Free speech dying thanks to John McCain

Long before McCain became the lesser evil, he was busy doing more than almost anyone else in American history to curtail the freedom to speak in the US where it matters most: in politics.

Powerful video clip from John Stossel via The Agitator.

Take this lesson and apply it to economic regulation to see how regulation of an industry protects the big business insiders against competition.

Share this

Raised voices from anyside of the aisle?

Wait, you mean the state likes to make competition difficult and one sided for non-establishment types? I don't believe it!

All sarcasm aside, thank you for posting this. I was aware of the incumbent protection act, but I did not know it was being used to stifle all political dissent and grass roots collaboration.

In liberty,
S.E.

Political freedom? Eh

I'm with Moldbug. Most people don't get involved in politics and don't want to. I remember a cool blog that once had a post titled Policy Isomorphism on that subject. If fewer people were politically active it would make me happy. John McCain is still a tool though.

Most people don't want to carry mail

Most people don't get involved in politics and don't want to.

Most people don't want to carry mail. Most people don't want to provide cable television. Most people don't want to sell pharmaceuticals. But it does not follow from any of these facts that government-created impediments to these things aren't a big deal.

Democracy is not a market

If I expected a reduction in the production possibility frontier of politics, I'd actually be happy. But that isn't even happening. We'll have the same number of elections and the same number of elected officials. Maybe incumbents will be more likely to win election, but from my view the candidates are all lizards. I think Bryan Caplan's right about the voters getting the government they deserve good'n'hard so I can't say more competitive elections would even be desirable. I thought this site was full of agorists/voluntarists anyway.

I've seen that argument before

I've seen the "is not a market" argument before in the altered form: "is not a perfect market". If pristine market conditions are not achieved, non-libertarians like to argue that this or that freedom is pointless or counterproductive. In this case, politics is not a market, and so it is held that the freedom to exchange information, which is so crucial to the market, is pointless or counterproductive in politics.

Such a notion would probably come as a surprise to dissidents in countries where speech is tightly controlled, such as North Korea.

Caution is a good thing, but which way should it be applied? In physics, is it cautious to believe that the laws of physics hold only in the laboratories where they are discovered? Or is that, rather, an incautious and downright foolish belief? Is it cautious to believe that freedom only does net good in a market? Or is it foolish?

I thought this site was full of agorists/voluntarists anyway.

Not sure what you're saying here. Are you suggesting that it is inconsistent for the libertarians on this site to value free speech? Or are you taking the radical libertarians on this site to task for being excessively attached to free speech, since radical libertarians (such as agorists) should follow in your footsteps by being less attached to free speech? That seems backwards.

Participating in elections

Participating in elections as a candidate isn't free speech, it's a crime.

I am not talking about candidacy

I am talking about speech. What crime did the woman commit at 3:11 in the video? She wanted to raise awareness of and opposition to a political annexation. She does not appear to have been running for office. Is it obvious from the video clip that she was wrong to oppose the annexation? And suppose she was: would you like to place yourself into power as the czar of speech to decide who is on the right side of political issues so that you can grant them the right to speak while denying it to their opponents? It is not obvious here that she is in the wrong, and even if it were, to shut her up without becoming yourself the czar of who can speak and who cannot would require shutting up everyone, including those who are in the right.

The hue and cry is speech. A campaign to raise awareness of an issue (and of one's arguments for one side of the issue) can be much like a hue and cry, if there is a political crime in the process of taking place.

Chavez is a libertarian

In the news:

Venezuela's Chavez wants to jail rival

Participating in elections is a crime. Chavez's rival participated in elections. Therefore he deserves to go to jail. Soon Venezuela will be a libertarian paradise, like Cuba.

That doesn't make him a

That doesn't make him a libertarian at all, there's much more to being libertarian.
Yet, it is moral to jail political opponents. What if instead of Chavez it was a mostly free dictatorship jailing Marxists political opponents seeking power? This lift any ambiguities. Political opposition can have good or bad consequences. Especially good are independence movements, but in itself any political activity is generally immoral.

It is moral to jail political opponents?

Yet, it is moral to jail political opponents. What if instead of Chavez it was a mostly free dictatorship jailing Marxists political opponents seeking power?

What if Hitler were crossing the street? Then surely it would be moral to hit him. But this does not generalize: it is not moral to hit pedestrians crossing the street merely because it is moral to hit certain pedestrians crossing the street. If we were to generalize that way, then absolutely everything would be moral.

I said generally. Not all

I said generally. Not all political opponents are worth hitting, most are. Even the guy running for mayor in a little town, who wants to cut taxes by 50% but wants a curfew.

Slave to the rave

Just a rant, nothing personal.

Politics cannot accomplish anything of value,laws are just a form of black-market barometric indicator. I can see what they are doing and shake my head in disgust but that doesn't mean I think anything can be done about it through politics. This is one of the many reasons I am no longer a libertarian, they probably say good riddance anyway! :D

What if instead of Chavez it was a mostly free dictatorship jailing Marxists political opponents seeking power? This lift any ambiguities.

Only slaves are concerned with freedom. Government provides for none. Would the bill of rights be necessary if that were false? One cannot be mostly free, just as one cannot be mostly a slave.

Especially good are independence movements

History proves that independence cannot be bargained or bartered for in the halls of politics. It must be purchased and nurtured in the open market of thought and action, constantly if it is to last. Otherwise the word treason wouldn't exist.

So no, I got to disagree with that too.

Only slaves are concerned

Only slaves are concerned with freedom. Government provides for none. Would the bill of rights be necessary if that were false? One cannot be mostly free, just as one cannot be mostly a slave.

If there are no degrees in freedom, I hear the weather is good in Cuba.

History proves that independence cannot be bargained or bartered for in the halls of politics. It must be purchased and nurtured in the open market of thought and action, constantly if it is to last.

Czechoslovakia ?

Castro or Bush, the illusion of choice.

I hear the weather is good in Cuba.

Thomas Jefferson treating his slaves more like humans than other slave owners, did not change the fact that they were slaves.

Czechoslovakia

I would hardly call mass post-soviet dissolution in eastern Europe an independence movement.

Thomas Jefferson treating

Thomas Jefferson treating his slaves more like humans than other slave owners, did not change the fact that they were slaves.

See ? This is Chewbacca... What does it have to do with anything ? Nothing ! It makes no sense.

I would hardly call mass post-soviet dissolution in eastern Europe an independence movement.

Was the secession political or not ?

What does it have to do with

What does it have to do with anything ? Nothing ! It makes no sense.

It deals directly with your original statement regarding Cuba. Any degrees are illusions perpetrated by the state upon the individual.

Was the secession political or not ?

I believe you are improperly defining it as secession. To my understanding of the subject, it was market forces which accomplished the dissolution of the post-soviet states, not politics.

Without open market action (black markets, global markets, etc.) there would still be a Soviet Union. Politics solved nothing, it never has.

If individual freedom in the

If individual freedom in the US versus individual freedom in Cuba are just different degrees of illusion, why not ignore the illusion all together and enjoy the sunny weather ?

The velvet divorce of Czechoslovakia happened in 1993, 4 year after the independence from the soviet block in 1989. It was not driven by agorist market forces, no matter how much you wish it was. Facts are stubborn.

The reason I don't ignore it

The reason I don't ignore it is because I find it interesting, discussing everything under the sun brings me enjoyment on some level.

The velvet divorce of Czechoslovakia happened in 1993, 4 year after the independence from the soviet block in 1989. It was not driven by agorist market forces, no matter how much you wish it was. Facts are stubborn.

I don't have any books sitting around to thumb through regarding the subject, but according to only the info with citations that I can find online. This renormalization measure was "signed" on December 31, 1992.

Only by December 31, 1991 did all the official and open Soviet killing and thievery finally cease. Which was the end of Soviet style market subversion.

When you follow it from an economic indicator stand point, the timeframe is more flattering to my theory than yours. Just because the government finally got done spreading out the loot between two states in 1993 doesn't mean that renormalization wasn't already complete in the agora. Governments are notoriously inefficient, especially in ex-Soviet satellites.

As for facts being stubborn. The individual decides which facts will be overlooked, and what facts get thrust into the limelight when preparing for court (or the agora).

The reason I don't ignore it

The reason I don't ignore it is because I find it interesting, discussing everything under the sun brings me enjoyment on some level.

Yes, but you could be discussing it in Cuba rather than in the US. The weather is much nicer there. Some people will tell you that you're much less free over there than in the US, but don't let that fool you, you're a slave in both system, degrees of freedom are just an illusion.

With all your love for Cuba, maybe you should go.

I don't speak Spanish and do not care to learn, not enough English speakers to allow me the audience I desire anyway. When in Rome...

I do not love Cuba and the

I do not love Cuba and the largest reason is that I believe there are degrees of freedom, and the relative difference between the freedom I enjoy in the US and the little freedom I'd enjoy in Cuba is definitely not an illusion, unlike what you're been arguing.

I find it difficult to carry a logical conversation with you.

I am still not convinced.

definitely not an illusion

That is where we disagree. Fundamental, is it not?

I find it difficult to carry a logical conversation with you.

You repeat that mantra in many forms throughout our entire discussion instead of addressing the topic. Almost to the point where it would be ad hominem. Is it because I am irrational or illogical? I really doubt that, otherwise you would point out the illogic.

It seems more like it is just something for you to say. You know, like "move to cuba", etc.

I'll make it as plain as

I'll make it as plain as possible. If the difference in degrees of freedom is merely an illusion, why is it you prefer one place to another ?

why is it you prefer one

why is it you prefer one place to another?

Ah, you see I do not prefer one place to another. What you have mistaken for preference is merely my sedentary nature, I am not far from where I was born. Sure, I have a proclivity for anglophones but I have a copy of Rosetta Stone that I can learn Spanish with.

Start a "move S.E. and his family to Havana fund". Weather isn't a big enough factor for me to move, otherwise I wouldn't live in the desert.

Or if that was a generic questions: Cultural proclivity and economic mobility.

If I bring you overnight in

If I bring you overnight in North Korea, will you stay there based on your preference for sedentarity ?

Yes.

If I could somehow magically learn the language and also look Korean while on your imaginary overnight flight, yes, yes I would stay.

You also appear to be ignoring my comment about economic mobility when framing this most recent question. A question which is absurd if only because you have asked the same question, but just changed the embargo victim state.

Are you ever going to get to your point? or are you going to ask the same question again for every nation in the axis of evil?

Do you ever enjoy calling

Do you ever enjoy calling people on the phone in the US ? If you do, wouldn't you mind not doing it, or being sentenced to death for doing so in North Korea ?

I understand the consequences, and do as a please anyway.

If they captured me, the phone would be the least of the offenses I would hang for.

Wouldn't you rather be in a

Wouldn't you rather be in a place where doing as you please is less likely to get you hung ? Do you mind being hung ?

Wouldn't you rather be in a

Wouldn't you rather be in a place where doing as you please is less likely to get you hung ?

So, why not create that place where I stand?

Do you mind being hung ?

What has my package got to do with this? Stop staring at my bulge! ;)

So, why not create that

So, why not create that place where I stand?

Do you prefer it to be easy to create that place or do you prefer it to be hard ? Do you consider it is easier in North Korea than in the US ?

Do you prefer it to be easy

Do you prefer it to be easy to create that place or do you prefer it to be hard ? Do you consider it is easier in North Korea than in the US ?

It isn't easy regardless of position on the globe, thus I have no preference. If it is so easy here, we would have it here. That not being the case just makes my point.

Are you going to bring all of your questions full circle some day?

My point is obvious, you

My point is obvious, you claim there is no relevant graduation in freedom, I think it's a completely stupid thing to say and I'm trying to bring you to realize it.

So once again, Scalping_Elmo wants to do some things, some of them will get him caught, some will get him hung. I contend that there are more things you can do in the US without being hung than in North Korea taking into account your efforts to avoid being caught.

I think you are genuinely crazy.

Words of Wisdom

Is SE a nihilist or just one who can make no distinctions?

Dave

Oi vey

My point is obvious, you claim there is no relevant graduation in freedom, I think it's a completely stupid thing to say and I'm trying to bring you to realize it.

Trying to get me to realize it by calling my opinion stupid and calling me insane instead of actually bringing something to the table to prove it... good work.

I contend that there are more things you can do in the US without being hung than in North Korea taking into account your efforts to avoid being caught.

North Korea has more draconian laws than the US of A. I never once said they didn't.

All I said was that the laws and state issued rights are illusory and irrelevant. Just the same as how the law and government in the US of A are irrelevant to my actions.

Sure, you (or the government) can write anything on a scrap of paper you want but it guarantees nothing when you aren't standing next to it with an item you intend on using to place me under duress. It will not change the way feel and it certainly wont stop me from doing as I please once you (or the government) are no longer present to coerce me. Thus, I say that state issued laws and state issued rights are illusory and irrelevant to free thinking individuals.

If that is crazy, and you are normal... well, your perception is your reality. Have fun.

Is SE a nihilist or just one who can make no distinctions?

Amoralist, by my reckoning.

I can see distinctions in government, but I find them irrelevant. To me government is a parasite on humanity, one which will eradicate itself, or the whole species. I do not make any moral claims about this being good or bad, I simply move on with my life while trying to inform as many individuals I can about the situation. I may use moral arguments while doing so, but that is only because they are moral people.

When in Rome...

Enduring life conditions in

Enduring life conditions in North Korea as opposed to the US because you have such an extreme preference for sedentarity is quite insane. This has nothing to do with your view on morality.

As I said earlier, it is a

As I said earlier, it is a matter of economics and culture as well. Funny how you ignore anything that would make my position seem less insane to you. Your dishonest tactics are becoming more and more apparent.

I am not trying to be

I am not trying to be dishonest, I am fairly open. I don't really understand your preferences that's all.

Your Comment is Forbidden

TGGP,

We'll be sending policemen to round you up for making this comment. It's been outlawed. I'm sure you won't mind since you seem to be all for restrictions on political speech.