Good luck building a functional economy on the idea that nobody can own the land they live on or farm.
Stranger
Ah. I have never heard personal property called “personality”. Thanks.
While I am a classic “life, liberty, property” guy, this statement ignores that such was the default for a huge swathe of written history, when large percentages of the population did not have personal property ownership of the land they worked. In some societies many of the farmers were tenant farmers or some form of what we’d call a serf today, in others it was common to have a practice of “community” property for the fields, whilst there might be a nuclear-ish family structure with private possessions, it wasn’t until relatively late in human history that a large chunk of farmers were working land on which they held personal title.
So you’re advocating a return to serfdom or tribal agriculture? Again, good luck building a modern economy on that.
Stranger
Your post didn’t say modern economy–it said functional economy. An economy can be said to be functional if goods and services get traded such that the population can sustain itself and grow in wealth and prosperity over time, which largely was true of pre-modern economies. The rate of prosperity growth was quite low compared to what we’ve achieved in around 150 years or so of a more modern economic system, but it was demonstrable over time and had big effects with the steady progressing of the ages.
Many people don’t own the land they live on or farm today. The land is owned by renter landlords or corporations (or the state, for a lot of ranching). The economy seems to manage just fine. Shifting ownership from profiteers to the common weal isn’t going to change that situation.
Ownership is a paradigm that initially depends on the owner being where the purported property is. “This is where I live. This is where I hunt. These are MY crops. These acres of untrammeled forestland are where I find and harvest mushrooms with the aid of my clever pig”.
I’d totally recognize your right to own what you wear and what you adorn yourself with. I’d totally acknoledge your right to the place in which you live, and if you harvest them yourself, yeah those are your crops. I’m less likely to recognize your right to the forestland where you harvest your shrooms, although I’d defend your right to keep it from being developed and plowed or turned into residential subdivisions.
I like to think I’m a flexible anarchist. Not a proponent of some kind of coercive socialist mandatory seizure of property.
But there’s a limited amount of acres and people don’t get to claim vast acres of the stuff as their private enclave. Get realistic. Let’s see if we can meet halfway on this.
So you can think it, you just can’t say it. Good luck with that.
How can you have the freedom to say “no”, if you do not the freedom to say “no”?
Which you would not have the ability to advocate for if you did not have freedom of speech.
Lack of “freedom of speech” doesn’t mean you can’t say ANYTHING. If you have the freedom to say, “no” you can say that, even if you aren’t allowed to say “I think we’d be better off if the king were dead” or “Joe Smith was convicted of indecent exposure when he was 15.”
Every society allows some discussion of how it should be structured, (such as “should private real estate be protected”) although some allow much broader discussions than others.
I never claimed it did, but it does means that whoever is in charge gets to decide what is acceptable to say and indeed, it may mean that you are not allowed to say “no”. Without the free speech right you have no guarantee of being allowed to say anything at all.
And broader is better which is only possible with the right to free speech.
It’s worth noting that at any kind of scale where it would have a political impact, speech requires property rights to exercise effectively. If you have no property rights it is difficult to secure a meaningful freedom of speech.
I mean, if you explicitly had a right to refuse, then that would cover the right to say “no” (which is a close cousin to the right to walk away). So no, lacking freedom of speech does not imply you lose the enumerated right to say “no”. That’s a really silly stretch.
Anyway, a right to say “no” isn’t about the right to form the word with your mouth. It’s about actually being able to refuse.
In practice, there are many countries which allow broad political discourse but restrict certain forms of speech. While i value to right to speak my mind, i think there are other rights which are more important. And rights sometimes clash. I think the right to speech can be balanced by the right to be left alone, for instance, without losing much of value.
IMHO the fundamental right we should all have is to be free to do whatever we want, as long as we aren’t hurting others unfairly. Of course the devil is in the details. Take freedom of speech. Germany has strict laws against supporting Nazism. IMHO that is fine, because such speech infringes on other peoples right to not be harassed, which is part of being able to do what you want.
Same thing for gun rights. Owning a shotgun that you keep at home to stop intruders is very different than being able to walk around with an AK-47 strapped to your back. The latter, IMHO, infringes on peoples right to go about their business without worrying that the guy with the AK-47 could decide on a whim to start shooting.
The Bundy’s and property rights are another example. They seem to think that they have a right to graze their cattle on federal land, not realizing or not caring that by doing so they deprive the rest of us from being able to fully enjoy that property in its natural state, including that their grazing cattle on that land degrades the environment.
nods beat you to it:
As I thought, it was not a right that was well defined. If you are saying that it actually means the right to refuse to do something then that is something different.
However I still think that claiming, in history, people had a greater freedom to say “no” in that respect is a massive claim that I’d be interested in seeing the evidence for.
I need to ask what the hell you thought a “right to say ‘no’” could possibly mean if not the right to refuse.
And i brought it up in the context of:
…
Bolding added.
So i was not claiming:
Certainly, for much of recorded history, people could not just walk away from an unwanted ruler. The book offers quite a lot of evidence that that was a norm in much of the world based on a bunch of archeological evidence.
But it was much easier to cross borders before the rise of the modern nation state. And a lot of people did migrate to escape an unwanted regime.
When “it” is something like “All star-having sneetches must be killed”, yes.
If you thought I meant “saying the word ‘no’”, you’re taking far too literal a reading of what the OP was talking about. TDoE, the OP, and I, all meant the right of refusal to do things. The action of refusal, not the speech act.
I’ve spent all my life without freedom of speech in one way or another. More severe in the first third of it, when I lived under Apartheid), but still now, where hate speech is banned.
Yet here I am, advocating like a motherfucker. Your point is refuted thusly.
The right to speak against something, to say that something is wrong, that something should not be done. That you don’t agree. It could be taken many different ways.
If you are specifically using it to mean the right to refuse to do something or to not be forced into doing something then fine. We know what you mean now.
The bit you’ve clipped off that quote is
And my challenge was to whether it was true that those ancient societies had all those rights more than we do now. I think it is a fair question.
I’ve no problem in having state intervention and sanctions where viable threats against people are being made but that is a high bar.
A Islamic preacher in the UK was fond of talking about sharia law and forced conversions of people to establish a Muslim state in the UK. I have no problem with not taking legal action against that. When it crosses the line into advocating Islamic state attacks against UK citizens, sure. The law should step in. The clear line for me there is, I guess, the latter transgresses the ultimate right, that of the right to exist in the first place.
You are proving the point that freedom of speech is a hugely important right.