That was actually a super interesting, and somber, read.
It’s gets to, in part, the heart of free speech and government oversight. Even the opening C.S. Lewis quote is something worth applying to today’s (US) political parties. It’s difficult, for me, to consider the need to impose restrictions on the liberties of free people for the sake of a minor group of wrong doers.
Some topical issues I’m applying this perspective to are gun restrictions, Twitter, abortion, masks. I think we’re all quick to scream about what should be done to resolve the issue at the surface without taking a moment to consider the ramifications or the deeper causes driving the issue. Although, isn’t the deeper issue simply human nature? How do you solve that problem if not by imposing restrictions on the liberties of free people? Doesn’t a civil society require some level of restriction in order to foster trust and respect? Isn’t this why ancient civilizations created religion to begin with?
I mean, you have to admit that “free society” is an oxymoron.
That’s not what I read into this at all, but something far more sinister that I see happening in the world right now. Certain power players using “government oversight” as a disingenuous excuse to attack the means for regular people around the world to speak directly to one another without the filters that favor narratives that the power players prefer, and for regular people to coordinate with one another.
The Arab Spring and BLM protests scared some people and it’s showing.
I 100% agree with you, it is way more sinister than what oxjox was say. I do appreciate that they’re seeing that being a libertarian isn’t all it’s cracked up to be though. They’re reasoning their way out of it.
I was thinking more about whether the government has the right to protect people’s liberties at the expense of others’. I firmly believe that your rights are restricted as soon as they impose upon the rights of others. But the idea of it, even the codification of it, does not wholly prevent people from harming or obstructing others. A “free” society can not function without restrictions or punishments. Nor does this seem to be enough protection of our liberties in this world of freely expressing ourselves in real time to millions.
Post 9/11, our freedoms were restricted to ensure our freedoms. Covid required us to get vaccinated and wear masks to ensure people’s freedom of not getting sick from others. The freedom to speak in public is restricted to prevent harm or hysteria. Isn’t the government imposing taxes on citizens a limitation of their freedoms?
Places like China take these restrictions to the extreme so their society is less free than that found in the United States. Scandinavian countries are generally listed as “happier” than the United States but I wonder government regulations in those countries compare to America’s.
Personally, I’ve been of the belief that more restriction of speech (on social media) is better for society. But that’s mostly because of, I’ll just be frank about it, Trump and MAGA and Fox news. You’re right though - policy-wise - what’s the difference between the Arab Spring, BLM, Charlottesville, Jan6? They’re all a bunch of people getting together to express themselves. Just because you’re a moron, should that restrict your freedoms? Should less intelligent people or people with mental disorders be restricted from owning a firearm to protect themselves even though it may increase the risk of them harming themselves or others? Is freedom of speech different?
So, what’s the answer? How does a planet of social creatures who are permanently and instantly connected with one another live and promote a free and fair society while limiting oversight that might prevent atrocities?
I don’t think government-ing is the answer. Nor do I think our brains and emotions are evolved enough. Which just makes me nihilistic about the whole “humanity” thing. We’re doomed.
Every country defines what their citizens rights are. Some countries decide that their citizens have no rights and some, like the US, have tons of rights in theory, but not always in reality.
You have to have taxes if you’re going to have a relatively free society, because then there will be no travel, no getting out of the cycle of being poor and no one in jail (although, granted, there should be a lot less in jail but some deserve to be there). Rich people already don’t want to pay taxes, do you think they would buy roads for anyone? The infrastructure that the US now has, good and bad, is because of taxes. No one will take care of the needy and poor if you take away all of the government programs. Public schools, public libraries, public parks, all go away.
So, what’s the answer? How does a planet of social creatures who are permanently and instantly connected with one another live and promote a free and fair society while limiting oversight that might prevent atrocities?
You don’t limit oversight, you have things in place to check on the overseers. The r’s vs. the d’s was supposed to keep that all in check. The r’s fight for lower taxes and the d’s fight for taking care of the vulnerable and then it all pleasantly meets in the middle. In the US, we’ve been here before, we have to claw our way out of it. Limiting oversight of personal citizens, yes, do that. Limiting oversight of our government, fuck no. But keep the government, just fix it and watch it.
That was actually a super interesting, and somber, read.
It’s gets to, in part, the heart of free speech and government oversight. Even the opening C.S. Lewis quote is something worth applying to today’s (US) political parties. It’s difficult, for me, to consider the need to impose restrictions on the liberties of free people for the sake of a minor group of wrong doers.
Some topical issues I’m applying this perspective to are gun restrictions, Twitter, abortion, masks. I think we’re all quick to scream about what should be done to resolve the issue at the surface without taking a moment to consider the ramifications or the deeper causes driving the issue. Although, isn’t the deeper issue simply human nature? How do you solve that problem if not by imposing restrictions on the liberties of free people? Doesn’t a civil society require some level of restriction in order to foster trust and respect? Isn’t this why ancient civilizations created religion to begin with?
I mean, you have to admit that “free society” is an oxymoron.
That’s not what I read into this at all, but something far more sinister that I see happening in the world right now. Certain power players using “government oversight” as a disingenuous excuse to attack the means for regular people around the world to speak directly to one another without the filters that favor narratives that the power players prefer, and for regular people to coordinate with one another.
The Arab Spring and BLM protests scared some people and it’s showing.
I 100% agree with you, it is way more sinister than what oxjox was say. I do appreciate that they’re seeing that being a libertarian isn’t all it’s cracked up to be though. They’re reasoning their way out of it.
I was thinking more about whether the government has the right to protect people’s liberties at the expense of others’. I firmly believe that your rights are restricted as soon as they impose upon the rights of others. But the idea of it, even the codification of it, does not wholly prevent people from harming or obstructing others. A “free” society can not function without restrictions or punishments. Nor does this seem to be enough protection of our liberties in this world of freely expressing ourselves in real time to millions.
Post 9/11, our freedoms were restricted to ensure our freedoms. Covid required us to get vaccinated and wear masks to ensure people’s freedom of not getting sick from others. The freedom to speak in public is restricted to prevent harm or hysteria. Isn’t the government imposing taxes on citizens a limitation of their freedoms?
Places like China take these restrictions to the extreme so their society is less free than that found in the United States. Scandinavian countries are generally listed as “happier” than the United States but I wonder government regulations in those countries compare to America’s.
Personally, I’ve been of the belief that more restriction of speech (on social media) is better for society. But that’s mostly because of, I’ll just be frank about it, Trump and MAGA and Fox news. You’re right though - policy-wise - what’s the difference between the Arab Spring, BLM, Charlottesville, Jan6? They’re all a bunch of people getting together to express themselves. Just because you’re a moron, should that restrict your freedoms? Should less intelligent people or people with mental disorders be restricted from owning a firearm to protect themselves even though it may increase the risk of them harming themselves or others? Is freedom of speech different?
So, what’s the answer? How does a planet of social creatures who are permanently and instantly connected with one another live and promote a free and fair society while limiting oversight that might prevent atrocities?
I don’t think government-ing is the answer. Nor do I think our brains and emotions are evolved enough. Which just makes me nihilistic about the whole “humanity” thing. We’re doomed.
Every country defines what their citizens rights are. Some countries decide that their citizens have no rights and some, like the US, have tons of rights in theory, but not always in reality.
You have to have taxes if you’re going to have a relatively free society, because then there will be no travel, no getting out of the cycle of being poor and no one in jail (although, granted, there should be a lot less in jail but some deserve to be there). Rich people already don’t want to pay taxes, do you think they would buy roads for anyone? The infrastructure that the US now has, good and bad, is because of taxes. No one will take care of the needy and poor if you take away all of the government programs. Public schools, public libraries, public parks, all go away.
You don’t limit oversight, you have things in place to check on the overseers. The r’s vs. the d’s was supposed to keep that all in check. The r’s fight for lower taxes and the d’s fight for taking care of the vulnerable and then it all pleasantly meets in the middle. In the US, we’ve been here before, we have to claw our way out of it. Limiting oversight of personal citizens, yes, do that. Limiting oversight of our government, fuck no. But keep the government, just fix it and watch it.