When to Strike

[Matus1976]

Rand lays out a clear criteria, which I think is completely reasonable, about when armed resistance is justified in an oppressive nation - when people no longer have freedom of speech, as in that case the government has removed any possible peaceful mechanism for changing it.

I've heard some people on this forum and others indicate that many productive minds are all ready on strike, or have hinted that they in fact are on strike as well. I certainly am not on strike, so I wonder what objective criteria, like freedom of speech in regards to civil liberties, people might suggest would be a reasonable dividing line in terms of economic freedom or when they themselves compelled to strike, or perhaps when we ought to be morally obligated (if ever) to strike.

It seems economic restrictions are so vast and varied that it's hard to pin any large salient curtailment of economic freedom as a dividing line. Perhaps we go by a general rating of economic freedom? Percentage of Taxation?

[adrock3215]

I haven't read Rand's statement on the fact. But upon first thought, I think that when ideas are censored and thought is disallowed, then that is the time to strike. Economic freedom is not as important as the recognition of basic individual rights, such as, for example, the right to my mind and its products, i.e. ideas. If the latter is recognized and allowed, then economic freedom will eventually come about in my estimation. But maybe I'm wrong.

[KendallJ]

I tend to be the reverse of adrock. Economic freedom or property rights seems like a more stabilizing factor to me than freedom of speech. Which is my reasoning for supporting economic trade with China.

If adrock's proposition were true wouldn't it mean that the US shouldn't have gone through it's notable decline in property rights during the early 20th century? The New Deal, The Great Society... these were all steps backward in economic freedom, but we had free speech the entire time.

Are there any historical examples that would indicate that where free speech is taken away then property rights remain intact?

[adrock3215]

If adrock's proposition were true wouldn't it mean that the US shouldn't have gone through it's notable decline in property rights during the early 20th century? The New Deal, The Great Society... these were all steps backward in economic freedom, but we had free speech the entire time.

Actually, I don't know if the 20th century would support your argument. The 20th century was unquestionably a more free time than the 19th. But it's really a meaningless statement unless one answers, free for whom? For one, the end of the 20th century was more free for women. Also, blacks and select minorities. Social change was allowed by freedom of thought, even though it was packaged with whacky economic changes. That was what I was thinking. Economic change is always preceded by economic thought, which is preceded by individuals who are, well, free to think. Progress, both social and economic, stems from the freedom to think and create ideas. That's my case for why freedom of thought is the determining factor when one should decide to strike, not merely "My taxes are too high" or "We dropped in our ratings of economic freedom."

(The issue of property rights deals with the ability of one to keep the products of his thought, so that is inexorably integrated with freedom of thought issues. Matus mentioned other, different gauges of econmic freedom.)

Edited April 7, 2008 by adrock3215

[KendallJ]

Actually, I don't know if the 20th century would support your argument. The 20th century was unquestionably a more free time than the 19th. But it's really a meaningless statement unless one answers, free for whom? For one, the end of the 20th century was more free for women. Also, blacks and select minorities. Social change was allowed by freedom of thought, even though it was packaged with whacky economic changes.

Well that's true, in the US. The 20th century's freedom of thought also gave us Nazi Germany (arguably voted in by the democratic Weimar germany), Soviet Russia, and numerous other dictatorships that were arguably a step backwards and destroyed most of Europe. It was also arguably a bad century for anyone who was Jewish. It doesn't only matter that ideas are free, but which particular ideas are espoused. Property rights are a de facto, implicit expression of the right ideas in practice. They allow one to build up a resource base, and they significantly curtail the real suppressor of ideas in general society, the informer, the guy who thinks that what you say, do or earn is his business.

I woudl agree that when you supress property rights in cases like these you also supress freedom of thought, but the hypothesis I'm working with is that property rights are more powerful as a defacto expression of the right ideas, not just the expression of any old ideas.

It's an interesting discussion, and I'm still trying to formulate my ideas on it, but it comes a lot out of what I saw in China, as compared with what now exists in post-Soviet Russia. Arguably, Russians have more freedom of thought, Chinese have more property rights de facto (i.e. protected from extortion, and left alone by the govt, both physically and in terms of taxation). Russia is a corrupt sewer, and China is fast becoming a stabilized mixed economy (de facto, rather than de jure).

[DavidOdden]

The question mixed two homophonous words "strike", as in "go on strike" and "strike against the enemy". The use of force to violently take down a dictatorship is not at all related to the withdrawal from a certain aspect of society, i.e. not working or not working for a particular industry. Unfortunately, by invoking both words "strike", that can result in some cognitive dissonance. Therefore I presume you really mean "peacefully withdraw from an aspect of society".

Well, it's like with any relationship: whether you are gaining value or destroying it. It's about like asking "when should you get divorced" or "when should you quit your job". The strike of the mind, as in AS, is of course radically different from the mass labor action as when UAW goes on strike. You have to decide whether your continuing to teach Kantian philosophy to the masses is worth the paycheck; whether it is self-destructive to be sanctioning the destruction of the rule of law in your official capacity. I don't think it's all about the money, but if, for example, you happen to be an expert at Kant's philosophy and are paid $90,000 a year to teach classes on it, you should think long and hard about giving that job up.

When the government starts shooting opposition politicians, it's time to take up the gun. There, I answered both questions.

[SBP2009]

I tend to be the reverse of adrock. Economic freedom or property rights seems like a more stabilizing factor to me than freedom of speech. Which is my reasoning for supporting economic trade with China.

If adrock's proposition were true wouldn't it mean that the US shouldn't have gone through it's notable decline in property rights during the early 20th century? The New Deal, The Great Society... these were all steps backward in economic freedom, but we had free speech the entire time.

Are there any historical examples that would indicate that where free speech is taken away then property rights remain intact?

Well Canada certainly is not an example of free speech being taken away as property rights remain intact. For one, our constitution does not recognize property rights, and the ironically named Canadian Human Rights Act, through the kangaroo court system of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunals, is becoming an ever greater threat to freedom of speech. These fascist thought police are enforcing political correctness rather brazenly.

Every clause of the Canadian Charter of "Rights" and "Freedoms" basically gives the government an escape clause to violate individual rights.

[khaight]

I don't see how you can violate speech rights without simultaneously violating property rights -- specifically the rights of those who own printing presses, radio and television stations, newspapers, soapboxes, etc. to use their property as they see fit.

The reason Rand viewed speech rights as a key touchstone wasn't because they were somehow more fundamental as rights than economic liberty rights. It was because she thought that ideas drove cultural change. Fighting for freedom means fighting to spread better ideas through the culture, and that is done through speech. Censorship removes a key requirement of persuading men to change their policies, in a way that a 90% marginal tax rate does not.

[adrock3215]

Economic freedom or property rights seems like a more stabilizing factor to me than freedom of speech.

I was watching a video of Yaron Brook on Youtube and was reminded of this thread. You can view the video http://youtube.com/watch?v=1yMpbisdfSo. Brook is asked about the prospects of Objectivism in the future. He responds in part by commenting on the truth of Rand's philosophy and says "As long as people can think and we still have free speech, then there is hope and there is reason to be optimistic about our prospects in the future." Notice how throughout his response there is no mention of any sort of economic right or policy.

If you view the video the part that I am talking of begins at 6:45.

[IchorFigure]

I watched the video last nite of Rand's last public lecture, in the Q&A she mentions this topic and says what ad basically said. When censorship makes the spreading of ideas not possible. Now this thread had me wondering. Recently in the EU I remember hearing that Holocaust denial was made illegal. Of course people who deny the Holocaust are extremely brainwashed, deluded, or sick, but it is an obvious breach on freedom of speech. However what if something like this were to happen in America. It is not a total censorship of all speech just one specific issue. Say for example Global Warming denial became a crime in the U.S. What would be the situation then?

Edited May 25, 2008 by IchorFigure

[Greebo]

However what if something like this were to happen in America. It is not a total censorship of all speech just one specific issue. Say for example Global Warming denial became a crime in the U.S. What would be the situation then?

If the US Government were to block public speech on any issue, then the situation in the US would have degraded drastically. If there is one issue on which Americans still rally with near total uniformity, it is the issue of freedom of Speech.

Take, for example, the Hillsboro Baptists, that reprehensible group who disrupts the funerals of US Veterans, declaring that our military men and women are dying because God has condemned the country because we allow/promote/tolerate homosexuality.

While they have been sued for damages (and they lost) in Maryland over their disruptive actions (and in my view, rightfully so), and prohibited from disrupting any more funerals, NO ONE has seriously suggested that they have no right to hold or express their opinions. They have only been restricted from expressing their opinions in a way to deliberately interfere with the rights of the family to hold the kind of funeral they want to hold for their lost loved ones.

Despite all the corruptions of the US Government, the deviations from the intent of the framers, the special interests, etc., the First Amendment still holds tremendous power in the minds of the people. As long as that Freedom is not eroded - as long as we are free to think and pronounce our views - there is still a chance we can reach more people.

The best thing we can do, until such a day (may it never come) is just keep speaking, as Ayn Rand said in the end of P:HNI, to anyone, any time we get a chance - even if all we say is "I don't agree" to whatever political position they take that happens to infringe upon someone's liberty.

[gags]

I don't see how you can violate speech rights without simultaneously violating property rights -- specifically the rights of those who own printing presses, radio and television stations, newspapers, soapboxes, etc. to use their property as they see fit.

Yes, I don't see how you can seperate the two as a practical matter. Property rights, in the form of gun rights, ultimately ensure our freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is meaningless when you're locked in a government prison.

[Zip]

Yes, I don't see how you can seperate the two as a practical matter. Property rights, in the form of gun rights, ultimately ensure our freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is meaningless when you're locked in a government prison.

If you are going to go at it that way you can't practically separate any right from another. They are all interdependent.

Any government that would deny the right to free speech could also imprison you for it thereby robing you of the right to liberty.

[IchorFigure]

If the US Government were to block public speech on any issue, then the situation in the US would have degraded drastically. If there is one issue on which Americans still rally with near total uniformity, it is the issue of freedom of Speech.

Take, for example, the Hillsboro Baptists, that reprehensible group who disrupts the funerals of US Veterans, declaring that our military men and women are dying because God has condemned the country because we allow/promote/tolerate homosexuality.

That is a really good example. I agree that such a thing would be untenable today in the U.S. although there's times I have to think twice.

[Mammon]

Rand lays out a clear criteria, which I think is completely reasonable, about when armed resistance is justified in an oppressive nation - when people no longer have freedom of speech, as in that case the government has removed any possible peaceful mechanism for changing it.

I've heard some people on this forum and others indicate that many productive minds are all ready on strike, or have hinted that they in fact are on strike as well. I certainly am not on strike, so I wonder what objective criteria, like freedom of speech in regards to civil liberties, people might suggest would be a reasonable dividing line in terms of economic freedom or when they themselves compelled to strike, or perhaps when we ought to be morally obligated (if ever) to strike.

If people on this forum were on strike, no one would notice a difference in the world.

It seems economic restrictions are so vast and varied that it's hard to pin any large salient curtailment of economic freedom as a dividing line. Perhaps we go by a general rating of economic freedom? Percentage of Taxation?

When industries are nationalized or vital industries are made illegal altogether.

[Matus1976]

When industries are nationalized or vital industries are made illegal altogether.

Which industries? How 'nationalized' ought they be? Which 'vital' industries?

[aequalsa]

Censorship removes a key requirement of persuading men to change their policies, in a way that a 90% marginal tax rate does not.

This issue is one I have always had difficulty understanding. Having the right to say whatever I want alone in my room is hardly, in effect, the same as having the other 90% of my income available to broadcast my ideas to others. If the government owns(sociali..I mean Nationaliz...errr...took over) or controlled(say through the FCC) 90% of the wealth and at least as much of the media companies, would it not be fair to see freedom of speech as something of a sham?

I don't think the point of freedom of speech, is to be able to say what you want without interruption or imprisonment; it's to insure that true ideas can be heard by your fellow citizens. The hope being that truth can stand on its own if it's heard and affect public policy in the correct direction. Freedom of speech without freedom of economics strikes me as having a right to bare arms but no right to purchase bullets.

So my question is, is there a difference besides the obvious one that once speech is denied outright, freedom of property has usually already been long gone?

[SkyTrooper]

I think the criteria for armed resistance is best summed up here.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Striking is a different matter, and I think justification for a strike is when you decide that you are in a position where you can't work without supporting your own destroyers.

Edited May 28, 2008 by SkyTrooper

[khaight]

If people on this forum were on strike, no one would notice a difference in the world.

I'm pretty sure my boss would notice. So would my wife, when the bank sent people around to foreclose on our house.

[khaight]

This issue is one I have always had difficulty understanding. Having the right to say whatever I want alone in my room is hardly, in effect, the same as having the other 90% of my income available to broadcast my ideas to others. If the government owns(sociali..I mean Nationaliz...errr...took over) or controlled(say through the FCC) 90% of the wealth and at least as much of the media companies, would it not be fair to see freedom of speech as something of a sham?

One minor point first -- I didn't refer to a case in which the government owned 90% of the wealth in society, I referred to a 90% marginal tax rate. The two are not the same thing. In fact, we have empirical proof that a 90% marginal tax rate isn't the death knell of freedom, because prior to the Kennedy administration the top marginal income tax rate in the United States was 91%.

Having much of your wealth taxed away makes it more difficult to spread your ideas, in essence because being poor makes it harder to do most everything. But it does not make it impossible, and that's the dividing line.

I don't think the point of freedom of speech, is to be able to say what you want without interruption or imprisonment; it's to ensure that true ideas can be heard by your fellow citizens. The hope being that truth can stand on its own if it's heard and affect public policy in the correct direction. Freedom of speech without freedom of economics strikes me as having a right to bear arms but no right to purchase bullets.

We don't have freedom of speech as a means to ensure that true ideas can be heard by other men. All our rights, including the right to speak, are a consequence of the mind's inability to function in the face of physical force. If freedom of speech were justified on the grounds of spreading true ideas, it would be difficult to justify a right to speak known falsehoods.

So my question is, is there a difference besides the obvious one that once speech is denied outright, freedom of property has usually already been long gone?

Historically, property rights have been less secure than the right to free speech. It's difficult to find examples of cultures that provide strong property rights protections coupled with strong restrictions on speech. Modern Singapore might be one.