His so-called "argument" is as old as classical liberalism, which is better represented by today's right than the left. He is only restating what we already knew 300 years ago.
But Marxists don't care. The whole point of left wing totalitarianism is restriction of individual liberty, including speech, all under the banner of the common good.
Agree completely, there's certainly a strong undercurrent of safetyism here as well that those who want to engage and behavior perhaps considered outside the norm don't want anybody to ever question their decisions. Just not the way the world works, trying to force everyone to pretend to agree merely weakens them further. Live your life, do your thing, and let the dogs keep barking because the Caravan is moving on.
I think this is what separates the moderate left wing party of JFK from the neolib, radical left, whose utopia involves mechanized order, provided to you by their benevolent top-down, super-sized, federal government. Essentially, they want to give a centralized actor complete control over the means of production, all in the name of the common good, and for your safety and security. And if you didn't ask for their benevolent "protection", too bad, because you need them anyway.
It will lead to tyranny. Every tyrant in history has said to the people that all they needed was their weapons, and then everyone would live in paradise. They said all we need is your property, and everyone will live in unimaginable abundance and luxury. All we need is your trust, and everyone will live in peace. All we need is for you to curtail your speech and self expression, and the world will be a better place. Why don't you trust us? If you do, all your needs will be taken care of. We love you.
In reality, they demand obedience and the total destruction of your individuality, for their poorly constructed abstract conception of a Utopia. And when they realize they cannot reach their Utopia, they'll begin the witch hunt against fictious enemies that leads to Gulags, reeducation camps, followed by a 100M deaths, mostly from starvation. And while your family is starving, the "elites", "influencers" and all others deemed "necessary" and "essential" by state thugs will throw lavish banquets to satisfy their triumph over your conquered soul.
Well said. Any breach of the bill of rights calls for secession or war.
It seems not many peolple have read the gulag archipelago. Anytime someone runs on a platform of the government taking care of you, and helping you, and loving you, one ought to run in the opposite direction. We saw this same thing in Cuba. The totalitarian playbook is always the same. They will say we need lists of speech for the common good, for your own interest, for minorities, etc etc. They will start with pronouns, then expand the list until you cannot say anything at all. And until you own nothing and like it (because not liking it means gulags).
And for people who yell and scream minority as if they need special protection, well there is no greater minority than the individual. So any group imposing itself upon an individual is a thug, not a minority
That's incorrect. The argument in favor of free speech is a very old one. Classical liberalism, during the enlightenment, was predicated upon universality and inalienable rights.
The guest speaker is not arguing anything original; he's simply restating the universals that were promulgated during the enlightenment. We all have a right to self expression, and no special interest group, LGTBQ or otherwise, or state or individual has a right to legislate my speech using the shackles of the common good, which, incidentally, is precisely the argument the postmodernist neo-marxists make. They want to create lists of speech, that which is permissible and that which isn't, because, like Marx and Bentham, they are selfish enough to place their conception of the common good above individual rights.
The classical view is still the correct view. And I'm glad the speaker realizes that.
His so-called "argument" is as old as classical liberalism, which is better represented by today's right than the left. He is only restating what we already knew 300 years ago.
But Marxists don't care. The whole point of left wing totalitarianism is restriction of individual liberty, including speech, all under the banner of the common good.
Agree completely, there's certainly a strong undercurrent of safetyism here as well that those who want to engage and behavior perhaps considered outside the norm don't want anybody to ever question their decisions. Just not the way the world works, trying to force everyone to pretend to agree merely weakens them further. Live your life, do your thing, and let the dogs keep barking because the Caravan is moving on.
I think this is what separates the moderate left wing party of JFK from the neolib, radical left, whose utopia involves mechanized order, provided to you by their benevolent top-down, super-sized, federal government. Essentially, they want to give a centralized actor complete control over the means of production, all in the name of the common good, and for your safety and security. And if you didn't ask for their benevolent "protection", too bad, because you need them anyway.
It will lead to tyranny. Every tyrant in history has said to the people that all they needed was their weapons, and then everyone would live in paradise. They said all we need is your property, and everyone will live in unimaginable abundance and luxury. All we need is your trust, and everyone will live in peace. All we need is for you to curtail your speech and self expression, and the world will be a better place. Why don't you trust us? If you do, all your needs will be taken care of. We love you.
In reality, they demand obedience and the total destruction of your individuality, for their poorly constructed abstract conception of a Utopia. And when they realize they cannot reach their Utopia, they'll begin the witch hunt against fictious enemies that leads to Gulags, reeducation camps, followed by a 100M deaths, mostly from starvation. And while your family is starving, the "elites", "influencers" and all others deemed "necessary" and "essential" by state thugs will throw lavish banquets to satisfy their triumph over your conquered soul.
Well said. Any breach of the bill of rights calls for secession or war.
It seems not many peolple have read the gulag archipelago. Anytime someone runs on a platform of the government taking care of you, and helping you, and loving you, one ought to run in the opposite direction. We saw this same thing in Cuba. The totalitarian playbook is always the same. They will say we need lists of speech for the common good, for your own interest, for minorities, etc etc. They will start with pronouns, then expand the list until you cannot say anything at all. And until you own nothing and like it (because not liking it means gulags).
And for people who yell and scream minority as if they need special protection, well there is no greater minority than the individual. So any group imposing itself upon an individual is a thug, not a minority
I was called a “traitor” for opposing the Iraq War…and now everyone but Lizard Cheney agrees it was dumb and criminal.
That's incorrect. The argument in favor of free speech is a very old one. Classical liberalism, during the enlightenment, was predicated upon universality and inalienable rights.
The guest speaker is not arguing anything original; he's simply restating the universals that were promulgated during the enlightenment. We all have a right to self expression, and no special interest group, LGTBQ or otherwise, or state or individual has a right to legislate my speech using the shackles of the common good, which, incidentally, is precisely the argument the postmodernist neo-marxists make. They want to create lists of speech, that which is permissible and that which isn't, because, like Marx and Bentham, they are selfish enough to place their conception of the common good above individual rights.
The classical view is still the correct view. And I'm glad the speaker realizes that.
Bentham was certainly critical of a bill of rights