Swastikas and Germany in the modern day...

[Friscobay]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Freedom of speech knows pragmatic limits, and quite fundamental ones, even in the US. Beside ideological content and transportation of questionable content, one has to understand that freedom of speech is not "per se", but depends on situation (space) and time context. Because: nobody is free to say what he wants anywhere, at any time, to anybody even if that anybody does not want to listen and does not want to be bothered. What you are free to do is not to always, at any occasion, voice your opinion, but to work for a context or secure a situation where you have the right to do so indeed, and that means: if you want to hold a public speech, you lease time in a hall or a studio, or you build on your property an assembly house. Or you write a book or found a newspaper to express your views. In other words: freedom of speech is something that can be practices if you "possess the circumstance", and are the owner of the time and space where you do so. You have no freedom to just bother anyone, anywhere, because that would be a violation of their freedom - namely the freedom to not needing to care for you and not being bothered by you.

Such general, abstract rights are suprisingly vague and meaningless, if you do not understand that they hint at their nature of being property rights. It's the same with human rights, all of which only make sense and are not just abstract philosophical babbling when you incarnate them in solid material terms and conditions that again manifestate anything you link to the term human rights, to property rights, starting with the right for humans to own their own body.

This is often misunderstood or better: is notoriously ignored. And the result is an endless abstract, vague, pathetic babbling that in its corer and center has no substantial point.

You are free to speak your mind only under some circumstances, and occaisonas, in some places. Their is no general right for "free speech "anywhere always".

In this forum, Neal makes the rules, and if he says this and that topic is no go from now on, then this is perfectly okay, because he is the owner of this place. He is free to make it a very "liberal" (in the meaning of free, tolerant) place indeed and allow many things that in other forums are banned from discussion for sure, and he is free to define what goes and what not. But that is his free decision and right, he is not obligated to allow just anything, from anyone. If he would run a tighter policy, this in no way would serve as an excuse to claim that he in general is an obstacle to free speech. He only would practice a property right, which in this case is the right of the house owner.

My place, my rules. Freedom of speech finds its limits where it collides with the property rights of others. And that is becasue freedom of speech is a property right itself, has property rights (space, time) as a precondition.

This may be the rule in Germany.

It is not in the US.

Indeed, from Associate Justice OW Holmes famous ''fire in a crowded theater'' comment which was a portion of the nations landmark free speech decision in 1919s SCHENCK , the US divided speech into that which can offend, and that which represents, a ''clear and present danger''. What you speak of where Neals oversight of SUBSIM is concerned, is that of the individuals willful entry into an arena where a compact is agreed upon bearing upon activity that includes the regulation of speech, [ ''Terms of Service'' and other devices used to regulate speech by owner-operators ].

That is one thing, and represents an area where speech can be regulated.

However, within the wider world of public and even private association and discourse , individuals are not protected from ''speech which offends''. It does not enter either into realms of ''space'' or ''time''. Only , as in SCHENCK, of offensive speech, and that which threatens. Immediately threatens. For such reasons then, do we find that America remains the least regulated of all industrial nations in the use and advancement of free speech, and becomes the only one to codify it within its very first amendment, of the Bill of Rights. Here, ''bothering'' others, is a national pastime in this nation for whatever the socio-political reasons that trigger the start of the soapbox derbies and their attendant debates.

[Skybird]

You are wrong there, Friscobay. I am quite confident that if a stranger would suddenly stand in your living room and start to hold a political speech or a religious nuthead interrupts a cinema movie by stepping onto the stage and starting to engage people in a missionary speech or a fellow would raise in the restaurant walking from table to table trying to get people engaged in an argument over something, would make the owners of the place call the police or throw him out themselves. Same is true for the guy who starts to yell ideological paroles in the backyard after midnight and all windows become lit again, or a person storms a radio office and demands to be broadcasted, or some body demands the newspaper to print his essay for free although the newspapers refuses to print it.

You have to "own" the "place" and the "time" to practice free speech, if you do not own them, then your right of free speech is worth nothing. And we should be thankful for that. Regarding our private sphere, homes, houeses: its our places, and so its our rules. Somebody else is not free to say and do just anything within these just like he pleases.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You have to "own" the "place" and the "time" to practice free speech, if you do not own them, then your right of free speech is worth nothing.

Not quite true, at least not here. The protected right includes all "non-owned" properties. While you can't do it in a so-called "public" property, such as inside a federal or state government like a courthouse, outside on a street corner anyone can preach pretty much anything they like. If someone wants to stand on the sidewalk in front of the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City and preach against the Mormon Church, they are free to do so. Impromptu anti-government rallies take place on the grounds of the Salt Lake City government building and the Utah State Capitol from time to time, and nothing is done to stop them.

[Skybird]

The public, non-owned space yopu refer to, actually is owned, by this abstraction called "the common good" or the "the state". And the latter either allows it, or deems that the first, which is amdinstered by the latter, should accept it. In both cases, there is an owner of the place who has allowed it.

The non-owned space you mention could only be had these days if you would find an island in non-claimed internaitonal waters where no state makes any claims. As long as no pirvate person has taken possession nof this land by gouing there and making use of it and turning it that way into his/her own possession, it is not owned, and thus just anybody could do just anything there. Needless to say, that state of not being owned would soon come to an end.

States are only capable to do a lot of things because they claim to be their own possession what they have stolen from private possession before. That includes the land and property that is used to build "public" roads" on, "public" plazas and buildings, and the like, also much rural countryside is now "owned" by states. Imagine if all this would not be owned by states, but would be private property indeed - imagine how little power states and governments would have then to enforce policies against the people's will, then! No migration that is not wanted by the local residents could happen without each and every land owner explicitly giving his agreement to let foreigners walk over his lawn, so to speak. No tax-collectors could reach their victims whom they want to blackmail for protection money. No state officials and no armies could march around against the will of the land owners. On the other hand, local populations would need to come to terms with themselves, and decide in the region what kind of infrastructure to be built in order to serve everybody.

Right now, two years ago those Nazis I mentioned could march around my block and hold their yelling speeches because the state "owned" the paths and ways and crossroads they walked upon, and decided that the state should allow these thugs doing so, although the overwhelming majority of the population - almost everybody - here was totally against it. The police shielded every single house, every single lawn and garden, every single door, the sight was truly monumental. Not only did the police that way made clear that the unwelcomed Nazis were not to enter private property - but for the hours the show was going on, private people were hindered to leave their own property and walk onto the "public" road, police did not allow anybody to leave his home if he was still in there (many however had gone to demonstrations before - and during the time she show was running were not allowed to go back into their homes.

The state enforced its will upon us - we did not want to have that scum parading around here.

P.S. Ownership of the time and place could also mean that you legally lease the opportunity from the original owner to use his assets. For example you lease a townhall for an evening to hold an assembly, or you rent broadcasting time on TV. Or you use opportunities provided by< the state, like parading in the public space (which nevertheless must be gained formal permission for, a demonstration for example must be registered with the police, and a court can prohibit it under certain circumstances. Both institutions represent the state who can only act this way because he claims possession of the so-called public sphere).

[Sailor Steve]

Your earlier point was that if I wanted to exercise free speech I had to own the property or else it meant nothing. My point was that the right to freedom of speech is protected in "publically owned" land, as long as it's not disrupting others' rights to move about or conduct business. Deny it all you like, spin it all you like, we do indeed have freedom of speech in public places. Sorry if you don't.

As to your PS: Did you miss the part where I said "impromptu"? Yes, a rally that will disrupt public business must be scheduled, but even when they're not they usually are allowed to continue. Also, that doesn't address what I said about preaching on a street corner. It happens from time to time, and it's entirely legal, and protected.

[Camaero]

Are German prisons filled with people who tattoo swastikas on themselves like in the US?

[Catfish]

@ Friso bay

Our Germans are better than their Germans
The Right Stuff [1983 ].

That was a very good film.
The quote would also fit Dr. Strangelove ..

I am not sure, my theory always was the US got the space jockeys, while the Soviets got the submarine ones.
But i was not referring to the scientists, more to the secret services ..


@Skybird:
There's always speaker's corner, in Hyde Park..

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Your earlier point was that if I wanted to exercise free speech I had to own the property or else it meant nothing. My point was that the right to freedom of speech is protected in "publically owned" land, as long as it's not disrupting others' rights to move about or conduct business. Deny it all you like, spin it all you like, we do indeed have freedom of speech in public places. Sorry if you don't.

I don'T see the issue you raise here. I said initially that like with human rights in general, the right of free speech is just vague, empty babble as long as it is not understood to be a property right. And then I explained why that is so and what that means.Now you even admit that the right of free speech is only given in the public space, and sicne the poublixc space is space expropriat5ed by the state from previous private proprietors, and since therefore the state is the adminstrator and owner of the opublic sphere and can regulate it to its liking, and has the power monopoly to make the laws that allow and ban what is to be done by people in this private space, the satate effectively is the owner, and you therefore prove me right.

If you do not believe me, you can walk to the next traffic crossroad and start yelling that you think the president deserves to be shot. You will be surprised how fast your freedom of speech in the public space is no longer tolerated by the space owner.

I have no authored this line of arguments, but I copy/follow it only, because when I first time read it, I saw the reason in it and thus got convinced by its logic. So if you want to have another endless and useless hairplitting exercise over something that should be pretty obvious to see when it gets explained and thought about, then argue with for example M. Rothbard: The Ethics of Liberty, chapter 15 "Human Rights as Property Rights", page 113 - 120. Right of free speech, Hu,man Rights, it all is vague and lacks flesh on the bones if not getting nailed down to what it really means in pragmatic reality. It makes zero sense to claim there is a right of free speech "per se." You could as well claim you have a right to pay your bill. Without possessing money, this right means nothing. And if you would want to make that right a reality, what would you do? You would go and start making money. Reiterating your claim that you have a right to pay for your bills, would mean nothing, and would get you nowhere.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Catfish

@ Friso bay
That was a very good film.
The quote would also fit Dr. Strangelove ..

I am not sure, my theory always was the US got the space jockeys, while the Soviets got the submarine ones.
But i was not referring to the scientists, more to the secret services ..


@Skybird:
There's always speaker's corner, in Hyde Park..

And who owns Hyde Park and allows/changes/enforces/bans any rules...? Speaker's Corner, public space - there is no principal difference there. The first is part of the latter.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Now you even admit that the right of free speech is only given in the public space, and sicne the poublixc space is space expropriat5ed by the state from previous private proprietors, and since therefore the state is the adminstrator and owner of the opublic sphere and can regulate it to its liking, and has the power monopoly to make the laws that allow and ban what is to be done by people in this private space, the satate effectively is the owner, and you therefore prove me right.

What? I said nothing of the kind. We created our government, and though we do have our complaints about the way it is run from time to time, we do indeed reserve to ourselves certain rights, including the right to freedom of speech. Just because you are incapable of understanding this and unwilling to fight for that right yourself, doesn't mean it isn't so.

If you do not believe me, you can walk to the next traffic crossroad and start yelling that you think the president deserves to be shot. You will be surprised how fast your freedom of speech in the public space is no longer tolerated by the space owner.

I complained to anyone who would listen when several years ago a famous actor did that very thing on a broadcast television station. It wasn't the President he wanted shot, it was a public official and his whole family. This is still technically illegal, yet it was put down to him being intoxicated at the time and nothing was done.

As to your specific example, yes, there are certain limitations, just as I theoretically have the right to do anything I want, yet that doesn't grant me a "right" to deny others of their own right to life, liberty, property etcetera. No, advocating the death of a public official can concievably be construed to be planning that death, which is definitely illegal. Still, I can shout that I believe this president or that public official deserves to be removed from office, or even jailed, without fear of recrimination or reprisal. Again, all your trying to twist it to the contrary doesn't make it so. Rights are inherent, and within the context of not infringing the rights of others we understand and support that concept. I'm sorry if you don't.

I've downloaded your link, and I'm surprised (though I shouldn't be) to find out it's more Hoppe*. I promise I will read it, but from what you're recommended before I have to say that the guy, while a professional philosopher, is also highly opinionated. It's nothing but his opinion, and from what I've seen so far my own opinion is that his opinion is very much stuck in a social context that prevents him from understanding what true freedom is supposed to be.

Still, I am looking forward to reading it in its entirety.

* Or was I thinking of Popper? The all look the same to me.

[Skybird]

Well, in your naive view of government, I necessarily must leave you alone, how oine could still think like that is completely beyond me, and that is not just for the American state, but states in general, including Germany. I compare you explanation to religious fundamentalists taking all the bible literally, because, they claim, it is the word of God, and it thus must right. To me, the state is a fake show to deceive the crowds, a new form of feudalism dressed in a democratic burkha to make it appear as something different. And that view I already held long before I stumbled of the libertarian literature in the past two years. It was not that new to me - it just helped me to weave all those lose ends and single threads I ended up with from my own reasoning, into a single rope. Less the content itself but the structure it provided me with was what I benefited from. I had all the pieces, almost all. What I did not manage to achieve is to form them all into one theoretic model explaining them. Long discussions about that, later per PM, with UnderseaLanceCorporal I had on all that. Must be 6 years or longer.

[Skybird]

Popper looks to you like Hoppe? Less coffein and less alcohol, I would recommend.

Hoppe hardly can be excused to be a lefty. But Popper is extremely left-leaning. Hoppe was a student of Rothbard. Rothbard shared many views of von Mises and Hayek, but he split with von Mises over ethics. Rothbard also held some controversial views during the 50s and 60s, over black rights, women rights and Jews, but to some degree distanced himself from them later, to some degree I found some criticism of him also being abusive and intentionally misleading, to give him a bad name.

Von Mises probably was the most reasonable modern economist there was, if not by influence (he is not ignored for no reason by those who benefit from the state), then by his arguments and precise analysis and predictions. Short before his death he admitted that he was too long too naive regarding the nature of democracy, and that he overestimated it tremendously in an attempt to not wanting to see how ruinous it really is both materialistically and intellectually. If he would still live today, he probably would support the views of Hoppe.

Hayek was a student of von Mises, and was ignored by the mainstream for the same reason: he showed beyond doubt why the modern understanding of economy and especially money necessarily must lead to collapse, he also contributed quite profound analysis on the disastrous nature of socialism and totalitarianism. Since Hayek's views of what money is would have meant dramatic limitations of the powers for politicians, he was bypassed completely and instead politicians chose to go with Keynes who told them that they could endlessly make money as much as they want without creating value first. That's what the voters and the politicians wanted to hear, not those heavy burdens Hayek was promising them. And so, there we are. Read my new sig. I personally would not even dare to call Keynes' ideas a theory. It simply is populist drivel. He lived well by that and enjoyed the applause for sure.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Well, in your naive view of government, I necessarily must leave you alone

I disagree with you, so now I'm naive? Interesting sort of dismissal.

I respect the work you've done to make your own philosophy, but it's still just one viewpoint, and not necessarily the correct one. To me it's simple. I have the right to do anything I want, so long as I don't interfere with anyone else's right to do the same. Government has the power to block or even remove those rights. If they do so within the moral background of the law and for legitimate purposes, such as locking me up if I prove to be a danger to my fellow citizens, then they are acting on the behalf of the people. If they do so for unjust reasons, such as speaking out against the government and its policies, then it's time to start fighting again.

America may not have a history going back thousands of years, but we do have the unique position of having started from scratch* and creating the government we wanted. We also made sure we had it in writing that we reserved the right to do so again, if necessary.

*Not from whole cloth, as we did pick and choose from the best we could find.

[Friscobay]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You are wrong there, Friscobay. I am quite confident that if a stranger would suddenly stand in your living room and start to hold a political speech or a religious nuthead interrupts a cinema movie by stepping onto the stage and starting to engage people in a missionary speech or a fellow would raise in the restaurant walking from table to table trying to get people engaged in an argument over something, would make the owners of the place call the police or throw him out themselves. Same is true for the guy who starts to yell ideological paroles in the backyard after midnight and all windows become lit again, or a person storms a radio office and demands to be broadcasted, or some body demands the newspaper to print his essay for free although the newspapers refuses to print it.

You have to "own" the "place" and the "time" to practice free speech, if you do not own them, then your right of free speech is worth nothing. And we should be thankful for that. Regarding our private sphere, homes, houeses: its our places, and so its our rules. Somebody else is not free to say and do just anything within these just like he pleases.

Of course, but you did NOT frame the discussion in this manner. You included ALL speech which offends into the private world of ''space and time''.

It does not work that way. I clearly noted the exceptions granted the ''owner-operator'' of the private realm. [ who also has the right to include gaming modifications that display German naval ensigns that bear the swastika device as SUBSIM does ]. However, ''space and time'' does not allow protection from offense in other arenas. I made this plain as well. Germanys concerns are obvious and understandable. They both lost the war and started this issue to begin with. However, their guilt, cannot in any way, shape, or form, transfer itself to an expectation that a society such as that of the US, must relinquish its own devotion to the centuries-pondered ideals of free speech simply because you continue to struggle with the legacy of Hitlers Germany. Especially given the fact that these rights, were codified long before there even was a ''Germany'', let alone that ruled by a Third Reich. It is why American flags can be burned. It is why ''Illinois Nazis'' can march in Skokie and elsewhere.

[Friscobay]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Not quite true, at least not here. The protected right includes all "non-owned" properties. While you can't do it in a so-called "public" property, such as inside a federal or state government like a courthouse, outside on a street corner anyone can preach pretty much anything they like. If someone wants to stand on the sidewalk in front of the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City and preach against the Mormon Church, they are free to do so. Impromptu anti-government rallies take place on the grounds of the Salt Lake City government building and the Utah State Capitol from time to time, and nothing is done to stop them.

Now here is an excellent example.


For many years, groups of humanists, atheists, and even those of other Christian sects believing Mormonism to be a fraud, have arrayed themselves in protest at SLCs Temple Square, in deference to both the freedoms of, and from, religion. [ Thomas' Paine and Jefferson, were they living men, would see no ironies in such displays ]. When I was at The U of U, I both enjoyed the practice of the Tabernacle Choir lifting its voices to the heavens singing their praises of God as well as the discussions from the non-believers out on State St bars serving 3.2 beer with neither side, threatening the other. The agreements to disagree were more prevalent.

This is the realization of the Founders ideals. In like way, we can USE the swastika as a purely historical device, without for one moment, embracing that which it stood for. Indeed, speaking of just the Mormons, was their own series ''Saints At War'' which was a documentary compilation of LDS members who served as decorated combat soldiers and sailors in the ETO/PTO. It is my belief, [ my own father was a B-17 pilot in the 8th ], that we can well know the difference between ''use'' and ''promotion''.

SUBSIM is about the former.... Not the latter...