Now that you’ve described what goes on between your ears, let me put it to you very simply. Homeless men in Libertaria have the same rights as homeless men in America. There is no such thing as any right to free speech. Period. Not in the present system, and not in a libertarian system. Rights are not an attribute of speech; they are an attribute of property. In one setting, they depend upon the generosity of ordinary people. In the other, they depend upon the generosity of governors. For people who feign concern over the homeless when they really couldn’t care less, for people who prefer to turn it over to someone else — preferably a big, faceless bureaucracy that they don’t have to know anything about — your solution is the best: out of sight, out of mind, give them a spot under the bridge and let them see if they can survive the cold. But for people who honestly care, the best solution is to remove what impedes them from helping, namely, faceless bureaucracies that seize their money and squander it.
Yeah, because everyone knows the biggest problem faced by the homeless is the way the IRS relentlessly pursues them for 14% of their panhandling income.
:wally
From strawmen to pure smarminess. The IRS, along with hand-wringing leftists, have no concern about the homeless so long as they stay ABH. But to pretend that your system is somehow a Mecca of rights for the homeless is disingenuous beyond belief.
— 2 Bit, a homeless man in San Fransisco
http://www.riverdeep.net/current/2001/08/082701_m_homelessness.jhtml
My system? Idjit. I’m not even American, and I’ve given you no reason to suppose I support any particular political ideology regarding policy re: poverty and homelessness. All I’ve done is critique libertarianism, in particularly with regards to the way it ties liberty to wealth, in contradiction to its claimed ideals. But then, I’ve always thought the distinction between negative rights and positive rights is largely bogus. Comes from being a consequentialist, I expect.
Insofar as there is a “my system” geographically speaking, tickets are the least of a homeless person’s worries, since for a substantial portion of the year the weather in Saskatoon will kill you sans shelter. Therefore, I support society being charitable enough to provide adequate numbers of homeless shelters, on the government’s dime if need be, though trying to find ways of getting people off the streets and into gainful employment is preferable. However, since I’m not naive enough to believe that the homeless will ever entirely disappear through the magic of entrepeneurship, I prefer that we attempt to provide them with the means to avoid freezing to death. Yes, by use of the government tax collector’s oppressive boot on my neck, if need be.
That you need a boot on your neck belies your concern for the homeless. Bring one into your home. Then come back and gloat.
:rolleyes: Use of metaphor is lost on the irredeemably stupid, is that what you’re trying to say? As it happens, I pay my taxes voluntarily, with no need of coercion, because I think the return I get on them is worth what I pay. You may take your unfounded conclusions about my concern for the homeless and insert them into the lower extremities of your digestive tract.
And now we cut right to the nut. This is naked tyranny; you have exchanged the oppression of a government (accountable to the voters) for the oppression by the wealthy (accountable to no one). Property has no intrinsic political attributes; to assign it as the source of any rights, perceived or imagined, is lunacy. I take that back; calling it mere lunacy trivializes the danger of your philosophy to free men everywhere. Perhaps you would like to return to the horrors of feudalism, but I do not.
However, I appreciate you finally laying bare the oppressive pit of Libertarianism that belies the sweet fruit of freedom that surrounds it. Government among men is necessary when materialism displaces idealism as the guide for society’s morality, and the weak must band together to defend themselves. The more you insist that the wealthy are accountable to no one, the stronger we will make our government to thwart your greed.
I hope you continue to toot that Libertarian horn, my friend; there is no more effective clarion for a strong government that is accountable to the people. May all reasonable citizens everywhere hear it, and turn away from you.
As the resident authoritarian, let me just say that I see no problem with the local authorities setting reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on protests. Neither does the Supreme Court. And, I suspect, neither does the Democratic leadership, who have every right to make sure that their own organized demonstration is not upended or otherwise thrown into chaos by a bunch of rowdies whose sole goal is to make a mess of things.
In other words, the protesters’ right to free speech does not trump the Democrats’ right to free speech. To say nothing of the security concerns that accompany a political convention during our politically charged election year.
I agree, so long as the restrictions apply to supporters as well as protesters. Unfortunately, the White House doesn’t see it that way.
You think the White House will have an open door policy during the Republican Convention? You think they’d let some inbred ham up on stage during John McCain’s speech simply because he’s got a “Bush = Jesus” sign?
You must give the White House even less credit than I thought.
If you’d look back over the thread, you’d see that it’s not only the national conventions being discussed, but also the more general issue of crowds at presidential events.
And it’s pretty well established by now that, when Bush appears in public, Bush supporters are allowed to cheer and hold signs near the president, while critics have to wave their banners and hoot their derision in a fenced-off “free speech zone” reserved especially for the heathens who dare to voice opposition to administration policies.
I am aware of that. And I’m also aware that the restrictions at the Presidential rallies are put in place by the Secret Service. Just like the restictions in this case were put in place by the Beantown police.
I’m also aware that a President’s speech is less likely to be disrupted by his supporters than people that think the President drinks babies’ blood. Of course, if a Presidential supporter gets too disruptive, I have a feeling that they’d remove him/her, too.
It’s all about reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. I assure you that they’re issuing passes for the Republican National Convention, too. And not all Republicans will get one.
Actually, the wealthy are accountable to those who supply their wealth. In a free society, no one is required to buy anything from Mr. Tycoon. In your system, on the other hand, Senator Fatcat can (and does) draft legislation to establish Mr. Tycoon as, say, the only source of electrical power, or water, or cable service. But aside from all that, your idea of “wealth” is quite skewed. Even in your system of multi-layered taxation and over-pricing due to frivolous regulation, housing is affordable to the vast majority of the population. Finally, we have been dealing for four years with a chief magistrate who was not elected by the voters. Therefore, your “accountable to the voters” remark flies in the face of reality.
This theory might actually work, if the people being oppressed were always the same ones supplying the wealth. Too often they are not, and have no power to dissuade the oppressor. For this reason, governments are necessary.
He will be held accountable, and be found wanting. I have faith in the system.
Exactly! We agree!
Even Gomer Pyle was smarter than that. “Fool me once…” 
Well, that’s no fun.
Of course authorities said that. If you were to take a poll of government officials as what manner, time, and place would be reasonable for people to express their discontent – and sometimes hatred – toward their policies, I’d wager a good majority of them would reply with “Pantomime, in the middle of the night, far away from civilization.” It does no good to place authorities in charge of determining what kind of protest is acceptable when and where, because they would elect to limit it for their own benefit. That’s why the First Amendment was created – to give people the right to express their grievances and to protest unpopular actions without being subject to oppression.
This is not what you seem to argue; indeed, you argument seems to be that the government’s right to free speech trumps by the protestors’ right to free speech. You argue that despite being on national TV with an audience of thousands (if not millions), the Democrats’ freedom of speech will be threatened by a bunch of protestors that, thanks to the great city of Boston, is penned in an area that is out of the way and precludes them from distributing literature, which is one of the only ways to give politicians enough information about an issue to take action on it. The protestors’ rights have been abridged in this case, as they cannot
You claim that they are there not to protest, but just to “make a mess of things” and “cause chaos”. These excuses are the same ones the police use whenever they round up a gang of protestors, whether or not they are “disrupting” any political event. Thus, you also seem to be arguing that the public’s right to law and order trumps the protestor’s right to protest.
Both of these concepts are against the spirit, if not the letter, of the Constitution. Protests are supposed to be disruptive; otherwise, no one would pay attention to them. And a democratic government (or even a republic) should not abridge the free speech of its citizens unless it presented a clear and present danger to national security. Since it is not apparent how protesting in the streets would present a clear and present danger, it ought not be restricted.
Few things are held more in contempt by a government than a protester. While they may not like them, it is the government’s duty to protect the rights of all of its citizens, even those that may disagree with them. To do less is to become the very dictators we all seem to repugn.
The area being prepared for protestors is shocking the hell out of me. I thought it would be a recently created, large open space where the elevated expressway used to be, smoothly paved over, and plenty big enough to hold a few thousand folks, with several routes for people to move in and out of the area without clogging access to the FleetCenter itself.
‘Tain’t so. That area, it turns out, is where the delegates’ buses will arrive and be parked. The “free speech zone” is going to be mostly under abandoned elevated light rail tracks, fenced in, and ridiculously small. Protest groups are seeking federal court relief, and I don’t blame them. As one who passes by that area every weekday, I am appalled. Why the hell don’t the buses come in, drop off the delegates in front of the FleetCenter (where protestors won’t be allowed, so the road will be clear), then be driven to a parking area out of the way? There’s sufficient parking fairly nearby to do that.
This is a recipe for disaster.
So the Nazis really would have a right to burn down the ACLU’s headquarters to express their hatred of that organization?
And I should be allowed to express my frustration with man’s inhumanity to man by setting off a bomb in the Smithsonian.
And, of course, snuff films should be legal, and television networks should be free to advertise them – complete with clips showing the actual murder – during Saturday morning cartoons.
And, I presume, the government would have to protect my right to kill you, so long as I’m just expressing my free speech rights. After all, killing you wouldn’t present a clear and present danger to national security, would it?
In fact, the things you’ve said have nothing to do with either the spirit or the letter of the Constitution. And I won’t be supporting you for nomination to the Supreme Court anytime soon.
And none of your examples have anything to do with protest. Even-Steven.
You do know The Onion is a parody website, right?