Free speech in the age of amplified opinions

[numerosdecimus]

I am glad you realize there is no point in having a right if there's no power to enforce it on your behalf. How to organize that power has to be an integral part of any political ideology. Ideologies that focus heavily on curtailing state power tend to overlook the need, and the means to curtail private power, which is no less capable of making a mockery of the law.

If I am to be entirely honest, my political views range from minimal government(emphasis on constitutional, not democratic) to anarcho-capitalism.

The thing is, a "right", as we think of it, is not really a right, but in truth a privilege. If it truly were a "right" then it would be a guaranteed state of things through the world and easily attainable. In truth, what we consider to be "rights" are in fact privileges that are only attainable with a watchful and proactive population, which is at all times vigilant of the state and always curtailing its powers. Through out history, the main violators of what we consider to be our "modern rights" have always been the state.

The rights I speak of, such as the right to be left alone, the right to discriminate, the right to own property, the right of free speech, etc...these are the exception through out the history of mankind. But where these rights were applied and enforced through pressure by the populace, prosperity and rapid technological/economical growth happened.

[Muizer]

Through out history, the main violators of what we consider to be our "modern rights" have always been the state.

As a European, I think a model where power is considered a constant and the real struggle for freedom is about who controls it has greater explanatory power. The Early medieval kingdoms constituted "minimal government", which afforded their subjects a great deal of freedom and self-governance at first. But this government proved too weak and the Kings and their dukes were unable to prevent private parties from organizing armed and mounted gangs, subjecting local communities to all kinds of depredations and ultimately strong-arming the dukes and kings into recognizing them as nobles in their own right.

[Sir Adrian]

Through out history, the main violators of what we consider to be our "modern rights" have always been the state.

That's not true. In my corner of Europe, since the first tribal structures appeared, and right until the 1500s, the state was only entity capable of guaranteeing whatever rights you had, and the violators were generally foreign non-state entities colloquially known as hordes.

[numerosdecimus]

As a European, I think a model where power is considered a constant and the real struggle for freedom is about who controls it has greater explanatory power. The Early medieval kingdoms constituted "minimal government", which afforded their subjects a great deal of freedom and self-governance at first. But this government proved too weak and the Kings and their dukes were unable to prevent private parties from organizing armed and mounted gangs, subjecting local communities to all kinds of depredations and ultimately strong-arming the dukes and kings into recognizing them as nobles in their own right.

The medieval period is a mix of things in my opinion. Back then the common folk had more leeway concerning taxation and regulatory pressure than today, true. But in other aspects they were legally constrained. The status of peasentry or "serf", while not formally nor entirely one of slavery, (the church forbid it in accordance with its principles) was still a status of severe limitations and one of clear violations of what we would consider "modern rights".

That's not true. In my corner of Europe, since the first tribal structures appeared, and right until the 1500s, the state was only entity capable of guaranteeing whatever rights you had, and the violators were generally foreign non-state entities colloquially known as hordes.

Any state is at its core an institution that applies it authority through force/coercion. The hordes that eastern Europe had to face and endure in the 13th/14th century (I assume you're talking about the golden horde?) did represent a state or empire in this case, the Mongol Empire. If we are not talking about the golden horde per se, but more local warlords, they still tried to creates their local, smaller states through violence. The process is the same, only the scale is smaller.

I view things under following lens: Either decentralized, spontaneous self-organization and cooperation(such as voluntary trade and voluntary relationships). Or an effort to control many people in a centralized matter, through a central state, and this, through out history has been done with recourse to coercion/violence.

I'm not saying that a state can't be successful, especially if we are making a comparison between institutions. There are examples of success and stability. In eastern Europe, stability was heavily desired, the political climate since the 13th century onwards was unstable, and the people desired stable rulership. If that rulership can be successful in promoting safety and allowing trade to flourish, then I would say that it's doing a good job.

In comparison with the modern world, many medieval regimes and states may even be considered as better in some aspects because of certain fundamental characteristics that defined those regimes, even accountability and consequences to the ruling class existed to a degree, and the relation between master and servant was a transparent one, both knew the nature of their position and what society truly was and how it worked. In contrast with today, the lie that is "democracy" (today it is a word used freely without context in order to gain legitimacy with a political narrative) is freely spread, and people live a lie, believing they live freely, but the truth is that during no other period in the history of mankind, have we had a population so taxed, regulated, deprived of sound money(gold and silver) and thus heavily subject to inflation (increase in the money supply).

(edited)

[Sir Adrian]

Except that the hordes came and went for 1200 years, between the goths in the 300s and the tatars in the 1500s, not just for the 2 centuries you mention and the states here formed specifically as protection. Moreover coercion is necessary to have even the smallest form of organised structure. It is impossible to have any form of permanent settlement without coercion, be it a hovel, a village or an empire. You would have none of your modern rights without the state coercing the person next to you to respect your rights.

What you promote here is blind anarchism that rearely survives for any reasonable period of time, either because everyone leaves/dies or a strongman takes over and imposes coercion.

[numerosdecimus]

Except that the hordes came and went for 1200 years, between the goths in the 300s and the tatars in the 1500s, not just for the 2 centuries you mention and the states here formed specifically as protection. Moreover coercion is necessary to have even the smallest form of organised structure. It is impossible to have any form of permanent settlement without coercion, be it a hovel, a village or an empire. You would have none of your modern rights without the state coercing the person next to you to respect your rights.

What you promote here is blind anarchism that rearely survives for any reasonable period of time, either because everyone leaves/dies or a strongman takes over and imposes coercion.

I'm sorry, but this is a contradiction, because through the process you mentioned, the other person has their ability to choose removed, or in other words, their rights are removed and he/she is coerced to follow another's directive.

However, I understand what you are trying to say. You mean that a common set of legal standards in a specific region are able to be applied, thanks to the state and thus a starting point in order to create a functional society can be reached.

Concerning anarchism, the word itself isn't a negative one, it just means decentralized, voluntary interaction. Common standards can be voluntarily adopted in a decentralized society, we see this commonly in several market sectors which have the least state interference. Take for instance the microelectronics market, several standards are gradually adopted and replaced with new ones as the years pass, and those standards endure and are widespread because the merits and advantages of such standards are openly recognized.

What I mean to say in essence is that when you put things in a voluntary way, the best of human society and human beings comes to the forefront, you have a system which promotes accountability and most importantly, the ability to freely dissociate/discriminate. With the state(especially with our modern examples) we see many system in place which emphasize a perverse set of incentives, and honestly, it's a pity because things could be much better if we just tried to decrease the amount coercion used today. I know eliminating it entirely is impossible, human nature is always a reflection of a duality of our best and worst traits, but making effort as a society to adopt voluntary principles would go a long way and be a key part of achieving prosperity and growth.

[antaeus]

I think we have become side tracked by a discussion on the nature of power. Can I draw the conversation back to freedom of speech?

numerosdecimus, You could help me by defining what you think the characteristics of mainstream and non-mainstream media are. You could also cite what organisations you think are reliable non-mainstream media, and perhaps why you think they are reliable (as I asked previously)

[Sir Adrian]

Freedom of speech and power are intrisically tied. The people with power can define freedom of speech. Case in point the american universities, where the students have gained power over the untenured professors and therefore they dictate what may or may not be said in class.

I'm sorry, but this is a contradiction, because through the process you mentioned, the other person has their ability to choose removed, or in other words, their rights are removed and he/she is coerced to follow another's directive.

You seem to be under the impression that a person can have only rights and no obligations. This is not how an organised society works. What if I choose to kill you? Will you be able to exercise your rights? I have to have certain choises limited if you are to exercise your own rights.

What I mean to say in essence is that when you put things in a voluntary way, the best of human society and human beings comes to the forefront, you have a system which promotes accountability and most importantly, the ability to freely dissociate/discriminate. With the state(especially with our modern examples) we see many system in place which emphasize a perverse set of incentives, and honestly, it's a pity because things could be much better if we just tried to decrease the amount coercion used today. I know eliminating it entirely is impossible, human nature is always a reflection of a duality of our best and worst traits, but making effort as a society to adopt voluntary principles would go a long way and be a key part of achieving prosperity and growth.

That is an extremely utopic take, not unlike Robert Owen's. He too believed that if removed from the shackles of capitalism and state coercion humanity's better nature would spring forth and create a mini-paradise. His communes lasted for less than 10 years before he was forced to abandon the idea as completely unworkable. Humanity is not evolved enough to seek the good of others by default. Each and every human out there will look out for number one first and foremost, and a few others will look out for number two.

In fact I am highly surprised that you claim that complete freedom will bring out the better in humanity when you've had the borderline crime against humanity known as CHAZ last summer, and when so many people corrupt fundamentally good concepts like tolerance and compasion to further evil ideals like feminism and gender theory for exclusively selfish interests.

Humanity's default nature is 4chan, specifically /b/ and /d/ (places like /tg/ are actually quite civilised).

[antaeus]

Freedom of speech and power are intrisically tied. .

Of course, but the conversation has become a red herring discussion about the European response to Mongol invasion. numerosdecimus has used this rabbit hole, seemingly to avoid the questions I asked them previously. So I'd like to bring the conversation back towards exploring numerosdecimus' prejudices.

[numerosdecimus]

numerosdecimus, You could help me by defining what you think the characteristics of mainstream and non-mainstream media are. You could also cite what organisations you think are reliable non-mainstream media, and perhaps why you think they are reliable (as I asked previously)

Mainstream media, as commonly called, normally refers to the large legacy institutions who traditionally are connected to the institutions in power and are heavily influenced by them, since they are part of the same circle.

An example of a non mainstream media, and no 100% reliable source exists, since it is the opinion of the one sharing the information, and they don't hide this from you, could be several of the small channels that exist in youtube or that have been banned and are now in bitchute or odysee. Example such as Freedomain radio, Computing Forever, Tim Pool, Felix Rex, Louis Rossman, Mike Maloney, Peter Schiff, Max Keiser, Doug Casey and many more. Don't bother asking if they are "reliable" or flawed as if they were isent from scrutiny or without flaws, because they have flaws. The important part is that each presents a different opinion with different points of view that they prioritize. What matters is having an abundance of sources, each providing different details.

However, with the mainstream media its at this point blatantly different. I've seen several channels presenting the same exact talking points and incorrect narratives (take for instance the latest events with WallStreetbets in Reddit and Gamestop stock). Worse, they make a point of spread the incorrect image that they are infallible and they even have the gall to tell on tv that they are the "legitimate" opinion.

At least non mainstream media, is honest in telling you that what they tell you is their opinion, and they know they can't hide that from their viewers.

You seem to be under the impression that a person can have only rights and no obligations. This is not how an organised society works. What if I choose to kill you? Will you be able to exercise your rights? I have to have certain choises limited if you are to exercise your own rights.

I never stated this, nor have I given the impression of such. In fact, in one of my first posts I explicitly wrote that it was the duty of a populace to be vigilant against the state and in knowing which principles they must promote as a society, if they are to live in a free country.

In fact I am highly surprised that you claim that complete freedom will bring out the better in humanity when you've had the borderline crime against humanity known as CHAZ last summer, and when so many people corrupt fundamentally good concepts like tolerance and compasion to further evil ideals like feminism and gender theory for exclusively selfish interests.

Chaz was anything but a voluntary act. It was a literal takeover of a territory, a violation of private property rights. In fact, Chaz is the perfect example of what those leftists and totalitarians, who where at the helm of the movement, like to call as "imperialism" and "colonialism", as in they move into a territory already inhabited and take it over by force. Chaz has NOTHING to do with a voluntary society, if anything it is the perfect example of the hypocrisy of the far left in general, and how they are not "anarchists" but in reality totalitarians who excuse themselves under a thin veil of a vacuous narrative of anarchy.

That is an extremely utopic take, not unlike Robert Owen's. He too believed that if removed from the shackles of capitalism and state coercion humanity's better nature would spring forth and create a mini-paradise. His communes lasted for less than 10 years before he was forced to abandon the idea as completely unworkable. Humanity is not evolved enough to seek the good of others by default. Each and every human out there will look out for number one first and foremost, and a few others will look out for number two.

The advantage of voluntary association is that you can find out what works and what doesn't. The example you gave, of a commune without the concept of private property rights will without doubt not survive long. In fact, if leftist "anarchists" were consistent with their arguments, they would not be against a society based on voluntary association, because under those conditions they could create a community under the terms they wished for themselves. However, they how that their ideals will lead to a chaotic state of things and a society which will quickly disintegrate, CHAZ is a perfect example of this, it was based entirely on coercion, intimidation, confiscation of property, theft, and quickly after its founding hunger, and many other ills plagued that experiment. It was doomed to fail.

There seems to be quite a lot a confusion from your part. You're associating situations with contradictory concepts, some of those concepts stand in distinct opposition to the scenarios you've mentioned. Either that, or you are not seeing the larger picture, you're confusing the forest for the trees.

Of course, but the conversation has become a red herring discussion about the European response to Mongol invasion. numerosdecimus has used this rabbit hole, seemingly to avoid the questions I asked them previously. So I'd like to bring the conversation back towards exploring numerosdecimus' prejudices.

Spare me your condescending tone. How about YOUR prejudices, this can go two ways. I have answered your questions, if you want to go on a circular logic game then I won't indulge you.

I have given you examples of non mainstream media that are widely viewed, with millions of views per month. Whether you will start next augmenting if they are "not valid" or have "bias" would be an arbitrary statement.

---

To BOTH of you, know this: The civilizational advances we have seen in mankind, especially those of the last 500 years, have been almost entirely thanks to the adoption of a set of principles which promoted free speech, private property rights and the right to discriminate. These principles have their most fundamental roots in a mix of judeo-christian principles and those of greeck-roman constitutional style of governance.

Freedom of speech and power are intrisically tied.

Factually, historically and empirically incorrect. In fact, this kind of reasoning is one of the core narrative trap used to insert fascism and socialism (which are in essence competing totalitarian ideologies, but similar in many aspects) in a society.

In the 20th century, mankind has witnessed atrocities done almost exclusively in the name of obedience to the state and legitimized at the time of their doing through a narrative of making the state unquestionable and infallible in it's directives.

---

I don't have much more to say to you two. I have made my point clear. I won't play your game in which you hope to tire me out with continuous posts, and repeatedly either distorting or refusing to understand what I wrote, as is the case with Sir Adrian, or outright ignoring my statements as is the case with you antaeus.

My objective was to give my opinion on the topic of this thread, instead you two have derailed it while I am forced to constantly answer your questions and follow YOUR flow of the conversation, because you are orienting where this threat goes, not me, I'm just answering your endless questions, and I can clearly see this is only going one way, as if the burden of proof is only applied to me, your arguments have shows numerous gaps, flaws and contradictions, but you don't see me insulting you over it. And you antaneus have the gall to say with a cheap provocation that "I'm running away to my rabbit hole".

My objective was complete from my first post, which was to give my opinion, spending time answering your questions in this thread is a cordiality from me, and if the conversation starts to turn into cheap ad hominem and character insults then I won't insult myself by staying in the thread. If you don't like what I wrote than that's too bad, I don't care. We live in a, supposedly, free society and your claim about "power" won't stop me nor curtail my right of free speech.

I am well aware of such cheap tactics and I won't spend my time in an endless game of circular logic.

Good day to you two.

(edited)

[antaeus]

Mainstream media, as commonly called, normally refers to the large legacy institutions who traditionally are connected to the institutions in power and are heavily influenced by them, since they are part of the same circle.

Again, this answer is a little weasel words and vague for my liking. There are lot of loaded or ambiguous words here. Legacy, traditionally, institutions in power... terms you're very casually throwing about. Can you be a little more specific? I am genuinely interested in seeing where this might go. I made the thread because I experience genuine dissonance when talking about freedom of speech. But this "mainstream" media rabbit hole doesn't seem to have a lot of substance, just conjecture.

An example of a non mainstream media, and no 100% reliable source exists, since it is the opinion of the one sharing the information, and they don't hide this from you, could be several of the small channels that exist in youtube or that have been banned and are now in bitchute or odysee. Example such as Freedomain radio, Computing Forever, Tim Pool, Felix Rex, Louis Rossman, Mike Maloney, Peter Schiff, Max Keiser, Doug Casey and many more. Don't bother asking if they are "reliable" or flawed as if they were isent from scrutiny or without flaws, because they have flaws. The important part is that each presents a different opinion with different points of view that they prioritize. What matters is having an abundance of sources, each providing different details.

However, with the mainstream media its at this point blatantly different. I've seen several channels presenting the same exact talking points and incorrect narratives (take for instance the latest events with WallStreetbets in Reddit and Gamestop stock). Worse, they make a point of spread the incorrect image that they are infallible and they even have the gall to tell on tv that they are the "legitimate" opinion.

At least non mainstream media, is honest in telling you that what they tell you is their opinion, and they know they can't hide that from their viewers

Great response. I'm not interested in whether they are reliable or flawed. I'm interested in why you trust them. I know large media corporations have vested interests, boards, budgets, shareholders etc. This information is generally all public. I can base my trust decision on the public knowledge that surrounds these organisations. Even with social media - I know why they operate, and to a degree how. And this information allows me to judge what I can and can't trust. But is there some metric you use when filtering through indie youtube channels? I'm curious about how indie media build trust.

[Muizer]

The medieval period is a mix of things in my opinion. Back then the common folk had more leeway concerning taxation and regulatory pressure than today, true. But in other aspects they were legally constrained. The status of peasentry or "serf", while not formally nor entirely one of slavery, (the church forbid it in accordance with its principles) was still a status of severe limitations and one of clear violations of what we would consider "modern rights".

The point is that the Medieval state was weak and that this allowed private individuals to carve out positions of power by brute force and vastly ramp up exploitation and constraints of common folk in the process. Positions of power which 'the state' was forced to legitimize post-hoc. In other words, 'minimal government' was so weak that over a period of centuries, it was unable to guarantee the rights of its subjects from depredations of 'strong men'. The 'serf' as you call them, was the product of 'private initiative', not state action.

[Cope]

There is a difference between a "weak state" and a limited, constitutional state. The former creates power vacuums (as occurred during the period of feudal anarchy), the other prevents constriction by a centralized authority, but remains orderly. The kings of the medieval era didn't rule over decentralized realms out of principle, but because they lacked the means to exert absolute rule (which came later).

[Knight of Heaven]

The current narrative from the left, sjw, socialists, fascists, and totalitarians in general, when saying "freedom of speech shouldn't shield people from the consequences" in actuality is just a indirect way to justify violence against someone they disagree with.

Indeed, and most often censorship. That is what i found in recent times.