Free Speech & Right to Privacy/Libel/etc (more fun with PZ!)

[Robert_S]

Meh.

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/freethoughtblogs.com

The traffic and the bounce rate don't look like they're going in good directions for them if you look over the long term.

[Cormac]

I threatened him with a defamation action, and I meant it.

He did not just defame Pappa, but all members of this forum. I am easily identifiable, as I use my real name, and have spoken about where I'm from, and so on.

PZ is sadly lacking in understanding the legal interplay between defamation, free speech, and the right to privacy. Hardly surprising, given the sycophantic cacophany over which he squats.

If it comes to anything, I might make the trip to attent the trial (and attendent meet)

I meant it at the time. I couldn't be arsed now.

I don't think that he got the message that what he did could have serious monetary consequences (for him).

[Coito ergo sum]

Same with the grass. You may not think a nice garden of grass is important for aesthetic purposes, but I do.

I've been assuming that the overwhelming consensus in red celt's imagined world is driven by one of two philosophies I can think of at this point .. a form of anarchy .. or a form of communism*. Any others?

The grass is almost irrelevant. It is allowed to run wild, or it is manipulated .. but the manipulation is an in the moment thing and does not impose value laden limitations on others.


*aside .. is there a possible combination of the two? anarchic communism?

Communism is extremely authoritarian. Anarchy the exact opposite. I didn't have an exact image in mind (although the anarchic state in The Dispossessed give an interesting picture), but my point was that a societal state could exist that had liberty and no property. Fixing the two together is a mistake... and one that libertarians can't help but making.

It's a porkpie short of a picnic basket.

But, hey... the grass is always greener, eh?

Except that you've illustrated, probably unintentionally, why property is linked to liberty, and in your suggested scenario, you explained that my liberty is limited by my inability to keep people off of the yard that I have around my house and work to maintain as a pleasant habitat for my family. My liberty to be secure and free from the impositions of others doesn't exist in your imagined scenario. I have to put up with people trampling the yard, and even borrowing the car I need. How does liberty exist, if I can't keep people from sleeping in the guest room when it's empty, or parking in the driveway in front of my house when it is empty?

And, if I can keep people from walking on the yard, parking in the driveway and sleeping in the guest room, then you're not imagining a world free of property rights.

[Red Celt]

Except that you've illustrated, probably unintentionally, why property is linked to liberty

Any chance of you re-reading everything I wrote? Only, this time... understanding it?

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, yes. The thing is, in a liberal society, your rights extend up until the point where the rights of others are contravened.

That is the general libertarian definition of liberty. It is not one that I share, generally speaking, because, for example, this presumes some sort of inherent meaning to "the rights of others." There isn't one.

When does my exercise of of a right contravene someone else's rights? When they are physically interfered with? When they are emotionally agitated or offended by what I do or say?

So, if someone were to cause harm to CES's well-tended lawn, they'd be breaking that premise. If they're liberal, they wouldn't cause harm to others. That would be true whether or not the lawn was "owned" by CES. Of course... that would require knowledge. His neighbours would need to know that he was anal-retentive about a square patch of grass and treat it differently to other stretches of grass which weren't considered areas of taboo wrt people walking on it.

This doesn't make any sense, because, in your world, I gather from what you've written, a person can't just pick an arbitrary tract of land and start tending it, thereby stripping everyone else of the right to trod on it, right? There must be a system of determining which plots of land an individual has the right to tend AND be free from the interference of others, right? If not that, then how is it determined which plots of land we can tend? First come first served?

"If they're liberal, they wouldn't want to cause harm to others." Well, if they're conservative or moderate, they generally don't want to cause harm to others either. However, some liberals, and some conservatives and some moderates do want to cause harm to others, or negligently wind up causing harm to others (it's not always a question of wanting to). Also, plenty of people may be of the view that trodding on the grass is not "harm" at all. So, who gets to determine what is harmful and what isn't?

Plenty of liberals, I would surmise, would scoff at the idea of a well-tended lawn, and would submit that such an anal retentive person need not be respected, and that they ought to be able to lay about the lawn, regardless of whether it is right outside the window of a bedroom where someone sleeps.

A liberal world can exist without the ownership of property. Whether or not you would personally value such a world is a moot point, as that wasn't what was being argued. Can such a world exist? Yes it can.

Liberal? That depends on your definition of liberal. If you mean can "liberty" exist without property rights, then there may be a world that can be envisioned where the former can exist without the latter, but the world YOU'VE envisioned is not one. In your world, liberty isn't there, because the very basic idea of being secure in a home is gone. If I can't rely on the car that I drive to work being there in the morning, because neighbor might want to use at the time I would like to leave in the morning and he may get to it 5 minutes before me, well, whither liberty?

[Robert_S]

Can we get the property rights discussion to swing from its tangential trajectory back toward how it applies to free speech principles as they relate to blogs, fora and other places of mob cacophony?

[Red Celt]

Can we get the property rights discussion to swing from its tangential trajectory back toward how it applies to free speech principles as they relate to blogs, fora and other places of mob cacophony?

Well, now... that would be a derail of a derail. How very dare you!

[Coito ergo sum]

Except that you've illustrated, probably unintentionally, why property is linked to liberty

Any chance of you re-reading everything I wrote? Only, this time... understanding it?

Believe me, what you've written is not complicated, and I understand it completely. The problem is that you don't think it through, and you have a very superficial understanding of the concepts you're trying to illustrate. That's why you never address head on the issues I raise - like whether I would have the right to expect the vehicle I brought home to use to drive to work every day to be there in the morning, or whether my neighbor can hop in, hot wire it, and drive it on their own personal errand at will (since neither of us own it, and both of us have, theoretically, an equal right to it's use). Or, the lawn -- rather than just scoff at the idea of a person tending a lawn surrounding the home in which they and their family lives, why don't you address the idea of whether I can have the right to keep them off?

You keep talking about harm -- but, apparently, you don't consider damaging the lawn itself by trodding on it or laying on it to be "harm" - since you appear to have said that people would be allowed to use the lawn, even over my objection. But, you then suggested that they would be "liberal" and they wouldn't use the lawn to cause harm to it. However, walking on it causes harm to it. I've explained how that is. So, are the "liberal" people allowed to trod through the yard or not? I've already told you how it is harmful to the lawn for them to do that. You've said they aren't permitted in your world to cause harm. Well, do you stand by the proposition that my lawn is open for the neighbors to play and trod on? If so, you are allowing them to cause harm to the lawn. If not, don't I have a property right in the lawn, even if you're not calling it one?

[Coito ergo sum]

Can we get the property rights discussion to swing from its tangential trajectory back toward how it applies to free speech principles as they relate to blogs, fora and other places of mob cacophony?

Fair enough.

[Robert_S]

Can we get the property rights discussion to swing from its tangential trajectory back toward how it applies to free speech principles as they relate to blogs, fora and other places of mob cacophony?

Well, now... that would be a derail of a derail. How very dare you!

It's less work than a split at this point.

You see, the principles involved are the right of one or more people to exercise control over some real or virtual space or object. I support FtBlogger's right to ban and censor anyone and anything they please. They buy this right not only through their resources being used to support the site, but also by their responsibility for what gets published in their site.

[Coito ergo sum]

Can we get the property rights discussion to swing from its tangential trajectory back toward how it applies to free speech principles as they relate to blogs, fora and other places of mob cacophony?

Well, now... that would be a derail of a derail. How very dare you!

It's less work than a split at this point.

You see, the principles involved are the right of one or more people to exercise control over some real or virtual space or object. I support FtBlogger's right to ban and censor anyone and anything they please. They buy this right not only through their resources being used to support the site, but also by their responsibility for what gets published in their site.

Agreed.

However, having a right to do X, Y or Z does not immunize one from criticism over the unreasonableness of one's actions. And, just as a Creationist website that opens a forum dedicated to an open discussion of intelligent design would be rightly criticized for banning people who post arguments against intelligent design, so too is a forum that bills itself to be about skepticism and freethought open to criticism for banning people for espousing the wrong view of things. They have the right to do as they please, but they don't have the right to be considered right.

[Red Celt]

Believe me, what you've written is not complicated, and I understand it completely.

You clearly, categorically, fundamentally do not understand it completely, else you wouldn't keep referring to everything as the property of others... which you did (yet again) in this very same reply. Your brain just can't grasp the concept of things being un-owned. Even at the most basic level, you're holding onto the idea of you owning your property (and the lawn that goes with it, of all things) and a car. At every step of the way, not once have you taken that simplest of steps of conceding that you don't own anything.

And you think that liberal and liberty are synonyms. I mean, Jesus Fuck...

The problem is that you don't think it through

I'm off to teach my dog quantum mechanics. I think I'll make more progress there.

[Coito ergo sum]

Believe me, what you've written is not complicated, and I understand it completely.

You clearly, categorically, fundamentally do not understand it completely, else you wouldn't keep referring to everything as the property of others...

I haven't been. I have been very careful to refer to the lawn as the lawn surrounding the house in which I and my family sleep, and the car as the vehicle I use to get to work, etc.

which you did (yet again) in this very same reply. Your brain just can't grasp the concept of things being un-owned.

Yes, I do grasp the concept. You don't seem to have a good handle on how that concept works in real life, though.

Even at the most basic level, you're holding onto the idea of you owning your property (and the lawn that goes with it, of all things) and a car.

No no. I have been very clear to indicate that the lawn is surrounding the house I live in, and that as such, like the aesthetic beauty of the living room, the kitchen and the exterior of the house, the lawn is something that anyone living in a place may take pride in maintaining. That's all I said. Just like our ancestors in caves tended to the places they lived, so too do people do that today.

At every step of the way, not once have you taken that simplest of steps of conceding that you don't own anything.

Can you read Engiish? Just because I don't own anything doesn't mean that there isn't a house I live in, or a car I drive, or a lawn surrounding the house. Just saying they aren't owned doesn't mean you've said anything about who can use what. Why won't you address the issue of whether I can park a car in the driveway of the house where I live and have any expectation that the neighbors can't hotwire it and take it for a spin? Do I have a right to the car, or not? I don't care whether you say it is unowned - I still need and want a car to drive around in. If I bring home a car and park it in the driveway, do I or do I not have the right to keep my neighbors from driving it? Do they have the right to drive it?

Same thing with the spare room in the house I and my family live. If there is an empty room in there, does another person have the right to use that room? Why or why not?

And you think that liberal and liberty are synonyms. I mean, Jesus Fuck...

No - I said exactly the opposite, dummy.

You started out this discussion by suggesting that liberty can exist exist without property. That's where I've been trying to hold this conversation. You sidestepped by talking about "liberal" society. So, since we both know liberal and liberty don't mean the same thing, why did you change your assertion from liberty and property being separable, to "liberal" and property being separable?

The problem is that you don't think it through

I'm off to teach my dog quantum mechanics. I think I'll make more progress there.

You don't know enough to teach your dog to eat dog food out of a bowl.

[Cormac]

I think that liberty and the negation of property rights are also incompatible. I do think that without private property, freedom is not possible.

I see what Coito is saying. I don't think it is too hard to grasp. He most certainly has a point.

[Red Celt]

You don't know enough to teach your dog to eat dog food out of a bowl.

Jolly good. Your personal insult gives me free reign to return it. Please pay attention to that fact (aimed at anyone with an itchy trigger finger vis-a-vis the Report Button).

Coito, you're a fucking moron. You not realising that you're a moron doesn't make you less moronic. I mean... you voted for Romney, right. I could say case closed, but no... every word you've said in this thread keeps that case wide open.

Your home. Your car. Your lawn... I mean... a lawn FFS. Not once, at any point, did you ascertain the suggestion of the idea that maybe, just maybe, the imaginary world that I suggested didn't have homes, or cars, or lawns. No. The imaginary world has to be as identical to this world as possible. Have you no imagination whatsoever? Apparently not, if you think that a standard-issue, machine-cut uniformity of artificially shortened blades of grass is the cornerstone that can break an imagined world.

You're not only stupid... you're an excrescence on the shoe-heel of stupidity. And there's few ways better than getting the shit off of a shoe than to wipe it on the lawn of someone unimaginative enough to think that it has value enough to be owned... with pride.



An imaginary world, where the sun is never too hot and the nights are never too cold... humans, without the need for homes, moving freely from pasture to pasture... like a Hippy dreamworld, with no property of any description whatsoever... and as liberal as liberal can be.

And my claim has been proven to be true - a liberal world that doesn't require ownership.

I guess that an imagined world is a real struggle for people without imagination.