From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu Jan 30 2003 - 17:01:54 MST
Lee Daniel writes
> People /do/ spread those kinds of lies, and worse, every day. And the
> remedy for bad speech is /more/ speech, not suppression by force.
That's exactly right.
> ... But if all they do is speak, all I can do is speak in return,
> and hope that humans with reasonable minds judge us both reasonably.
>
> [The] contention that any kind of speech must be suppressed is typical of
> left-wing hopeless pessimism that humans are weak and ignorant and can't
> possibly judge ideas for themselves, so they must have the "right" ideas
> forced upon them, and be "protected" from dangerous ones. I for one
> have a bit more respect for human minds than that.
Well, I guess I don't have "any more respect for human minds"
than the leftists do. ;-) Humans *are* weak and ignorant,
and rarely judge ideas for themselves.
The problem is that non-libertarians leap from this to the
hideous conclusion that The Government is wiser and more just;
that if we simply elect "the right" people to rule, then the
weakness and ignorance of common people will be corrected.
The lessons of history that prove that the power so created
is abused go unheeded---there are always more people who
intuit that "The Government" can make things right.
Using force, naturally.
Kai retorts:
> If therefore someone uses this human behaviour
> to damage someone [else's] reputation by telling
> lies about him, this can have drastic as well as
> subtle consequences for the victim.
That's quite true, of course. The question is whether
to allow it to continue to be a war of words, or whether
force should be used to settle the dispute. Those
countries with the longest democratic traditions have
found that it's better NOT to use force, but rely
instead on the natural evolution of reputations,
naturally developing skepticism, and increased
sophistication.
Moreover, I surmise that many people, including many on
this list, have a not-so-secret longing for the use of
force. From my point of view, it's quite child-like;
instead of recognizing the superior resorts available
within a law-abiding society (that guarantees free
speech), there seems to be to them something almost
sexy about solving the problem by draconian action.
It's almost as if there were an agent in their minds
saying "why fool around with half-way methods that
might be ineffectual, when government force can simply
mandate what is desired?"
Curiously, when we move the discussion to the lawless
international realm---where there is no common culture
promoting individual rights and freedom of expression
---the roles often reverse. People who believe in the
use of force to maximize what is desirable within a
democratic society shun its use on the international
scale. Very interesting.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:04 MST