@dystopianfuturetoday I'd like to help you visualize what I understand a free market is or ought to be. When you say free markets are impossible, I tend to compare that to someone saying, "free speech is impossible" while holding an extreme or maybe unrealistic interpretation of what free speech ought to be as well.

Imagine when freedom of speech was first proposed, "What if we had a society where people could say whatever they want without fear of censorship or oppression?". Before we had a country where freedom of speech was in the first Ammendment of its Constitution, I'm pretty sure we didn't have freedom of speech anywhere, or mostly in any time in history. Someone could have replied, "A free speech society is impossible, which is why one has never existed, and why you were unable to come up with any working examples". Sure, because there would almost always be some asshole, usually a king, a despot or church, telling people what they could or could not say, and punishing them for it.

Now, do we enjoy absolute freedom of speech today? Not at all, and I'm fine with that. There are laws against libel, hate speech, obscenity, incitement to commit crimes, etc., which are all restrictions imposed on that very freedom.

However, all things considered, I think freedom of speech is mostly free. I don't know of anyone who advocates "restricted speech" or "highly regulated speech" as an ideal. More importantly, whenever censorship is reported or witnessed, everyone is instantly indignant and sometimes outraged, because we are all aware of how essential freedom of speech is to a free society, a freedom that should be cherished and protected.

Now let's take a look at the dynamics of free speech in society.

Just because people can say whatever they want, doesn't mean there won't be millions of people lying, deceiving each other, spreading ideologies that are COMPLETELY WRONG, etc.

Does that mean we should have laws banning ideas that are wrong? Not easy to do, because it is common sense that no one has absolute authority over truth, so such laws would hardly be fair.

Instead, we resort to letting ideas compete, letting people select for themselves what is true or not. That might doom society to eternal stupidity and ignorance or to a gradual process where truths will be preferred, and lies will tend to be exposed or ignored. Which outcome do you think is more likely? It takes time, but a free society matures with such freedoms. When abuses happen, society learns and deals with them without immediately resorting to laws and restrictions, because that would be considered censorship, and, therefore, usually unfair.

Now when it comes to economic freedom, liberals treat it as a whole different ball game, when I don't think it should be. First off, "free markets" = obscenity. They learn to understand it like you do, "absolutely free of government intervention, chaos everywhere, society is doomed", when in fact the proponents of free markets recognize that the State is necessary to enforce contracts, punish fraud and protect private property.

Liberals are mostly influenced by the socialist interpretation of capitalism as an inherently unfair system. Whenever any perceived abuse happens in an economy, they see it as resulting from an imbalance of economic power, so they rush to demand laws and regulations to forcibly correct them.

How about letting these abuses happen, and let society learn to deal with them, select them, and evolve? Just like what happens with free speech. Sure, if it's blatant fraud, theft, breach of contract, etc. the State can and should step in. Otherwise, let people come up with their own solutions. It will be a painful process, but it's better to let a free society mature by itself than oppressing it into behaving well.

Besides, if you think about it, politicians aren't any better than anyone at judging what economic practices are right or wrong. So the laws they make are usually unfair. They have the same kind of presumptuousness of someone who would claim authority over truth, and want to create laws censoring "wrong" ideas. Like keynesian economists who try to plan and steer economies because they have little theories where they claim it's smarter to use other people's money than letting people make decisions with their own money.

We would never put up with people trying to engineer society/culture through censorship. Why do we put up with that when it comes to economics?

About the thought experiment (hoping it's not a trick question), I don't see why there should be a limit on how much property a person can own, as long as the property is honestly obtained.

I don't think it's an injustice when someone owns more than others, maybe there are other factors to be considered? Forcibly redistributing property is usually more unfair than just letting society deal with any problem arising from someone having property that others want or need.

The First Amendment protects the rights of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition. However, it does not mean that anything goes.

For example, speech is a fundamentally protected right. But I cannot publish a false account of your business making me sick without repercussions - e.g., libel and slander.

And while religion is fundamentally protected as well, it does not mean anything and everything any religion does is okay - e.g., polygamy or female circumcision.

These are the facts.

I had an argument with my husband about British libel law tonight. It wasn't hardly at all like this, nope not a bit no.

@Drachen_Jager, maybe the reason you deny the analogy is because one is a freedom you currently blame for a lot of things, and the other is a freedom you cherish?

One is about not legislating over what people can or can't say, but have laws against libel, inciting violence, etc. The other is about not legislating over what people can or can't trade with each other, but have laws against fraud, breaking contracts, etc.

Help me understand, why are these really apples and oranges again?

stupid siftbot screwed that up.

@Boise_Lib

"Please do not down vote a video because you dislike the Sifter who submitted it; this is entirely unacceptable. Instead, vote solely based on the quality of video content. If down voting or any other member privilege is intentionally misused, the offending member will be temporarily banned for no less than 2 weeks. A second offense will result in a permanent ban. "

You vote for the video content, nothing else. Thats what piss' me off sometimes when people say things like " upvote for the title alone" ... You know who you are.

VOTE ON CONTENT. Nothing else.

Comprehend ?


system#comment-1356447'>^Boise_Lib:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
I was ready to argue with you--then I read the second paragraph--then I read the late addition. You are assuming the downvotes are automatic; using what? You don't know why anyone downvoted (except me--see comment above).
Your downvote is a blatant violation of Siftlaw. You ought to know better. Don't worry; nothing will be done because nobody likes QM. Siftlaws are only there to protect popular users.
I suspect the others are as well but we can only speculate since they haven't posted confessions.

If it is so blatant you should easily be able to show me the written word of the law.
If you can not then your statement is libel.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
I was ready to argue with you--then I read the second paragraph--then I read the late addition. You are assuming the downvotes are automatic; using what? You don't know why anyone downvoted (except me--see comment above).
Your downvote is a blatant violation of Siftlaw. You ought to know better. Don't worry; nothing will be done because nobody likes QM. Siftlaws are only there to protect popular users.
I suspect the others are as well but we can only speculate since they haven't posted confessions.


If it is so blatant you should easily be able to show me the written word of the law.
If you can not then your statement is libel.

Almost getting violent is not illegal.

Your link and your examples support my point completely. There are limits to free speech: when they cause harm to others. Libel, slander, yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, or my examples of inciting violence or causing discrimination, all cause harm.

Being an asshole on the subway does not cause harm.

She never threatened anyone (so there goes any "uttering threats" charge) and harassment is almost by definition a repetitive act (which means this likely can't be called that either, legally).

With regards to freedom of speech not superseding other rights, here is a link to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Please point out which one her freedom of speech was superseding. There is no "everyone has the right to never be offended and to be sheltered from the opinions of others."
>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^Skeeve:
While her tirade makes me sick, the fact that she was arrested for this makes me even more sick.
Freedom of speech means nothing if you don't have the freedom to offend people. The aim should be to draw the line where it causes harm - whether by inciting violence or by denying someone a job, etc.

This line of thinking always puzzles me. Freedom of speech always has (and always should have) limitations. It doesn't supersede other rights--it exists in relation to them and is not any more "special," which is why (for example) there are laws against libel and slander, laws against yelling "fire" in a crowded theater in order to start a panic, etc.
The lady in this video is clearly going beyond just voicing her opinion and harassing the other passengers. At one point she seems ready to get physical (at about the 1:00 part she's screaming that she dares someone to try to remove her from the train). She's entitled to her opinion about immigrants and she's also entitled to express her opinion, but she's not entitled to repeatedly verbally attack or threaten the people around her, who have no chance to avoid or get away from her since they're all trapped on the tram together. In other words, her right to free speech does not supersede the other passengers' rights to travel on the tram in peace.
I'm glad she was arrested and, as mentioned above by @Boise_Lib, that no violence was involved. She should be prosecuted not for expressing an offensive opinion but for repeatedly and intentionally harassing the other passengers. This is not the kind of behavior that should be rewarded with a "Oh, it's her right to free speech" pass.

>> ^Skeeve:

While her tirade makes me sick, the fact that she was arrested for this makes me even more sick.
Freedom of speech means nothing if you don't have the freedom to offend people. The aim should be to draw the line where it causes harm - whether by inciting violence or by denying someone a job, etc.


This line of thinking always puzzles me. Freedom of speech always has (and always should have) limitations. It doesn't supersede other rights--it exists in relation to them and is not any more "special," which is why (for example) there are laws against libel and slander, laws against yelling "fire" in a crowded theater in order to start a panic, etc.

The lady in this video is clearly going beyond just voicing her opinion and harassing the other passengers. At one point she seems ready to get physical (at about the 1:00 part she's screaming that she dares someone to try to remove her from the train). She's entitled to her opinion about immigrants and she's also entitled to express her opinion, but she's not entitled to repeatedly verbally attack or threaten the people around her, who have no chance to avoid or get away from her since they're all trapped on the tram together. In other words, her right to free speech does not supersede the other passengers' rights to travel on the tram in peace.

I'm glad she was arrested and, as mentioned above by @Boise_Lib, that no violence was involved. She should be prosecuted not for expressing an offensive opinion but for repeatedly and intentionally harassing the other passengers. This is not the kind of behavior that should be rewarded with a "Oh, it's her right to free speech" pass.

>> ^Pprt:

"Racist" is nothing more than silly name-calling. Its only effect is making the accuser seem unoriginal and intellectually lazy. Congratulations to anyone who uses that word for employing the debating tactics of a five year old.
Before Breivik's name was out there I expressed caution in not blaming anyone for the attacks. Unlike most media sources who immediately suspected Muslim involvement, I waited for more facts to emerge before making assumptions. That is not the action of a "racist" as you would define one.
Further, it is impossible to condone the recent events in Norway, nor would any sensible person defend these assassinations as a reasonable act. My admission is that his reasoning is sound, his concerns legitimate and his motivations worthy of study.
As for DerHasisttot's logical pretzel. I'm sure he is the type of fellow that would mobilize government in defense of an endangered species of duck, but yet finds the mild concept that a civilization wishes to maintain its existence is morally wrong. Shame on him.


It is not name calling if it is a true description. If you want to know the exact moment when libel ceased to be libel if the libelous statement was demonstrably true, look here.

I think we all have a moral obligation to tell the truth if telling the truth meant doing the right thing. I think that obligation should remain voluntary, obviously.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
You're welcome, you ol' sow libeler. I have no desire to see you banned. As much as I wish you'd be less hostile and insulting, I do enjoy arguing with you. I want to win arguments with you, not silence you.

Setting aside my fondness for beating the tar out of you, I think it would have been a pretty grave injustice for me to stay silent and let you get punished because of a misunderstanding, even if I truly hated your guts. I only saw one moral choice on the table, and that was to speak up.

Since you seem to want to at least sorta make this ideological, what do you think? Did I have a moral obligation to tell the truth, or was either choice a valid moral option?

You're welcome, you ol' sow libeler. I have no desire to see you banned. As much as I wish you'd be less hostile and insulting, I do enjoy arguing with you. I want to win arguments with you, not silence you.

Setting aside my fondness for beating the tar out of you, I think it would have been a pretty grave injustice for me to stay silent and let you get punished because of a misunderstanding, even if I truly hated your guts. I only saw one moral choice on the table, and that was to speak up.

Since you seem to want to at least sorta make this ideological, what do you think? Did I have a moral obligation to tell the truth, or was either choice a valid moral option?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Thanks, pig fucker. So easily someone with a particular gumption could've lobbied to have me banned, and by the looks of it it appears ol' Siftler isn't too interested in hearing testimony before sending people to the gallows. I'm ban number three inside of two weeks, right?

Anyhow, thanks for jumping in and giving another side to the story. Freedom works. People do help others even when not incentivized to do so.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
I can't believe I'm standing up for @blankfist, but he and I call each other pig fucker all the time. It's just one of those terms of endearment you come to use for each other when you've spent years arguing like an old married couple.

>> ^MrFisk:

Levels of Speech/Expression
1. Pure speech
a. public speech
b. writing a letter
c. publishing newspaper of book
2. Intermediate speech
a. symbolic speech
b. advertising
c. broadcasting (certain aspects)
3. Unprotected speech
a. fighting words
b. libel
c. obscenity


Advertising is deception by design; making one desire what they didn't previously know they desired. I'd rank it below the worst forms of broadcasting (and that can be bad) because it's more insideous.

I don't think we can have unprotected speech from a legislative standpoint however, but I do think we can take measures to "mute" hate speech. This site is an example of the sort of mentality we can take into the future if we can free ourselves from unnecessary influence. (current political and corporate induced states of existance) Proven libel is the only case in which I'd entertain some sort of punishment.

Happy St. Patrick's Day, Jew. It makes me so happy that I won't blood libel you today.

>> ^MrFisk:

Levels of Speech/Expression
1. Pure speech
a. public speech
b. writing a letter
c. publishing newspaper of book
2. Intermediate speech
a. symbolic speech
b. advertising
c. broadcasting (certain aspects)
3. Unprotected speech
a. fighting words
b. libel
c. obscenity


You forgot intellectual property and trademarks, and "top secret" and restricted information.

Levels of Speech/Expression
1. Pure speech
a. public speech
b. writing a letter
c. publishing newspaper of book
2. Intermediate speech
a. symbolic speech
b. advertising
c. broadcasting (certain aspects)
3. Unprotected speech
a. fighting words
b. libel
c. obscenity