Well, North Korea does OK for itself considering it's almost wholly separated from the outside world.CosmicCommander said:
Oh, and of course, there are things like this.
Poll: Free Speech, Necessary?
- Thread starter CosmicCommander
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Oh, and of course, there are things like this.
For only a select group or on a societal level? And given that you're probably asking if it's necessary to maintain our current way of life, I'd say yes. Otherwise, you'd either get anarchy or oppressive rule.CosmicCommander said:
Fixed. What, it's almost true.Hardcore_gamer said:
*rubs hands together deviously*
But seriously, as I said, considering the world hates them and they're producing only what they've got in their borders (pretty much), they're doing fine.
They are, but at the expense of many of their citizens, I respect them, but I still dislike them.CuddlyCombine said:
I'd beg to differ on that. Sure it helps, but if you've got free speech and no food you probably won't be very happy [/nitpicking]CosmicCommander said:
In all seriousness, I think freedom of speech is typically the most abused freedom, because unfortunately most people don't seem to want to take responsibility for what they say, and any time the government or someone else tries to put responsibilities on what they in all accounts are still free to say, they run around waving giant freedom banners ranting on about how the school principals are trying to turn the place into a fascist dictatorship (true story). In short, yes I do believe we should be free to say what we want, but we must also accept the responsibility of possessing that freedom. I've got a good article that discusses what I've been talking about, if I find it I'll add it to my post.
Meh, Saddam was the same and the U.S. was allied with him and supported his regime for how many years?CosmicCommander said:
John Stuart Mill argues that we all experience the world subjectively; when I witness an event I will interperet it differently from you. Thus each person possesses their own unique perspective on the world around us. Free speech is therefore required in order for us to compare these various, subjective realities and establish a common truth which we can use to progress.
It is only by compaing an contrasting different ideas that we are able to identify their flaws develop sound replacements.
It is only by compaing an contrasting different ideas that we are able to identify their flaws develop sound replacements.
Let's put it like this... it's not *all* good, but it sure as hell beats the alternative. No freedom of speech means democracy is impossible. As is anarchy, since someone has to be the one in charge, making sure people don't say the wrong things. This leaves a bunch of different ways to run a country, but they all fall into the dictatorship category. Now that's not necessarily bad. I think it beats the crap out of democracy if (and it's a big "if") the rulers do everything the way I want it done. You know... if they kill all the people I don't like, and none that I actually do like. If they only arrest those who are truly guilty of something I think should be a crime (but of course they should let me go with a warning if I make some tiny little mistake -- only punish others!!!). If they let me go about my business, and only bother people I don't give a damn about. If they made all religions illegal, so that everyone in the country would share my beliefs... Yeah, that country would be great. Don't you agree? No, probably not... I'm pretty sure at least 95% of all people wouldn't. And that's the problem.
Without free speech (and thus democracy), we'd have to rely on the benevolence of our rulers, and that wouldn't be worth shit if we didn't share their opinions and values. Of course dictatorship is a good idea when it's on your terms. But in reality, it's always on the rulers' terms. In a utopian world with a single "good" and everything else being "evil", of course it would be great to live in a society with a good dictator that makes everything evil illegal. But in reality "Good is a point of view" ( --Palpatine, Ep. III... yeah, yeah, it's a prequel, but he's right, nonetheless). One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. One man's hero is another man's villain. One man's religion is another man's superstition. One man's holy crusade is another man's slaughter of innocents. Need I go on?
Without free speech (and thus democracy), we'd have to rely on the benevolence of our rulers, and that wouldn't be worth shit if we didn't share their opinions and values. Of course dictatorship is a good idea when it's on your terms. But in reality, it's always on the rulers' terms. In a utopian world with a single "good" and everything else being "evil", of course it would be great to live in a society with a good dictator that makes everything evil illegal. But in reality "Good is a point of view" ( --Palpatine, Ep. III... yeah, yeah, it's a prequel, but he's right, nonetheless). One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. One man's hero is another man's villain. One man's religion is another man's superstition. One man's holy crusade is another man's slaughter of innocents. Need I go on?
Freedom of speech is good because it is always possible that one's estimation of the facts is wrong or that one's opinion leads to harm rather than benefit. Achieving good opinions is best and most economically achieved by the contest of a variety of opinion. A suitable variety of opinion can only be achieved where heresy is not anathema. Variety of opinion leads to variety of practice, and a variety of practice is the engine of social progress. We live, observing others and revising our own practices, letting ourselves be an example to others and others an example to us: knowledge is created by variety of opinion and practice. We do not enforce the holding of what we consider the best opinions nor do we outlaw any actions other than what we consider to be the best practices because we do not know either of these and we can only get better by trying different things and not the same thing.
I see Plato as the Father of Non-reason in the west, and as I said, idiots will have to be ignored, if your smart, you will.Mazty said:
So because some people are morons, and other people are even dumber morons who will listen to them, someone gets to decide what is and is not acceptable to say?Mazty said:
edit:
You are horribly, horribly wrong.LimaBravo said:
The government should never repress anyone, regardless of what they have to say. If someone is spouting bullshit, supply people with the truth. Or just ignore them. Suppressing things you do not like is the first step on the road to totalitarianism.
Everyone has an opinion, and the right to express that opinion. That doesn't make all opinions equally valid. It's very, very easy to prove someone a liar, just supply facts.
Well in reality you only ever have freedom of speech to an extent. Once the government decides you've gone too far with your free speech you're then encouraging hatred or anti government sentiment or something like that. So in effect, it's good because it gives people the idea of freedom and yet the government can still tighten the strings when you go too far.
Then my question would be who decides those standards?Mazty said:
In your example, said council will design the standards, and it will be done, as has been done throughout all human history, in such a way so that only those who agree with the almighty will of the council are allowed to suggest changes.
Limiting speech is harmful, in every possible situation, no matter what your reasons or intentions are. You don't like idiots, ignore them. They start physical violence, kill them. But you cannot impinge on a man's right to speak his mind. I don't care who you are, or how important/smart/better you think you are. In all likelihood, everyone else is convinced they are just as superior to you as you believe you are to them. You cannot establish standards like what you suggest because whoever has power will manipulate them to keep that power. The only way for society to be fair, equal and just is to allow all people the freedom to act as they please, provided they do not impinge on the freedom of same of others.