1) Censorship is not, in and of itself, morally wrong. There are plenty of situations where it is not only acceptable but morally preferable. 2) What makes censorship immoral is the nature and basis of the censorship and the means of its enforcement consequences for breaking it. 3) Google does not have the ability to effectively censor anything outside of its own domain, which means it doesn't have the ability to effectively censor anything, period.

Every time I start to expand on these points, I keep coming back to that first word. 'Yes.' Before I go any further, I want to make sure I understand you clearly. Is it the case that you believe a policy of repressive government censorship which would provoke someone to renounce their citizenship is morally equivalent to Google's censorship which would provoke someone to change their video host?

If you can sincerely answer yes to that question, there's probably not much point in continuing this conversation. I can't even conceive of, much less relate to, the kind of ideological absolutism that could produce that kind of conclusion. To be honest, that is the most generous characterization I could think of to describe what I understand your position to be. No offense.
>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^jonny:
Seriously? You're equating where and the laws under which one lives to where and the restrictions under which one posts videos or blogs? You're equating Google's non-monopolistic business position with the government's monopoly on violence? You're equating renouncing one's citizenship to changing one's video host?!
Yes. If we agree that censorship is morally wrong, why does that suddenly become morally acceptable when the people doing the censoring only wield a lot of power, but not absolute power?

>> ^jonny:

Seriously? You're equating where and the laws under which one lives to where and the restrictions under which one posts videos or blogs? You're equating Google's non-monopolistic business position with the government's monopoly on violence? You're equating renouncing one's citizenship to changing one's video host?!

Yes. If we agree that censorship is morally wrong, why does that suddenly become morally acceptable when the people doing the censoring only wield a lot of power, but not absolute power?

Seriously? You're equating where and the laws under which one lives to where and the restrictions under which one posts videos or blogs? You're equating Google's non-monopolistic business position with the government's monopoly on violence? You're equating renouncing one's citizenship to changing one's video host?!

Global companies, for all the rights and power they hold in the U.S., do not come close to being in the same position vis-a-vis customers/citizens as a government does. Corporations don't get to decide whether you live or die. And that's the reason it generally doesn't make sense to hold them to the same standards of free speech.

I want to be clear that I'm referring only to content hosts and publishers. Clearly, the situation is different for ISPs. There's only one network, and for a given individual, likely only one (maybe two) viable access providers. Like the phone company(ies(y)), you want to guarantee universal access. Beyond that, though, I don't see what legal basis you can construct an argument to force a corporation to provide a platform for content which it believes to be detrimental to its business. By "legal basis", I don't mean strictly U.S. law and precedent, but more generally in a philosophical/historical legal sense. The only example I can think of that comes close is requiring cable companies to provide public access television.


>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^jonny:
This seems like a flawed argument to me, Netrunner. Almost none of the other one-to-many or many-to-many media have any such requirements. Google's dominant position influences the situation, but at the end of the day, there are other options/outlets. A LOT of other options. So, the only difference I can see is that you are asserting a right not to free speech but a big audience.
>> ^NetRunner:
It should mean that you actually have the right to express yourself using modern communications networks without being censored by the network providers. It means content publishing services should have limits on what they're allowed to refuse to publish.
Google chooses to provide a publishing service to the public "for free" (though they make money off the content people are "giving" them "for free"). That shouldn't endow them with the unlimited right to censor content that's published on their service, anymore than "free speech" means there can be no limits on speech whatsoever.

To generalize your argument, you're saying that China isn't an oppressive regime that has no guarantee of free speech, because there are lots of other countries you could live in that might let you have it.
People in who want a right to free speech in China don't really want free speech, they just want to live in a country with lots of people. After all, there are lots of other countries to live in...
My position is that if it's unconscionable for a state to do it, why is it unconscionable to suggest that corporations shouldn't be permitted to do it either?

>> ^spoco2:

Exactly, people who espouse to be anarchists or libertarians only really want to be up to a point. They always seem to be quite happy to take those things that are provided by living in a society, but seem to get shirty when that entails paying taxes to fund such things.
Strange that.


>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

....until a band of vicious outlaws takes them from you, captures you and forces you to fight to the death with other prisoners in a makeshift gladiatorial arena they've dubbed 'The Thunderdome'.


I use the compulsory services I'm forced to pay for. Yes. Government has a monopoly on violence, so I must use their armies and police. They've a monopoly on first class mail, so I use their postal service. They also maintain a monopoly on property, so I use their roads to move about and live on the land they claim to own.

Problem?

When liberals and libertarians makes themselves get tazed, it's because they're trying to resolve whatever complaint they have at the moment instead of after the fact.

If they believe they shouldn't have to comply with lawful orders, or that cops should be nicer, they could deal with it after the fact or before the fact by making legislative efforts, and if the voting population agrees with them, they'll be successful.

>> ^NetRunner:

I can't speak for the libertarians who disagree with the state's near monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, but for the most part people with the liberal mindset just don't like violence, period. Those among us who are familiar with the concept of a state monopoly on the use of violence tend to agree it's a necessary component of having a civil society.
But I'm puzzled by your comments about after the fact vs. at that moment. Which dispute are you referring to? Legal charges, or simply the refusal to comply with lawful orders? How would you resolve the latter after the fact?
>> ^chilaxe:
If neurogenetics isn't why many liberals & libertarians disagree with the state's monopoly on violence, wouldn't they over time begin advocating settling disputes after the fact instead of at that moment?

I can't speak for the libertarians who disagree with the state's near monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, but for the most part people with the liberal mindset just don't like violence, period. Those among us who are familiar with the concept of a state monopoly on the use of violence tend to agree it's a necessary component of having a civil society.

But I'm puzzled by your comments about after the fact vs. at that moment. Which dispute are you referring to? Legal charges, or simply the refusal to comply with lawful orders? How would you resolve the latter after the fact?

>> ^chilaxe:

If neurogenetics isn't why many liberals & libertarians disagree with the state's monopoly on violence, wouldn't they over time begin advocating settling disputes after the fact instead of at that moment?

If neurogenetics isn't why many liberals & libertarians disagree with the state's monopoly on violence, wouldn't they over time begin advocating settling disputes after the fact instead of at that moment?

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^chilaxe:

I'd say many liberals and libertarians have weird neurogenetics that make their brains tell them disputes with law enforcement should be irrationally settled at the time (get tasered) instead of after the fact (go home fine).

I dunno, it seems like the case study in "weird neurogenetics" would be the people who refuse to put their hands on their head when a cop has a gun pointed at them.
Also, while it's always fun to imply that people with different political opinions from you are suffering from some physical brain abnormality, I don't think there's really any liberals or libertarians here who wanted the "dispute" was "settled" with tasers instead of "after the fact". It seems to me like the guy at the stop wanted it settled right then and there to his satisfaction before he would comply to simple things like "get back in your car", much less "appear in court on this date".

It occurs to me that many people like the government having a monopoly on violence. It isn't so much a desire that it come from the government, but from an objective 3rd party that cannot be swayed by counter-force.

I don't much care for violence myself, but if someone is taking my stuff and the government won't intervene in any meaningful way then I'm sure I can find someone (or some group) willing to intervene on my behalf for a fee. Hopefully they would intervene fairly rather than siding with the side paying the most.

Hmm, maybe I could start my own "protection" company. Not extortion-like protection, but something that would deserve a good reputation for fairness. Instead of charging a fee for an intervention I would probably charge a subscription, and I could even set up a system to mediate disputes between customers.

Yea, I could see a lot of people signing up for that. Maybe I could use the money to buy several square miles of land... a sort-of "protected zone" for paying clients. People could rent smaller portions of the land, and I could provide protection to everyone.

I would have to impose some restrictions on behavior within my area for safety, but people live there by choice rather than by force... maybe I could even let them have some say in those restrictions. If anyone doesn't like it then they can always move. Children would become members automatically at a certain age if they choose to stay, but it's their choice.

Personally I would probably join something like that, because I really don't want to be responsible for my own protection. I'm just one person after all, and not everyone respects property rights the way I do.

I know I'm describing something familiar, I just can't put my finger on it...

@NetRunner

Thank you for the comments.

1. Walmart wages: It seems like most reasonable libertarian positions are different from anarchic positions in that they support a basic platform for prosperity, including basic protections for workers. Altruism, however, is defined as an uneven (irrational) trade, so this wouldn't qualify as altruism. Also, the libertarian definition of basic protections certainly wouldn't include extras like, for example, subsidized housing intended to allow low-contribution workers to live in the center of San Francisco, instead of having to commute into the city like everybody else.

2a. If someone wants a Ferrari (I don't, but some people do), the basic economic system allows anyone who's smart to become a millionaire within around 5 years (ask me more), so there is a path toward that. I might be misunderstanding your point, though.

2b. I just like science, intelligence, and prosperity, so the commonplace objection among libertarians (and liberals) to the state's monopoly on violence just seems to me like people expressing their simplistic instincts.

3. I think developing our personal human capital in extraordinary ways is already altruistic... our permanently less reasonable friends and community benefit more from us than we benefit from them.

4. Reverse intellectual darwinism is already a huge drain on reasonable people, so it seems good to oppose it where we can. Small costs in shipping add up to large costs nationwide over time.

I've heard from a person or two on here that China is a libertarian paradise because of the bad business practices, etc. They really don't understand free societies vs. communist statism, obviously. This is another example how government, always corruptible (ALWAYS!), uses its monopoly on violence to keep its people living in squalor and fear.

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
Governments manage pollution best! I submit this as evidence.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131440157

@dgandhi, government is the monopoly on violence and everything they do is violent. When you say everything they do "except" property, what do you mean? If you're citing DFT's wiki definition, then in that instance government is being used to protect property rights (as well as private contracts) by way of force. So, that's violence as well. I'm not sure what you're driving at.

Forcing people to do things that aren't voluntary is wrong. Forcing people to redress damages is not wrong.

To that end, @dystopianfuturetoday, your social contract notion is fallacious in nature. There are three elements of a contract: offer, acceptance and legal consideration. For your social contract example there's neither an offer or acceptance on the part of the people. A contract is also called a what? An agreement.

It's pretty much in the word that contracts are to be voluntary, not forced.

I am amazed that you are all-right with the scenario of people who had never handled a car drive in a highway alone. If you think that's perfectly okay, I really don't know what to say. I suppose you believe there should not be be any maximum or minimum speed limit as well? Or any punishments for crossing the red light?

There is one example of a country that has extremely little regulation, that does not have what you detest: "a single monolithic system (government) that offers services, administers privileges, arbitrates punishment and also maintains a monopoly on violence". This lead to multiple factions, previously civilians, trying to take control and lead to a complete mess in Somalia. The lack of the monopoly of violence lead to killings that was unheard of; you may be forgetting that everyone is not as nice as you think they are.

You said: "I've pointed out a couple times above how any argument against less regulations and less laws always is met with extreme scenarios to justify the need for government intervention. Look, bombs on a plane are a distraction from what we were originally talking about here" - but it is completely related. Where do you draw the line? You seemed to have drawn it when it came to bombs in planes, because of the potential deaths. I, and I assume most others, draw it at drunk driving, for the exact same reason: potential deaths. Neither of these two acts can guarantee victims, but it makes sense for an authority to ban them because it's something unnecessary that may cause harm for little benefit.

BTW: you also said "What if Verizon sold you phone service, maintained a monopoly on all phone services, created a compulsory licensing system where they could reject or allow the use of the phone service, and then were allowed to judge and execute punishment for any misuse they determined?" - there is an exact example of a telecom like this in a country with camels, where using a voip app can land you in jail and lead to deportation. So I understand the necessity of less government intervention, but your scale of deregulation is a bit extreme, though I also understand that a slow creep of more control can actually lead to situations like this in other countries as well. But I maintain that road regulations, at least, are done for the greater good.

@raith, where to begin? You wrote, "airline threats are regulated by the government", but does that matter? Everything is regulated by the government. Everything. Name one thing in your life that isn't regulated to some extent by the government. Even sleeping (do not remove under penalty of law).

I'm not saying airlines should start allowing bombs into the sky. That's a bit extreme isn't it? I mean, I've pointed out a couple times above how any argument against less regulations and less laws always is met with extreme scenarios to justify the need for government intervention. Look, bombs on a plane are a distraction from what we were originally talking about here: driving under the influence laws.

You wrote, "you mean to say it should be all-right for people to drive without a license or training? Because the road is public and we have the right to use them?" Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. You say that doesn't make sense, but why? Barring any extreme scenarios where a raving lunatic lets his dog drive, why isn't this a plausible idea? I know it's a tangent from the original DUI conversation, but at one point driving required no license.

Let me pause and point something out. My biggest issue here is you have a single monolithic system (government) that offers services, administers privileges, arbitrates punishment and also maintains a monopoly on violence. That's one system that does all of that. What if Verizon sold you phone service, maintained a monopoly on all phone services, created a compulsory licensing system where they could reject or allow the use of the phone service, and then were allowed to judge and execute punishment for any misuse they determined? That's basically what the government does.

If you can't understand why having the same monolithic system that takes out your trash also police you is a bad thing then we're in trouble.

>> ^lampishthing:

I fear I shall be owned for that comment.


Fear not. I hope your day gets better!

<angry rant cos I'm having a reeeally bad day>

Man I can't stand anarchists. Three points:

All people aren't basically equal.
People are basically selfish.
People are basically bureaucratic!!!

The thing that bugs me most about anarchism is the lack of complexity. I can dig economic anarchism. Fine. All well and good. But come on. If our society fell to pieces we would lose so very much. Without bureaucracy we wouldn't have electricity for crying out loud!!! Can you make electricity on your own? I bloody well can't. I'd know how to in a few ways but I wouldn't be able to, starting from scratch, because I wouldn't have any valid materials. Most everything great around us is complex and wouldn't have happened without statism and/or capitalism.

</angry rant cos I'm having a reeeally bad day>
>> ^blankfist:

I'm glad he's confessing that government is a monopoly on violence.
More on monopoly of violence from an anarchist: