Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[3017Metaphysician]

This is just all wrong. For example, Covid is not a "narrative". We lost as many people to covid as we lost in all our wars combined. Some people realized that they could make money by lying about vaccines. Fear sells. They couldn't care less if they get thousands killed if they make a profit. Vaccines save lives and our top priority was, correctly, getting as many people vaccinated as quickly as possible. Speech has consequences.

Yes, free speech means that some people will utter false claims, either for some self-serving reason or just because they're ignorant, and others will believe them. It is YOUR job to sort the fact from the fiction --- not the government's. If you eschew COVID vaccines because you've been persuaded they are ineffective or harmful and die from COVID, it is YOUR fault, no one else's. Others have no obligation to do your thinking for you.

We should be wary of limiting speech and accept some collateral damage from allowing people speak their minds, but there must be some limits.

Ah. And who is to define and impose those limits --- Joe Biden? Donald Trump?

The short answer is we the people. However, just like parent-child relationships, public safety plays a more significant role. A such, among other things, laws are there to protect citizens and/or help those who cannot help themselves. So, in the case of complete ignorance or unfair or unjust practices (unjust or unconscionable enrichment), those laws are a delicate balance between authoritarianism and public safety.

Think of it like antitrust laws and price fixing. Those laws, while seemingly authoritarian, protect those who are the incent victims of power and greed. Just one reason we pay taxes is for protectionism. But again, (relative to supply and demand), a moderate balance is the virtuous path which generally leads to equality.

Take for instance the cost of steel. When Trump put tariffs on imports, the US manufactures saw an opportunity to raise prices because of less competition. Similar to some aspects of oil. The current economic recovery spurred greed. While there should be no laws that limit profits, there are those said price fixing antitrust laws to encourage competition and transparency. Additionally, laws that police unsafe products and services are there to protect people/public safety. Like people who are unaware of such proprietary danger(s) about consumption of a particular product or service, including ignorant people like us.

So unfortunately, or fortunately, we pay taxes to police the bad people from taking advantage of people who sometimes have no control over those economic circumstances or otherwise. We rely on Government to do certain things. And we pay a fee for that. Free enterprise is good, but the few entrepreneurs that only care about the money at the expense of endangering the safety of others, should face the consequences. In other words, like public transportation laws, inspections of roads and bridges are not only there for both long term maintenance and public safety, but also to protect citizens from shady contractors who don't build the stuff right for a quick profit. What do you say to the family that unknowingly crosses a bad bridge that fails, don't drive across it? How would they know? Or a family that eats something that kills them?

Now if you don't behave GE, Mama's going to put you back in time-out! Maybe, just put down the crack pipe and you'll think more clearly!

[GE Morton]

Yes, free speech means that some people will utter false claims, either for some self-serving reason or just because they're ignorant, and others will believe them. It is YOUR job to sort the fact from the fiction --- not the government's. If you eschew COVID vaccines because you've been persuaded they are ineffective or harmful and die from COVID, it is YOUR fault, no one else's. Others have no obligation to do your thinking for you.

Will you ever realise it's not about "obligations", it's about mutual co-operation for mutual benefit. No coercion of any sort; just common sense.

In free societies not everyone will be willing to cooperate, no matter what the task or goal. That's when coercion enters the picture. Many pols, from both parties, have been advocating coercion to prevent the spread of "misinformation."

[3017Metaphysician]

...and perhaps more germane, entrepreneurs who decide free speech (like Trumps lies) may cause public safety concerns, can not only ban that behavior or self-serving propaganda on their platforms, but can lobby successfully for freedom of speech laws like banning one from yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

Take another hit on the crack pipe GE, you're doing fine!

[GE Morton]

Ah. And who is to define and impose those limits --- Joe Biden? Donald Trump?

The short answer is we the people.

Ah. The same "we the people," 25% of whom accept astrology and 40% of whom accept creationism? The same "we the people" who elected both Donald Trump and Joe Biden?

However, just like parent-child relationships, public safety plays a more significant role.

Ah, yes --- just like parent-child relationships ---the underlying premise of the Nanny State view of the role of government. And no doubt you consider yourself to be a member of the wise "parent" class, not the hapless "child" class. Right?

So, in the case of complete ignorance or unfair or unjust practices (unjust or unconscionable enrichment), those laws are a delicate balance between authoritarianism and public safety.

You're not confusing public safety with private safety, are you? BTW, How much "enrichment" is unjust or unconscionable?

Take for instance the cost of steel. When Trump put tariffs on imports, the US manufactures saw an opportunity to raise prices because of less competition.

Of course. Government meddling in the economy always yields unintended consequences and is usually counterproductive.

We rely on Government to do certain things.

We sure do --- more and more every year. Everyone wants free lunches, and pols are happy to deliver in exchange for votes. That is why government now consumes about 44% of US GDP, compared with an average of 7% between 1790 and 1930.

[GE Morton]

...and perhaps more germane, entrepreneurs who decide free speech (like Trumps lies) may cause public safety concerns, can not only ban that behavior or self-serving propaganda on their platforms, but can lobby successfully for freedom of speech laws like banning one from yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

Ah, a hoary and inapt analogy. A fire in a crowded theater requires immediate action; there is no time to validate the claim. There is plenty of time to evaluate claims about COVID vaccines.

[3017Metaphysician]

Ah. And who is to define and impose those limits --- Joe Biden? Donald Trump?

The short answer is we the people.

Ah. The same "we the people," 25% of whom accept astrology and 40% of whom accept creationism? The same "we the people" who elected both Donald Trump and Joe Biden?

Sure! The same people who 'created' a government with currency In God We Trust!

Keep trying GE!

However, just like parent-child relationships, public safety plays a more significant role.

Ah, yes --- just like parent-child relationships ---the underlying premise of the Nanny State view of the role of government. And no doubt you consider yourself to be a member of the wise "parent" class, not the hapless "child" class. Right?

Sure! Remember don't dichotomize reality. Parent-child is not mutually exclusive. You know, like those angry neuron's that caused families/people to fight an Insurrection!

So, in the case of complete ignorance or unfair or unjust practices (unjust or unconscionable enrichment), those laws are a delicate balance between authoritarianism and public safety.

You're not confusing public safety with private safety, are you? BTW, How much "enrichment" is unjust or unconscionable?

Nope, just greedy people who engage in unjust enrichment at the expense of ignorance! How much? We the people decide, don't they?

Take for instance the cost of steel. When Trump put tariffs on imports, the US manufactures saw an opportunity to raise prices because of less competition.

Of course. Government meddling in the economy always yields unintended consequences and is usually counterproductive.

It wasn't Government, it was an authoritarian! You know, the likes of Trump and Putin.

We rely on Government to do certain things.

We sure do --- more and more every year. Everyone wants free lunches, and pols are happy to deliver in exchange for votes. That is why government now consumes about 44% of US GDP, compared with an average of 7% between 1790 and 1930.

Are you sure everyone wants free lunches, or are you just projecting some vacuous GDP theory with no solution?

[3017Metaphysician]

...and perhaps more germane, entrepreneurs who decide free speech (like Trumps lies) may cause public safety concerns, can not only ban that behavior or self-serving propaganda on their platforms, but can lobby successfully for freedom of speech laws like banning one from yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

Ah, a hoary and inapt analogy. A fire in a crowded theater requires immediate action; there is no time to validate the claim. There is plenty of time to evaluate claims about COVID vaccines.

Please put down the crack pipe GE, its effecting your thought process! With COVID, time was of the essence. Trump denied its existence causing people to die. His dereliction of duties, once again, reared its ugly head. Nonetheless, you missed the point. Many laws are designed to help protect the life, welfare and well-being of the people. In this case, 'yelling fire' when there is none is against the law. Government creates laws to serve the people and discourage those who just say things irresponsibly. So Twitter banning similar 'irresponsible' Trumpian speech is the corresponding argument. In both cases, the direct analogy is claiming falsehood.

[Henry Case]

Twitter is doing fine and employees at Twitter are certainly doing better than employees at the railways or other workers doing actual labor. And Twitter already had unchecked power: blocking sharing of the Hunter Biden laptop story, banning people who go against the government's CoVID and Ukraine narratives. Their censorship was much more oppressive than Musk...who really hasn't changed that that much

Hello Henry,

As an aside, because I sense you might be in support of Musk's political views, metaphorically, what do you think about locking-up Trump, Hillary, Nixon and Hunter Biden?

Just curious!

I don't share Musk's political views; I'm a progressive and he's a right-leaning libertarian. I think Trump and Hillary skirted the edges of the law, but haven't been proven to have broken it. Nixon should have been in jail. Hunter should at least see prison time for lying about his drug addiction on his gun application. As to the rest; it's wait and see. Either way, the public should have not been denied acess to the story and the press shouldn't have spread disinformation that the laptop was Russian disinformation; it wasn't

[Henry Case]

And Twitter already had unchecked power: blocking sharing of the Hunter Biden laptop story, banning people who go against the government's CoVID and Ukraine narratives. Their censorship was much more oppressive than Musk...who really hasn't changed that that much

Twitter, being a privately owned service, may impose any speech or other use conditions and restrictions it wishes. Don't like those conditions/restrictions? Don't use the service. And, of course, if Musk wishes to alter those conditions/restrictions he's perfectly free to do so. Don't like those changes? Don't use the service.

There's an argument to that, and I agree with it to a point. Another one with validity is Twitter is a vital public space with no real competitor, making equally "free" speech important with no real political or personal bias having sway. However, it's funny that a lot of people who used your argument to defend pre-Musk Twitter's banning people they didn't like are now crying that Musk is doing what he wants to do as Twitter's owner....a bit hypocritical

[Henry Case]

...and perhaps more germane, entrepreneurs who decide free speech (like Trumps lies) may cause public safety concerns, can not only ban that behavior or self-serving propaganda on their platforms, but can lobby successfully for freedom of speech laws like banning one from yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

Take another hit on the crack pipe GE, you're doing fine!

Trump's lies? What about the lies about Hunter Biden's laptop being "Russian Disinformation"? What about the lies of Russiagate? of "Russian bounties"? of Snake Island, the Ghost of Kyiv, and Russia supposedly bombing Poland when it was really Ukraine's missiles?

Most disinformation on Twitter, including lies about Covid, have come from MSM and/or the government

[GE Morton]

There's an argument to that, and I agree with it to a point. Another one with validity is Twitter is a vital public space . . .

Oh, certainly not. There is nothing "vital" about it. If it disappeared tomorrow no one would die, no one but its investors would lose any money, and in a month no one would miss it.

However, it's funny that a lot of people who used your argument to defend pre-Musk Twitter's banning people they didn't like are now crying that Musk is doing what he wants to do as Twitter's owner....a bit hypocritical

Indeed. "Free speech for me, but not for thee."

[Henry Case]

It's vital in that it is the primary internet social network where politics, business and communication of such are done. Not vital in the sense of needed to live, but vital for active participation in our internet world...however important that may be

[GE Morton]

Sure! The same people who 'created' a government with currency In God We Trust!

LOL. And I should trust such people to decide what I may and may not say, what is and is not "misinformation"?

BTW, the people who created the US government had a much different conception of the role of government than many people today.

Sure! Remember don't dichotomize reality. Parent-child is not mutually exclusive.

Oh, but they are, as roles. And you should dump that "dichotomize" theme (along with the "information narrative," "material narrative," etc.). Like most PM rhetoric they are pretentious and vacuous.

You know, like those angry neuron's that caused families/people to fight an Insurrection!

Ah, still clinging to that category mistake, eh?

You're not confusing public safety with private safety, are you? BTW, How much "enrichment" is unjust or unconscionable?

Nope, just greedy people who engage in unjust enrichment at the expense of ignorance! How much? We the people decide, don't they?

Which people? Trump? Elon Musk? Bernie Sanders? Karl Marx? The astrology and creationism believers? The "woke" crowd?

Take for instance the cost of steel. When Trump put tariffs on imports, the US manufactures saw an opportunity to raise prices because of less competition.

Of course. Government meddling in the economy always yields unintended consequences and is usually counterproductive.

It wasn't Government, it was an authoritarian! You know, the likes of Trump and Putin.

Huh? Trump and Putin are not government?

Are you sure everyone wants free lunches, or are you just projecting some vacuous GDP theory with no solution?

Yes, that was hyperbole. Not everyone does. But the fact that about 65% of the federal budget is devoted to them makes it clear that a large majority does.

[Pattern-chaser]

Yes, free speech means that some people will utter false claims, either for some self-serving reason or just because they're ignorant, and others will believe them. It is YOUR job to sort the fact from the fiction --- not the government's. If you eschew COVID vaccines because you've been persuaded they are ineffective or harmful and die from COVID, it is YOUR fault, no one else's. Others have no obligation to do your thinking for you.

Will you ever realise it's not about "obligations", it's about mutual co-operation for mutual benefit. No coercion of any sort; just common sense.

In free societies not everyone will be willing to cooperate, no matter what the task or goal. That's when coercion enters the picture. Many pols, from both parties, have been advocating coercion to prevent the spread of "misinformation."

Coercion is perhaps too severe a word to describe what we're talking about here? For a start, when most people agree that X (say murder, but it could be anything) is undesirable, is it coercion if social pressure is applied to those who would prefer not to co-operate? And, if our example is murder, is it coercion if our law enforcement and courts send murderers to prison? Or, to take your example, is it really coercion if some form of pressure is applied to try to prevent the spread of misinformation (assuming it is misinformation, of course)?

There are many forms of persuasion that can be employed, for the examples above, and all similar examples too. Is it all "coercion", just because the target of that pressure is not inclined to co-operate? Some forms of persuasion surely are coercion, but I wonder if the word is applied too readily, in some circumstances?

[Pattern-chaser]

A fire in a crowded theater requires immediate action; there is no time to validate the claim. There is plenty of time to evaluate claims about COVID vaccines.

At the time when COVID was rising to its initial peak, I don't think there was time to evaluate the vaccines. Too many people were dying, too fast.