stilljammi wrote:First off I'd like to say it's difficult being the only person on one side and 100 people on the other. I've been in that position online and in-person and it's not exactly fun, so I respect you for that Aitrus.
Thanks for the recognition on this point. On the upside, I think that this kind of environment does serve to make me a better debater and critical thinker, so it's not all bad.
If it's possible that we've been fooled by the media to hate the stuff I quoted, is it possible that we've been fooled by the media regarding the "rioting, looting, undermining our civilization"? Is it possible that some/many/most of the protests have been peaceful and didn't have any of that? Maybe we're focusing on a small group of people doing bad things in order to divert attention from the issue at hand? Why are you granting the benefit of the doubt to the media in one instance but not in the other?
Oh, I've no doubt that the majority of the protesters were peaceful. However, once the first bottle is thrown, the first shove given, the first verbal threat of violence issued - it's no longer peaceful. At that point, it's logical to assume that anybody who remains to continue such activity is a de-facto non-peaceful protestor. Those who remain but who didn't do the above actions...well, it's hard to say if they are simply innocent bystanders protesting, or if they support the behavior of those taking actual action.
For example, local to me there were mostly peaceful protesters, and a smaller fraction that turned violent. However, I also think that calls to abolish and/or defund he police are - in a very real way - asking for the enforcement of the rule of law to be abolished (or to at least severely hamper the enforcement of it). I consider that to be the bigger picture, which the media paints very well in a supportive manner, along with the leadership of that side of the aisle. Do you see it differently?
I don't need to read Mein Kampf to understand the issues of Hitler. That's a false equivalency: there aren't always two sides to an issue. Their words do not matter because no combination of words can justify their actions. If one can demonstrate that the author's actions would lead to a more undemocratic, unfree society, then it doesn't matter the reason. It can be academic to read their words and understand how they came to their solution, but that's irrelevant in determining what is unjustified hate speech.
I don't think it's a false equivalency. If we don't know why Hitler did what he did, then how can we avoid it in the future? Similarly, if we haven't read Mein Kampf or understood what fascism actually is, how can we justify the naming of right-wing individuals fascist without a shred of evidence? If we haven't read Mein Kampf and Marx, how can we say that what the Propertarians are proposing is along those same lines (which I don't think they are)?
And who is the final arbiter of truthful speech? The government? Judges? Currently, you can say pretty much anything as long as it doesn't lead to demonstrable harm to someone else. If you can demonstrate that someone else's speech has hurt you, their speech is no longer free speech, but the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Under this society, that would be further constricted and would not even be enforcible. It would only lead to the arbiters legislating their tastes and there would be much more corruption.
According to Propertarians, it's the courts through judge and jury, through the use of the scientific method via a series of falsehood tests. If It's impossible to determine "the truth", but it is possible to determine if what somebody said is false. If somebody - even judges themselves, the arbiter who legislates, and the media - says something in public about public matters that can be proved false in court via the scientific method, then they are held financially liable.
Maybe you're right about the current balance of power between the federal gov and the states. Both in terms of laws and taxes, the federal government has much more power and resources to enforce compliance with both. That still doesn't lend any credence to the data, the conclusions, or the idea that it would solve any of our problems.
True. Which is why I'm discussing it here. The Propertarians don't even know 100% if it would work, only that it would be a better thing than what we have now (constant social bickering, fighting, unfounded claims of racism, etc.).