An Individual's Freedom

[tango]

Depends on the context. Certainly people have the right not to listen. I do not believe they have the right to shout down someone who wishes to speak, however, and this is something the PC types commonly employ. In fact, they are the only ones who employ this method of free speech denial. I've seen cases where whole groups of them will attend a speech or gathering with only one specific intent; to shout down someone they don't want to be able to speak.

Yes, PC zealots always believe they are not only righteous but in the majority. In reality they are a tiny minority, however loudly they proclaim otherwise.

I am talking about social contexts and other voluntary activities.

No one has to listen to anybody.

White supremacists and racists, for example, should never be allowed to speak publicly, imo.

I'd just like to point out that you are doing it yourself: "PC zealots" is used as a degrading insult used to shut people up.

Edited July 12, 2009 by tango

[cybercoma]

My OP referred (perhaps inarticulately) to political correctness. To me, this is a new version of staid 19th century Victorian restrictions.

This shallowness of discourse between persons is nothing new. It's even evident in classic literature such as The Sorrows of Young Werther by Goethe, first published in 1774.

[Remiel]

Depends on the context. Certainly people have the right not to listen. I do not believe they have the right to shout down someone who wishes to speak, however, and this is something the PC types commonly employ. In fact, they are the only ones who employ this method of free speech denial. I've seen cases where whole groups of them will attend a speech or gathering with only one specific intent; to shout down someone they don't want to be able to speak.

What alternative do you think is the best one to use in cases where a person giving a speech is so objectionable? I mean, those who say, " I disagree with what you are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, " generally are not wanting people to just sit there and take it, I think. They want such freedom of expression expressly because they want people to be free to fight back, and in many, many places polite conversation is not going to cut it. You do have to get up in peoples faces and piss them off sometimes to deal with that.

[Argus]

I am talking about social contexts and other voluntary activities.

No one has to listen to anybody.

White supremacists and racists, for example, should never be allowed to speak publicly, imo.

The moment you get into suggesting we should deny freedom of speech to someone you render the entire concept of free speech intellectually bankrupt. The moment you can say "Free speech is not allowed FOR THEM, because I disapprove of what they say" you have no free speech.

And I have seen the way the term "racist" is interpreted by PC zealots to encompass virtually everyone who disagrees with them in any way, shape or form on any kind of racial or immigration issue. I"m not about to let that crowd decide who should and shouldn't have free speech, for soon no one would have it but them.

I'd just like to point out that you are doing it yourself: "PC zealots" is used as a degrading insult used to shut people up.

It's neither degrading nor an insult. It's a descriptive term. Nor have I attempted to shut anyone up. I like the fact that people can say things which will alienate thinking people, and that I can then point out how absurd and dangerous a PC zealot's opinion is.

[Argus]

What alternative do you think is the best one to use in cases where a person giving a speech is so objectionable? I mean, those who say, " I disagree with what you are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, " generally are not wanting people to just sit there and take it, I think. They want such freedom of expression expressly because they want people to be free to fight back, and in many, many places polite conversation is not going to cut it. You do have to get up in peoples faces and piss them off sometimes to deal with that.

I'm talking about people who will actually buy tickets in order to attend a speech with the specific intent of disrupting the speech and making it impossible for it to be given. What alternative do they have? How about not attending? I don't go and attend speeches given by idiots. I can't imagine why other people would. I wouldn't dream of going to a speech by some communist type just so I could shout him down. I"m not sure I even understand the mentality of people who not only believe they should do otherwise, but who believe they have the right to do otherwise.

By the way, "getting in someone's face" is another way of saying "Threaten them".

It's not free speech. It's the denial of free speech.

[Remiel]

By the way, "getting in someone's face" is another way of saying "Threaten them".

It's not free speech. It's the denial of free speech.

Threaten them with what?

Also, I am not sure why publicly and vehemously countering someones arguments is denial of free speech. A hostile debate is still a debate, not a lecture. I can understand why shouting someone down is unacceptable (in the vast majority of circumstances), but I do not see why standing in the front row and shouting a reply so that you can be sure everyone heard you is denial of free speech, especially if you are somewhere that you would not even be allowed to ask poignant questions if the organizers knew what you are up to. It may be rude, but it is not denial.

[Argus]

Threaten them with what?

Also, I am not sure why publicly and vehemously countering someones arguments is denial of free speech. A hostile debate is still a debate, not a lecture. I can understand why shouting someone down is unacceptable (in the vast majority of circumstances), but I do not see why standing in the front row and shouting a reply so that you can be sure everyone heard you is denial of free speech, especially if you are somewhere that you would not even be allowed to ask poignant questions if the organizers knew what you are up to. It may be rude, but it is not denial.

It is rude, and it's not denial - as long as you shout it once. But that's not the way it works. The way it works is people shout continuously, beat drums, blow whistles, and try to drown out the speaker they do not wish other people to hear - the other people who have come out specifically to hear that person speak. It is not only a denial of his freedom to speak it is a denial of their freedom to hear and judge. If you want a debate, set one up. Most of the people who gives speeches of the sort which raise controvery are delighted to defend it against a coherent argument. Shouted insults in a hall do not constitute a coherent argument.

[Strangles]

Thank European civilization for our rights and freedoms. No other culture has developed such a sophisticated philosophy and system for ensuring individual human rights. If it wasn't for Europe, billions of people would be living in abject poverty and ignorance, without rights or access to education and modern health care.

What a load of bollocks.

Three countries were central to the creation of what is considered freedom by modern classical liberal standards; United Kingdom (which doesn't like to consider itself European), France, and to some extent hypocritical America (freedom for the white-man only).

The rest of so called "Europe" didn't know freedom if it hit them in the face with a violent revolution until the 90s.

The Portuguese were running all over the Americas enslaving blacks and Indians until the end of the 19th century. The Spanish were doing the same until America beat them out of the region. The Germans were still bounded by their strongmen and feudal lords. They and the Italians loved strongmen so much they proceeded to revive them to power with a bang in the 1930s. The Russians to this day don't have many freedoms. And neither do the Moldovans, Albanians, and to some extend the Serbs.

Europe my arse!

Britain, France and a few other questionable foreign philosophers are the lynchpins. And they are hardly a representation of the whole of Europe.

[M.Dancer]

The rest of so called "Europe" didn't know freedom if it hit them in the face with a violent revolution until the 90s.

Britain, France and a few other questionable foreign philosophers are the lynchpins. And they are hardly a representation of the whole of Europe.

You are forgetting Poland (why do they do that?) Italy, Holland, Switzerland, Germany.....

The quest for freedom was in no way confined to Britain and France. Otherwise forget Protestantism and the rise of the nation state.

[Strangles]

You are forgetting Poland (why do they do that?) Italy, Holland, Switzerland, Germany.....

The quest for freedom was in no way confined to Britain and France. Otherwise forget Protestantism and the rise of the nation state.

You are forgetting Poland (why do they do that?) Italy, Holland, Switzerland, Germany.....

The quest for freedom was in no way confined to Britain and France. Otherwise forget Protestantism and the rise of the nation state.

In the modern sense, the quest of freedom was certainly not confined to Europe in that sense.

The British colonies of North America fought for their freedom. The Africans in Kenya and Ghana fought for their freedom. The Algerians fought for their freedom. The Brazilians fought for their freedom.

Blacks in America fought for their freedom, women fought for their freedom, gays and lesbians are fighting for their freedom, the Uighurs are fighting for their freedom and Tibetans are fighting for their freedom too. The list is endless and freedom is a relative term.

What is the definition of freedom? The freedom to enslave another person? The freedom to choose political affiliation? The freedom to criticize the establishment without fear of reprisal? freedom to marry who you choose? Worship whichever deity you wish?

The Europeans fought for their freedom at home while simultaneously taking away the freedoms of people in far off lands.

[M.Dancer]

The Europeans fought for their freedom at home while simultaneously taking away the freedoms of people in far off lands.

You can't take away something form someone that they didn't have in the first place. Before the British set up shop in india, indians were ruled by 100s of petty absolute monarchs...

[lictor616]

Do posters to this forum know how valuable/wonderful this freedom is?

We all face constraints in life. We can't do what we would like to do, usually because we don't have enough money.

But money aside, can we say what we want to say? In private, among friends?

Unfortunately, in our crumbling culture, we do NOT have complete freedom in Canada (or the US). There is increasing government regimentation of the public (by that I mean the increasing dictating of the terms of our relationships with others), already our freedom of association and freedom of speech have been undermined and weakened by hate crazed do-gooding liberals, who believe in freedom of expression ONLY for liberals or social democrats but not for anybody else.

They are the ones responsible for "hate speech" legislation and other obvious anti freedom schemes. Leftists are always pro big government, and pro meddling in people's lives- which NECESSARILY means a loss of freedom for all.

[lictor616]

Do posters to this forum know how valuable/wonderful this freedom is?

We all face constraints in life. We can't do what we would like to do, usually because we don't have enough money.

But money aside, can we say what we want to say? In private, among friends?

for instance,

I couldn't even dream of being candid and frank (as I am here) about my views on multiculturalism and other politically correct "no-no's".

I know that I could risk being fired or banned from my university if I were for example to talk about why I think "diversity"-of the kind we are forced to celebrate in Canada- is a weakness not a strength...

The number of things of which it is not Politically Correct to talk about seems to increase by the month... and we have come to the point where having an unorthodox opinion about ANY aspect of our society can actually have serious consequences for a person. Not only can you be fined, sued, charged with all sorts of ridiculous "hate speech" penalties, but the PC "leftist" rabble itself is so intolerant and hateful of differing opinions that you risk physical injury... Add to that the supremely sensitive and aggressive militant "minority groups", who are simply out to advance their own interest regardless of right or wrong and at what cost to others, and you have a recipe for repression the likes of which would make the soviet union blush.

[lily]

Someone that espouses uniformity of thought decries not being allowed a diverse opinion?

That's kind of funny.

[lictor616]

Someone that espouses uniformity of thought decries not being allowed a diverse opinion?

That's kind of funny.

and one that is constantly praising "diversity" isn't so keen on diversity of opinion.. .

I do not embrace uniformity of thought- I do however think that group cohesiveness is a good attribute for a country and that it comes naturally in any homogeneous society.

[lily]

I love diversity of opinion.... gives me something to argue against with.

[charter.rights]

and one that is constantly praising "diversity" isn't so keen on diversity of opinion.. .

I do not embrace uniformity of thought- I do however think that group cohesiveness is a good attribute for a country and that it comes naturally in any homogeneous society.

Of course that is a principle of the Haudenosaunee thought system!

[lictor616]

Of course that is a principle of the Haudenosaunee thought system!

the who?

[M.Dancer]

the who?

An English Mod Rock band from the 60s. Why you ask?

[eyeball]

(Strangles @ Jul 13 2009, 11:04 AM)

The Europeans fought for their freedom at home while simultaneously taking away the freedoms of people in far off lands.

You can't take away something form someone that they didn't have in the first place. Before the British set up shop in india, indians were ruled by 100s of petty absolute monarchs...

You say that with such a sycophantic panache. I guess you must get that from servicing the C-suite.

So two wrongs can make a right? No, I suppose only a government institution of some sort can do that. It just ain't natural somehow.

Edited July 15, 2009 by eyeball

[M.Dancer]

So two wrongs can make a right? No, I suppose only a government institution of some sort can do that. It just ain't natural somehow.

There was only one wrong...the wrong of the petty rulers...undoubtably the British experiance benefited the Indians tremendously. I doubt they would have the (relative) harmony they have now if it weren't for the British neutering the petty monarchs and giving them a viable form of government complete with a fully trained and functioning civil service to administer their teeming billions.

If British parliamentary democracy could have been patented, the Indian people today would either be falling over backwards to pay a royalty for it's use or working feverishly on a suitable knock off...

[Pliny]

Someone that espouses uniformity of thought decries not being allowed a diverse opinion?

That's kind of funny.

What is uniformity of thought? It sounds like a cloudy euphemism for Marxist ideology.

The Marxist, it seems, is the first person to complain of uniformity of thought - a bit odd.

In certain things we must be clear and of a common vision of society and it's direction. Is this uniformity of thought? It is only a concern when it invades every aspect of our individual lives and that is why government should not be an increasingly centralized social engineer because then it becomes increasingly necessary to adopt a "uniformity of thought".

You are definitely a socialist - Are you a Marxist?

Edited July 19, 2009 by Pliny

[charter.rights]

What is uniformity of thought? It sounds like a cloudy euphemism for Marxist ideology.

The Marxist, it seems, is the first person to complain of uniformity of thought - a bit odd.

In certain things we must be clear and of a common vision of society and it's direction. Is this uniformity of thought? It is only a concern when it invades every aspect of our individual lives and that is why government should not be an increasingly centralized social engineer because then it becomes increasingly necessary to adopt a "uniformity of thought".

You are definitely a socialist - Are you a Marxist?

Easily one can be uniform in thought with others along a common theme, and still hold diverse opinions. It is called consensus, which does not equal agreement, but maintains a principle not to interfere with the outcome of any given proposal.

Consensus is reached by examining many points of view, finding a way to incorporate valid points of view with the facts, and reaching a decision that allows the group to move forward without opposition.

Consensus is the highest form of participatory democracy.

[Pliny]

Consensus is the highest form of participatory democracy.

Is participatory democracy a good thing then?

When we vote and the majority elects a leader and MP that is when we participate and there is consensus. So basically we have consensus on who will represent us and our views. If they don't we vote for someone else in the next election.

We do need leadership that will keep our common interests as a nation intact. How much freedom does a Prime Minister have in leading our nation? Is his election to office enough of a consensus for him to act in whatever manner he believes is correct for the nation - within the boundaries of it's constitution, of course?

So basically then, consensus is contained in the Constitution, I would think? Will we ever get a consensus on cultural or moral issues or should we enact laws to decree our culture and mores?

A Constitution is what restricts the activities and direction of government. One of America's problems, in my opinion, is that the government does not want to be restricted by it's Constitution. Since it's inception people in government have been attempting to change or bypass or interpret the Constitution to favor more freedom for government to act as it desires or to cater to interests that foster the State and the centralization of power.

[charter.rights]

Is participatory democracy a good thing then?

When we vote and the majority elects a leader and MP that is when we participate and there is consensus. So basically we have consensus on who will represent us and our views. If they don't we vote for someone else in the next election.

We do need leadership that will keep our common interests as a nation intact. How much freedom does a Prime Minister have in leading our nation? Is his election to office enough of a consensus for him to act in whatever manner he believes is correct for the nation - within the boundaries of it's constitution, of course?

So basically then, consensus is contained in the Constitution, I would think? Will we ever get a consensus on cultural or moral issues or should we enact laws to decree our culture and mores?

A Constitution is what restricts the activities and direction of government. One of America's problems, in my opinion, is that the government does not want to be restricted by it's Constitution. Since it's inception people in government have been attempting to change or bypass or interpret the Constitution to favor more freedom for government to act as it desires or to cater to interests that foster the State and the centralization of power.

Neither Canada nor any of its provinces and territories are participatory democracies. The are parliamentary democracies that turn out to be oligarchies. Neither do they obtain a consensus among the voters, but rely upon fragmentation and dissension to obtain seats. This leaves opposition as "official" and there is little stomach to co-operate to get things done.

A participatory democracy does not have leaders but "representatives"who can be removed for failing to represent their constituency. Whenever a politician says he wants to be your "leader" should should run as far as you can away from them. Those kinds of promotions indicate that corruption is deep in the mind of the candidate.