Don’t Preach about Censorship if you do not know anything about it (let alone spell it).
July 19th 2008 01:34
Don’t Preach about Censorship if you do not know anything about it (let alone spell it).
If you want to know about the health benefits of a carrot why ask a donkey? A donkey will just follow the carrot dangled in front of its nose in the hope that it brainless trek will lead to an end. So too is it the same with people who fall in love with a word and then impose upon it the definition that they love. Sure we could spend all day debating the meaning of words but to what end? Since when have one word answer ever solved a problem. Instead all we have is one word boogie men that suit the imaginary archetype that people would wish to destroy.
Some people love words that excuse their own bad behaviour like vilification but also condemn others as being worse than Hitler. The Censorship archetype is such a ruse because the uneducated often mistake their maniacal anarchism with some kind of freedom and justice. Yes we would all like to be anarchists, doing what we please so long as another anarchist does not do unto us what we cannot do unto them. The KKK love to condemn Censorship as if they alone have been singled out for unfair treatment. The fact that they engage in racial slurs and call for violence is often over looked by their self professed libertarians whose only ambition spread hate.
You cannot apply the Censorship as if it is some great untouchable god unless you actually know what it means and how it is applied. Simply put if I make racist statement in a public forum I open myself up to the legal ramifications and can be fined. If I engage in slander I can be sued and if I engage in libel the hard evidence makes it much easier for me to be sued. To the uneducated this is censorship and they would beat their libertarian drums endlessly. Yet to the law they are some idiot who is going to pay through the nose for their stance.
Try to blurt out your prejudices and personal hates for any individual in an Australian Workplace and you will a whole set of mechanisms to Censor your tirades. You cannot call derogatory names to a co-worker, nor can you put up derogatory images of that person. The OH&S legislation prevents on the grounds of a safe working environment and the Anti Discrimination legislation makes the employer legally responsible to put a stop to it. An employer who refuses to put a stop to such behaviour is considered to be an accomplice by the courts.
Some of you who are older enough may recall that up until the mid 1980’s many work places were adorned with posters of naked women. The people of the eighties were no more sexual than we are now, so where did all those images go? How come you cannot even put up the poster of a topless sunbather on the wall? There was no great swing of deep morals since the 1980’s, so how come in the span of few years were all the workplaces cleaned up? The answer is simple, there was a huge clamp down because such images due to anti discrimination and duty of the employer to provide a safe working environment for women. Censorship was applied in the work place to protect women from being sexually harassed. In fact the display of explicit images was deemed to be sexual harassment.
Taken to its logical conclusion the rabid self appointed protectors of liberty would have us return to an age where women were being sexually harassed and intimidated in the workplace through images. Furthermore why should we stop with the workplace? If every restriction is deemed as evil Censorship then why prevent such images being pinned up at the local child minding centre? Of course such people would decry this as pure madness and they would be right, but it is madness that can only be possible under their rational.
Before I conclude I would like to draw your attention to what is real oppressive Censorship rather than the unconscionable excuses to pin up derogatory libel or to excuse cyber bullying. When many of these twenty something’s were still in nappies and sucking on baby bottles, my friends were forced to be silent against the murderous campaign of President Premedasa in Sri Lanka. These people were being forced not to speak or they would have been killed. I do not exaggerate this at all. Journalists were being killed for telling the truth, with one washing up on a beach after being dropped into the ocean from a helicopter. It is a far cry from those days but Sri Lanka is still the second most dangerous place in the world to be a journalist. Even today were have censorship across the mouths of those that know too much and not allowed to speak.
There are people who can and do criticise in a way that would have had them shot just a few years ago. Film makers and artists are making points to level criticism where it belongs: on the politicians that have raped the country. The most popular music artist in Sri Lanka name is Sunil Perera. With biting wit and fearless determination he has made statements that few would dare make. His song ‘I don’t know Why’ directly attacks the answers that politicians have been giving to the media for the problems in the nation. His regular satire is aimed at the corrupt and the powerful who exploit the weak.
It is easy for the bedroom heroes and computer warriors to cry Censorship whenever they wish to excuse their own bad behaviour. Yet I do not see any of them putting their lives on the line in the same way that Sunil Perera is doing. Instead when I see the cowardly personal attacks in the form of derogatory images and it takes me back. Back to 1983 when the headline of a newspaper in Sri Lanka printed in stark letters, ‘KILL TAMILS.’ In the four days that followed thousands were killed.
Censor this
If you want to know about the health benefits of a carrot why ask a donkey? A donkey will just follow the carrot dangled in front of its nose in the hope that it brainless trek will lead to an end. So too is it the same with people who fall in love with a word and then impose upon it the definition that they love. Sure we could spend all day debating the meaning of words but to what end? Since when have one word answer ever solved a problem. Instead all we have is one word boogie men that suit the imaginary archetype that people would wish to destroy.
Some people love words that excuse their own bad behaviour like vilification but also condemn others as being worse than Hitler. The Censorship archetype is such a ruse because the uneducated often mistake their maniacal anarchism with some kind of freedom and justice. Yes we would all like to be anarchists, doing what we please so long as another anarchist does not do unto us what we cannot do unto them. The KKK love to condemn Censorship as if they alone have been singled out for unfair treatment. The fact that they engage in racial slurs and call for violence is often over looked by their self professed libertarians whose only ambition spread hate.
You cannot apply the Censorship as if it is some great untouchable god unless you actually know what it means and how it is applied. Simply put if I make racist statement in a public forum I open myself up to the legal ramifications and can be fined. If I engage in slander I can be sued and if I engage in libel the hard evidence makes it much easier for me to be sued. To the uneducated this is censorship and they would beat their libertarian drums endlessly. Yet to the law they are some idiot who is going to pay through the nose for their stance.
Try to blurt out your prejudices and personal hates for any individual in an Australian Workplace and you will a whole set of mechanisms to Censor your tirades. You cannot call derogatory names to a co-worker, nor can you put up derogatory images of that person. The OH&S legislation prevents on the grounds of a safe working environment and the Anti Discrimination legislation makes the employer legally responsible to put a stop to it. An employer who refuses to put a stop to such behaviour is considered to be an accomplice by the courts.
Some of you who are older enough may recall that up until the mid 1980’s many work places were adorned with posters of naked women. The people of the eighties were no more sexual than we are now, so where did all those images go? How come you cannot even put up the poster of a topless sunbather on the wall? There was no great swing of deep morals since the 1980’s, so how come in the span of few years were all the workplaces cleaned up? The answer is simple, there was a huge clamp down because such images due to anti discrimination and duty of the employer to provide a safe working environment for women. Censorship was applied in the work place to protect women from being sexually harassed. In fact the display of explicit images was deemed to be sexual harassment.
Taken to its logical conclusion the rabid self appointed protectors of liberty would have us return to an age where women were being sexually harassed and intimidated in the workplace through images. Furthermore why should we stop with the workplace? If every restriction is deemed as evil Censorship then why prevent such images being pinned up at the local child minding centre? Of course such people would decry this as pure madness and they would be right, but it is madness that can only be possible under their rational.
Before I conclude I would like to draw your attention to what is real oppressive Censorship rather than the unconscionable excuses to pin up derogatory libel or to excuse cyber bullying. When many of these twenty something’s were still in nappies and sucking on baby bottles, my friends were forced to be silent against the murderous campaign of President Premedasa in Sri Lanka. These people were being forced not to speak or they would have been killed. I do not exaggerate this at all. Journalists were being killed for telling the truth, with one washing up on a beach after being dropped into the ocean from a helicopter. It is a far cry from those days but Sri Lanka is still the second most dangerous place in the world to be a journalist. Even today were have censorship across the mouths of those that know too much and not allowed to speak.
There are people who can and do criticise in a way that would have had them shot just a few years ago. Film makers and artists are making points to level criticism where it belongs: on the politicians that have raped the country. The most popular music artist in Sri Lanka name is Sunil Perera. With biting wit and fearless determination he has made statements that few would dare make. His song ‘I don’t know Why’ directly attacks the answers that politicians have been giving to the media for the problems in the nation. His regular satire is aimed at the corrupt and the powerful who exploit the weak.
Sunil Perera must have a death wish.
It is easy for the bedroom heroes and computer warriors to cry Censorship whenever they wish to excuse their own bad behaviour. Yet I do not see any of them putting their lives on the line in the same way that Sunil Perera is doing. Instead when I see the cowardly personal attacks in the form of derogatory images and it takes me back. Back to 1983 when the headline of a newspaper in Sri Lanka printed in stark letters, ‘KILL TAMILS.’ In the four days that followed thousands were killed.
| 97 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
A Global Citizen
Paranormal Paranormal
Is Why
Alaska Chronicle
However, it may fall upon deaf ears; many feel that the internet is the cyber version of the wild west and it isn't.
Here on Orble, we all agreed to a set of rules that are rather liberal, but important just the same. Some of the more radical elements herein need to understand that this website is a business set up to earn money through advertising and as such is more of a benevolent dictatorship than a free fire zone. We are all guests of that dictatorship and he's reserved the right to expunge malcontents.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
I do not write for those that cannot read.
Regardless of my opinion things happen in particular way.
This is an old theme on Orble and every so often someone decides that it is their exclusive property.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Censorship is used all over the world for different reasons, although today those reasons lean more toward the political. Some of our singers use hate speech as loudly as they can and are not censored. Black "artists" use racism, rape and murder in their "rap" music. No one says they can't. But if a white man, Don Imus for instance, makes any racial remark, he is lambasted all over the place.
Personally, I think people should use their own consciences and not produce music or movies that cause racial tensions or incite crime. But it isn't the case. Freedom of speech was intended to keep political speech legal and free from assault in America and other free countries.
Maybe one day freedom of speech will extend to political satire in Sri Lanka. I hope it will.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Don Imus is a butt head who lives off controversy and bigotry.
My issue is that every time someone wants to engage in racism, bigotry and libel they wave the false flag of Censorship as if they alone are its guardians.
Cowards attack when they feel that they can do so with impunity. Yet it takes real courage to put your life on the line.
Comment by Mike Crowl
Webitz
Work Report
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
My purpose is not to engage the 'enemy' (so to speak) but write over the tops of their heads to another audience.
You are correct and I do expect to be ignored or vilified as seems to be local custom of late. Good thing I have warped sense of humour.
Regards
Damo
Comment by Cibbuano
20/20 Filmsight
Science News
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Comment by Josie
Waxing Political
Unique Parent
It seems like you assume that because my conclusions about life are different than yours that my opinions are not well though out or valid. Most libertarians are thinkers. For sure you will get the kids who just want drugs legal, but the heart of the movement (at least in the USA) is full of educated individuals who have studied history and politics and have reached the libertarian viewpoint though those activities. What you are saying is absolutely not above my head, and I'm not a twenty-something kid- I just disagree with your standpoint.
I would say that a business owner can run his business in any way he/she sees fit. If they choose to remove the pictures in question and make policies to "protect" their female employees from nudie photos than they may. If they choose not to do so, they should not be binded by law to do so. If you don't want to work somewhere with those photos, find another job. Just as noone is binded to propriety, noone is binded to work somewhere without it. Those that choose not to conform to the standards of society would fail. The problem is, people would rather complain, sue for money, change laws, and force others to conform to their personal moral systems than take a real stand and leave.
To say that fighting censorship is not valid unless your life is actually at stake is ridiculous. With that logic, it would be ok to commit any crime as long as someone's life wasn't on the line. If someone came into my house and stole while I was out of town, that wouldn't count because I wasn't there being robbed at gunpoint.
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
A Global Citizen
Paranormal Paranormal
Is Why
Alaska Chronicle
The idea is simply to keep controversial photos, icons or language off the home page and if that is the point of your blog, to use the not family friendly option prior to posting.
That allows you to keep your blog intact and those who choose not to be bothered with foul language, photos or icons can set their home page to view only the family friendly offerings; usually those that have minor children.
This is a business site, offering access to a public forum, and as such more of a benevolent dictatorship than the wild west show many other sites offer and we all subscribed to it's few rules when we signed on to use this free service.
If this site turns into a free fire war zone, it will loose revenues from advertisers, when that's gone so has the impetus to make the service available for free.
As a practical matter, take the time to rate the content of your post so that it reaches your intended audience.
That's the heart of the matter, not censorship.
Comment by Josie
Waxing Political
Unique Parent
I think what I said about business still applies-
Like I said, I believe anyone is allowed to run their business in the way they see fit. I have no problem with you telling people on your site to cut back on the language or pictures- we're on your turf.
If people don't like it, let them pay for their own domain and service.
Now if someone came onto my personal site that I pay for and told me I couldn't say or do something, that would be a problem...
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
I can't but have the impression that you do not know much about Australia Anti Discrimination Law. Since I have been in senior positions in companies it was mandatory for me to learn them carefully. That way if someone under my supervision violated someone else's rights at work I knew what my requirements were. If I failed to take action then I would be held more liable because I should know better than my staff.
What laws you have in the USA is of no consequence as Orble is located in Australia.
You also seem make the assertion that only educated people support you version of politics. Interesting but obviously false.
Your assertion that people subjected to discrimination should basically take it or leave is also flawed. If the person has no where else to go then you are telling them to starve or be humiliated. Great logic until you see kilometer after kilometer of shanties and children living in rags with less food than is required to stay healthy. Yet in principle your liberated worker can make their stand and join the ranks of poverty (the rest of their shortened life).
You try to link this post to some unusual point that I did not make. You definition of Censorship was never explained. Are you in favour of no restrictions at all, such as the proliferation of child porn? If not then perhaps you are in agreement with me. You cannot hide behind the false flag of liberty to justify a crime against humanity. Child porn I would constitute as a crime against humanity.
Finally I am not sure where you studied logic but at no stage did I say that only those that suffer should have a say about censorship. So why labour a point that was not made? Yet what I did say is that it fine to be theoretical about such matters. Theory is great but the real world does not care about theory, it cares about example.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Not much to add to what you have said except that Australia has a well established anti-discrimination legal framework.
Also I guess the penny will drop when revenue starts to drop.
Comment by Natalie 2
My Life My Muse
Beta Girl Blog
First of all, in reading her post, I did not see any assertion that only highly intellectual people support her politics. That really isn't what she said at all. In fact, she readily admitted that there are those within the Libertarian movement who are kids looking to legalize drugs. What she was saying is that there are educated people at it's heart, as I would submit is true of most political theories, whether or not we subscribe to them.
Child porn is not protected speech, as it infringes on the rights of the child. I just don't like where you went with the child porn angle, as it paints Josie as supporting it, when in reality, Libertarians as a rule would agree that subjecting children to sexual abuse would not be protected in any way. It is dangerous to even imply that someone would support that. A bad example that was taken too far.
I understand what everyone is saying about Orble being part of a larger owned community, and therefore not subject to American standards of freedom of speech. I just felt like stepping in and giving my $.02 on the points being made here in the comments.
I don't think that it is rational to assume that a minimum of speech restriction in the public domain will inevitably lead to poverty and Hoovervilles. The choice would not be between discrimination and poverty. I refuse to believe that free people would descend into chaos just because of fewer rules when it comes to expression. If that were the case, then I think we would have seen a much different picture of the 80's emerge, considering it was quite popular at that time to look at pictures of boobies at work.
It certainly is an interesting and timeless debate, as there will always be intelligent people on both sides of the issue.
Comment by Lilla
Enviro Warrior
An Extra Ordinary Life
Dream Herald
Make Love, Not WEar (that's four words)...
I'd rather play my guitar
L ...
Comment by Josie
Waxing Political
Unique Parent
Let me just add to her clarification...
I write with no knowledge of the controversy that was going on. I detected someone writing with an assumed knowledge about my ideology and felt the need to defend it. The word "libertarian" was used with disdain several times.
My main point was that true libertarians would never try to tell someone what to do with their business. You business is your business. Period.
There is a grave difference between a woman seeing pictures of boobies (which we have by the way) and child pornography. One truly hurts someone and one doesn't. If you interview at an office with boobie pictures on the walls and you don't like it, don't take the job. You can't expect others to change to suit you when you aren't the boss.
If you think libertarians would be for child pornography, than you obviously have no knowledge of what we are all about and have no right to use the term to define others. Liberty should never come from hurting others.
As far as my final point, you talked about "real censorship" and then went off on a tangent about some journalists who were threatened or almost killed.
You praised Perera as someone who knows what "real censorship" is since he has had his life threatened for what he says. That leads me to believe that you think censorhip is only a real issue when people are threatened, particularly when you were degrading to people who "cry censorship" from their computers. It doesn't take great logic skills to see that you think one is great and the other not so much.
Anyway, I think we actually agee on some points. I just don't like to see the name of my ideology used in a manner that is inaccurate.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
You have very right to defend Josie if she has asked you to do so. I do usually refrain from talking about a third party as it can lead to great misunderstandings and flame wars.
However I make an exception here:
My response was to her statement:
I did intentionally use the operative word 'seem'. You dispute my impression and so if she feels that it is a misrepresentation of her intention I am happy to withdraw the inference.
We seem to be in agreement that Child Porn should be wiped off the planet and cannot be justified under any circumstances. Problem solved - that which exploits is wrong. However the issue has been fought out in the courts of the USA using the freedom of speech platform. Thus making my point valid.
American Standards of Freedom of Speech? Hello. Perhaps we should put it this way: Some Americans feel that they have a superior version of Freedom of Speech. Or perhaps they have discounted anti-discrimination or libel as factors. Just my 2 cents but I am yet to meet a person who insists that their nation does not have superior freedoms.
I had to quote the last sentence to highlight what is wrong with it. Who advocated minimum of speech restriction? Certainly not me. Hoovervilles? Well here is the problem with those who live in the theoretic Noddy land where everything can be discussed away from objective reality. The reality is that is precisely what happens where discrimination is rife. The victim is offered two choices put up with it or be unemployed and unemployable. Maybe not in the mythical land of Hoovervilles but certainly I have seen this with my own eyes. That is difference between the academic pondering and the real world.
I did introduce my post with an explicit warning about hijacking words to make arguments sound better. You describe yourself as a Libertarian to which anyone can could reply that they are also a libertarian. The term is as meaningless as left-wing, right-wing progressive and reactionary. It is an archetype that means what you want it to mean. In short I am a Libertarian because I say so.
Finally I noticed that no one wants to touch the 'KILL TAMILS' headline. I wonder why that seems to be the elephant in the room that people wish to ignore.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
I totally agree.
I'd rather listen to you play the guitar.
However once having stirred the pot it cannot be unstirred.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
I will deal with your logical fallacies first of all.
I have no knowledge of your ideologies so I cannot pass judgement on them. So how can you assume that I am ambivalent to them?
I notice that you use the term 'True Libertarians' which is in fact begging the question.
What is a 'True Libertarian?'
Usually when people beg the question the answer is 'A true libertarian is what I say a True Libertarian is.'
Nothing personal but I think once we remove the logical fallacies from the argument the we can be clear about what we are saying and where we stand.
I never mentioned Boobies. Actually I quite like boobies, I have a collection of them at home. Yet I did mention offensive material. This can include derogatory posters, racist slurs and images of a far more explicit or violent nature. Even if I own the company I am still held accountable for for the conditions that impose on my employees. OH&S is ruthless.
We are obviously do not like oppression yet my point in deriding the armchair libertarian is one of substance.
It is easy to fling insults, bigotry and racist remarks from the cowards protection of a computer screen but such people do not care about the liberty of those they vilify. Yet to see someone stand up a state what is wrong in public in Sri Lanka takes more courage than I have seen displayed here.
Maybe my point was lost in the blur of the word Censorship but as was the case the 'KILL TAMILS' headline contributed to people actually killing Tamils.
Comment by Natalie 2
My Life My Muse
Beta Girl Blog
First of all:
You have very right to defend Josie if she has asked you to do so.
I had no desire to engage in a flame war. And Josie didn't ask me to defend her. She did quite well on her own. But, I do have the right to defend her, even though she didn't ask me to. That is the beauty of a public discussion. I'm sure that if she didn't want her views commented upon, she would have sent you a private message. And if there is anything that I said which she disagrees with, she is welcome to do so.
As to your comments about the intellectual nature of Libertarians, I merely took exception to the fact that she clearly used the word "most" and you used the word "only". Water under the bridge
I am so happy that we are all in agreement that child porn is reprehensible. And I am aware that free speech has been used to defend it. As I am aware, the courts did not uphold that defense. Many people will distort their freedoms in order to defend their crimes. I don't think that validates your point. I could commit murder and claim that it was protected by my right to pursue happiness, but that will not make the courts and those that interpret the laws uphold my claim.
By the way, when I mentioned the American standard of free speech, I did not mean to imply it's superiority. I was using it specifically to draw a distinction between what goes on at Orble and what goes on in my real world. It is different. I agree. I was actually agreeing with you there. It would be no different if Orble was an american owned company. The owner would still have the right to regulate what is shown on his platform. Total agreement.
Point of fact, I am actually a bit disappointed with what has become the American Standard of free speech. The First Amendment has been fairly distorted in recent years. I claim no superiority.
Obviously my use of the word Hooverville was a direct response to your comment about "kilometer after kilometer of shanties and children living in rags with less food than is required to stay healthy". It just invoked the imagery in my mind. That's all.
You make very good points and as I said before, this is a healthy discussion.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Damn, it was quick to find that we are actually pretty close to being in agreement on many issues. Normally it takes about twenty posts and 3 flame wars.
I do have a reason for being reluctant to respond to third party responses and that is experience has taught me sometimes the third party turns up and says 'Why is everyone taking about me?' Egg on face is a great teacher.
I see that you have concerns about the changes of civil liberties in recent years, as do I. I also see that you do know the difference between liberty and pure anarchy, which is refreshing.
You have the US Constitution, We have the Australian Constitution. We both share the Magna Carta. We both have legal systems designed to protect the innocent. We both have what we describe as open plural democracies. Hence we are very similar despite being different.
Kilometer after kilometer of shanties is something I have seen and so it does stick in my head. So too does a thousand other memories that influence my writing.
My job here is to stir the mind.
So enjoy. It is only a blog after all.
Comment by Natalie 2
My Life My Muse
Beta Girl Blog
One of the most beautiful things that the internet has brought us is the convergence of ideas from all over the world. I love engaging in discussions about a variety of topics, but I always try my darndest not to fall into name calling and cheap shots, because it solves nothing, and just makes people sound silly.
Although we may disagree on some very fundamental issues, I would fight to the death your right to share your opinions, and therefore I sincerely hope that nothing I have said here or anywhere else on Orble has been insulting.
I hope never to fall prey to the overt nastiness that I have seen floating about. From both the conservative and liberal end of the spectrum. Although I often disagree with you, I find your posts interesting, and I am thankful for any forum that opens discussions such as this.
Obviously, my blog here is of a more light hearted nature. I spend so much of my day wrapped up in world events and serious discussion that I decided to make my blog be irreverent and fun. I've actually had people ask me how I am qualified to partake in discussions such as this based on the content of my own blog.
To that I say, don't judge a book by it's cover. Beta Girl is a smart cookie
Sorry, I got a smidgen off topic there!
Comment by Mike Crowl
Webitz
Work Report
Comment by Natalie 2
My Life My Muse
Beta Girl Blog
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
You handled this well.
Getting flamed comes with the turf and you never know until it happens. You haven't lived until you have been called a terrorist supporter at least 10 times. You develop a sense of warped humour after a while. One day you are called a terrorist the next you are called a Fascist. I wish they would make up their minds so I know what uniform to wear.
However most people are good and so you stick about for them.
Humour is good as not everyone wants to serious all the time.
Mike
Thanks for stopping by.
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
A Global Citizen
Paranormal Paranormal
Is Why
Alaska Chronicle
What an interesting concept . . .
Wish it were contagious.
Comment by Josie
Waxing Political
Unique Parent
It is good to see that in principal we actually agree on most issues.
I assumed that the offensive material you were referring to was pictures of naked women. If I was mistaken there, I retract that.
Hate material is for sure something that most libertarians do not want. Anything that would encourage killing or physical harm to someone else would not be encouraged.
As far as what a libertarian is, I will admit that the movement is very varied. In a book I've been reading, a member of a libertarian think tank said "when two libertarians find themselves agreeing on something, each knows the other has sold out." We like to argue and prove that we are more libertarian than the rest. That is in our nature. HOWEVER the basic principal that anyone who would call themselves libertarian lives by is that personal property and personal rights should never be interfered with as long as they don't harm another. It isn't anarchy, in that we believe in laws to ensure that others are not physically harmed. We do advocate a type of anarchist Commerce...but thats a different story.
I will admit that I have seen extremists who are more like anarchists than libertarians. As writer Brian Doherty says, "they have advocated private ownership of nuclear weapons; the right of parents to starve their children..." People like these are the absolute fringe of the movement, not the norm.
So, I suppose what it comes down to is that a libertarian is what I say it is
Anyway, its been an interesting conversation and thanks to everyone for not getting nasty!
Comment by Natalie 2
My Life My Muse
Beta Girl Blog
I'm not one of those people that vilifies those who don't share my views. If I did, I'd be isolated and lonely up here in America's midwest
But, my point is that Libertarianism is in theory actually fairly conservative. At heart they are free market strict Constitutionalists who cherish liberty above all else.
I am immensely enjoying this conversation. Thanks to all who are participating!
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
It is how Orble used to be.
Who knows, it may be again one day.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
I have to agree with the idea that a Libertarian can anything that we say it is.
However this problem and equally applies to words like Progressive, Ethical, Moral, Ideologically Correct, Politically Correct and Patriotism.
People love to use positive sounding words to mask the inadequacies of their proposition. "All good patriot would agree that bombing this country is the only we can do."
So I am happy to take what ever title people fling at me. Call me anything but do not call me late for supper.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Libertarianism can be conservative or radical from my viewpoint. The old saying goes like this "What is difference between a conservative and a radical?"
Answer "About twenty years."
I think a lot of people here in Australia were not happy about the same turn that politics took in the last 10 years. We were left with two extremes that excluded any middle.
I can sympathize with many of the middle of road conservatives because Strausian Neoconservatism is a very specific ideology that many of the Bush camp subscribed to.