neither side a moral position.

It is interesting to see how others were right in some cases but for reasons they either didn't know, lucked into or couldn't articulate properly to make their point at the time.

[o.i.c]

willy,

You got the essential idea, but it was not a premise...merely an idea. I was actually expecting people to interpret it as anarchy, but utilitarianism works too. My point I hoped to show is exactly the one you picked up on, that such an idea is ludacris because of us, and only us. Regardless of the system, there will always be issues because we are flawed and incapable of considering the effects of our behaviour, among others. It comes down to the age old question of how to control the masses, and I suppose this "democracy" is as good as any other means since Westerner's have bought into it. However, why do illusions of freedom exist? Why can't we acknolwedge what we are, or is arrogance more dangerous than I thought. Afterall, arrogance did at one point make the universe revolve around us.

I am glad to hear your idea of questioning one's own actions. This is why I chose to exagerate thinking as opposed to knowledge or intelligence, etc. in my last post. Thinking (i.e. objective self-analysis) is definately a great start. I know that the thinking population I portrayed before is virtually impossible (analogous to predicting the weather), and I'm not sure if it is even desirable.

KK, in a few ways, I feel the same way.

[o.i.c]

By banning political ads on television across the board we take that danger out of play.  If television can't be trusted to handle cigarette ads, why is it trusted as a medium of political discourse ?

The idea of such rules governing the political process says a lot about confidence in our politicians. But from what I know about the majority of television and the common interpretations gained from tv, I see your point. It brings up the issue of who to trust in the communication of ideas, if the important ones ever get communicated. Politics, it seems, is more about the icons than meaningful political ideas. Parties come into power, rather than ideas. Is there not something wrong when someone within an elected party, with an opposing vision, follows the unwritten (or is it written?) code to resign immediately. Shouldn't that opposing view represent the perspective of a particular riding, thus is worth considering even if it is a minority view?

Another point on the discussion of freedom of expression: I heard the Bush administration has banned the televisation of American caskets arriving from war. Anyone else think that this went too far? I wonder if this is something U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell talks about with his son, Chairman of FCC Michael Powell.

[August1991]

I find it almost amusing that there exists laws to ensure rights and freedoms. It will take some imagination, but a thinking population would (virtually?) make every piece of legislation unnecessary. This would be true freedom, and probably lay the groundwork for a true democracy. How does freedom exist today when laws (with consequences) dictate so much of one's life - from pedestrian lights and noise bylaws to genocide.

Sorry for the long quote, OIC, but it seems to me that you view the State as some sort of referee of a hockey game - and laws as the necessary rules of the game.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The truly relevant portions of our lives exist quite outside the State, and the rules we use have nothing to do with the rules of a game. It is gravely mistaken to imagine laws as sports rules necessary because people tend to cheat.

When two people marry, or someone signs an employment contract, heck when someone buys a chocolate bar, a whole series of rules are voluntarily accepted because without these rules, there would be no marriages nor jobs nor chocolate bars.

The basic rule is that you arrive at the table with something to offer and you have a reasonable degree of confidence that you'll get something in return. It is in the interest of everyone to respect this basic rule.