Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Reblogged:Speech, Property Rights in Trump's Crosshairs

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The implicit contract then further reads, "one is allowed to partake in our platform IF one submits to the ideas put forth without dissent. Else, you're canceled". 

Let's assume that implicit contract exists. If you voluntarily agree to it, what is the problem?

 

You probably would have a stronger argument if you said that there is no contract and that people are (in some way) forced into the arrangement.

 

16 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Profit - or ideological power? Can't have your cake and eat it.

Ideological power? Again, is that forced ideas? Otherwise, if you are in fact a provider of the truth and people appreciate it, do you now have ideological power because of the influence you have?

Bottom line, to fix the issue one has to connect the problem with government force, and to the immorality of government force being used in that area.

The immorality of personal financial choices you make for your business is irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/17/2021 at 10:04 AM, Easy Truth said:

Let's assume that implicit contract exists. If you voluntarily agree to it, what is the problem?

 

You probably would have a stronger argument if you said that there is no contract and that people are (in some way) forced into the arrangement.

 

Ideological power? Again, is that forced ideas? Otherwise, if you are in fact a provider of the truth and people appreciate it, do you now have ideological power because of the influence you have?

Bottom line, to fix the issue one has to connect the problem with government force, and to the immorality of government force being used in that area.

The immorality of personal financial choices you make for your business is irrelevant.

Predominant ideas will make for dominant consequences, socio-politically, and the ideological power lies with those social media which have the greatest market share. Visibly not by a little, but overwhelmingly. Considering that apart from sheer numbers, a de facto monopoly, they additionally reserve the right to suspend and ban whomever differs from their 'narrative', they have a lock on what is being said and opined, giving the impression that the majority of the country thinks a certain way. Which for now, is a strong leftist slant. Less heard and so safely ignored are their opposing voices. (The same would be said if positions were reversed, the media favoring a conservative superiority).

In all, what is going on amounts to leftist propaganda.

Like I reiterated, a business has to have the right to do what it pleases with its property or platform. A dominant company like Coke ¬could¬ restrict its sales from 'group' x (as was remarked). One might not like what they do but will and should defend their right to do so. Disapproving of the policy is a question of morality before rights. Coke would be irrational and so, immoral. It's against the self-interest of any business to behave prejudicially and collectively, non-capitalistically, for certain 'groups' and against another - and would earn them loss of sales/revenue by many other (rational) customers.

Here is where the mixed economy and gvt interference enters, because in a healthy, capitalist economy that business would go under. The market force would rule and competition would be active. As it stands, a leftist government and the leftist (pseudo-capitalist) social media are largely of one mind. The immorality of BOTH has to be condemned, neither exists in a moral vacuum.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If all the molecules of gas in a room moved over to the left side, I'd say that there had to be a force of some kind at work, because that sort of thing doesn't happen otherwise. But others might point out that, since the motion of gas molecules is random, this situation could possibly occur entirely by chance. It seems like some people are maintaining that it is only chance, "and you can't prove it isn't because you don't have any evidence of the particular force that is being used, you can't even show that a single one of those molecules is being forced," etc., whereas I would say that the sheer unlikelihood of this happening by chance makes it necessary that there is a force at work, even if the particular force is unidentified.

By this sort of argument, a Jew in early Nazi Germany, who is not personally being forced (yet) but who is unable to buy products or services anywhere, would be unable to determine whether the government is fascist or capitalist. Although it could be that the government is forcing companies not to deal with him, it could also be the case that the companies simply refuse to deal with him for their own freely-chosen reasons, such as maybe that Jews are simply universally unpopular. In order to prove fascism, this argument goes, he'd have to identify several specific examples of companies having their arms twisted by the government -- and even in that case, we're told, it wouldn't prove that the government was doing so everywhere. It would only prove those seven or eight cases. (And there's no way he could get the evidence to prove even those cases, because he's not the one who's having his arm twisted, so he's not a party to those cases; it's none of his business. Just like if Alice murders Bob, and Carol didn't witness it, it's none of Carol's business.)

So this argument can be used on the one hand to claim that fascism doesn't really exist because you can't prove the existence of any of the mechanisms that would create or maintain it. On the other hand, if you define fascism in terms of its effects instead of its causes, you can use the same argument to imply that a pure capitalist system can become fascist entirely on its own, without the application of any force at all, just like the gas molecules in a room can all go to the left side of the room on their own. The people who make this argument then would state that there is a need to apply force to the molecules to keep them distributed evenly throughout the room, and for decades this has been the justification for anti-trust laws and other regulations against capitalism. This is also the argument used by Antifa; they describe themselves as "anti-fascist" because they believe that capitalism can (or has) become fascist on its own and that the only way to stop it is to use regulations and such.

These arguments are wrong. If you follow them to their logical conclusion, you end up determining that cognition is impossible. (I call such arguments "anti-cognitive.") In science, if you see something unusual, you look for a cause, and you can give the cause a name and start to investigate it even if you don't fully understand it yet. The anti-cognitive arguments, though, state that if you can't identify the cause, you are obligated to deny that you are seeing anything unusual, that it would be "arbitrary" to continue to claim that there is anything unusual going on.

But a fact can never be arbitrary. It demands to be integrated, not dismissed. Dismissing a fact is evasion.

The molecules in a room could be said to "seek out vacuum." This is what evens out their distribution in a room. (Edit: It is not precisely accurate. Molecules don't "seek" anything. It's more accurate to say that when a molecule moves in a random direction, if there is any inequality in the distribution of other molecules around it, it will go further if it moves in a direction where there are fewer other molecules, and this will cause the distribution of the molecules to even out.)

Similarly, under capitalism, entrepreneurs seek out "vacuums" in the sense of needs that people have. By meeting those needs, entrepreneurs can make money. An entrepreneur is free to refuse to meet a need, if he doesn't want to meet it -- but then this invites someone else to come along and meet it, if there is any money to be made that way.

If this does not happen, then force is being used.

--

The White House has now openly stated that it is coordinating with Facebook to ban certain people who are "spreading misinformation about Covid-19," so I suppose the presence of force has been more firmly established, now (although I suppose someone could still say, "oh, the White House is just providing some friendly advice, they aren't using force at all!") The White House has also alleged that Facebook is "killing people" by "spreading misinformation," the implication being that the First Amendment "kills people."

Things like this have been litigated before, although perhaps never on this scale... there are already Supreme Court precedents to the effect that when the government "coordinates with" private entities in this manner, it is violating the First Amendment even if the private entity has the right to do the same thing on its own.

However, I don't have a lot of confidence in the Supreme Court right now...

Edited by necrovore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, necrovore said:

It seems like some people are maintaining that it is only chance, "and you can't prove it isn't because you don't have any evidence of the particular force that is being used, you can't even show that a single one of those molecules is being forced," etc., whereas I would say that the sheer unlikelihood of this happening by chance makes it necessary that there is a force at work, even if the particular force is unidentified.

If some people include me, at least for me, I granted that there is some kind of "force" (I'm using quotes because we are talking about causes and explanations) going on to explain the way users are being banned or moderated. I even granted that there is actual use of force to some extent generally speaking. Specifically, I denied that your explanation is essential or gets at the most important causes. It doesn't matter if something is likely or not, what counts is if the explanation involves essentials or is essential. 

Besides, you can't know the likelihood of something happening by chance before you have an essential explanation, you can only use that reasoning to say something like: "this is supposed to happen 10% of the time, but in this circumstance it happens 90% of the time, therefore there must be some other distinct explanation". Outside of that, all you really said is that "this thing happened, and there is always some kind of essential explanation for all things that happen". You wouldn't say that something is so likely to happen by chance that it is not necessary that there is a force at work. That would be absurd.

I'm not even sure exactly what "this" is. I'm taking it to be moderating or banning users for bad reasons. 

5 hours ago, necrovore said:

So this argument can be used on the one hand to claim that fascism doesn't really exist because you can't prove the existence of any of the mechanisms that would create or maintain it.

At least for me, I'm not arguing that force does not exist underneath everything, I'm saying that initiation of force is not the essential explanation of everything that happens within the system. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. More precisely, the system is characterized by some use of force that distorts everything, but that distortion is not itself the essential cause. If it was, you would have to say that every successful business venture in capitalism is essentially explained by the use of force. 

5 hours ago, necrovore said:

The White House has now openly stated that it is coordinating with Facebook to ban certain people who are "spreading misinformation about Covid-19," so I suppose the presence of force has been more firmly established, now (although I suppose someone could still say, "oh, the White House is just providing some friendly advice, they aren't using force at all!") The White House has also alleged that Facebook is "killing people" by "spreading misinformation," the implication being that the First Amendment "kills people."

This is bad going forward. But of course, it doesn't mean that is always what was happening. 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I'm saying that initiation of force is not the essential explanation of everything that happens within the system. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. More precisely, the system is characterized by some use of force that distorts everything, but that distortion is not itself the essential cause. If it was, you would have to say that every successful business venture in capitalism is essentially explained by the use of force. 

Distortion/muddying of the water exists because the initiation of injustice has become normal, the factor/cause has not been identified as an initiation of a "wrong".

We have to use "force" within the current context or there will be confusion. Yes, physical entities move based on force, but that is not what is being talked about here.

The initiation of (direct or indirect) non-defensive force is the necessary component of infringement of a right. And if speaking in terms of "the system", it is the necessary component of infringement of a rights.

The initiation and the initiator of force has to be identified in order to prevent or repair the injustice.

14 hours ago, necrovore said:

By this sort of argument, a Jew in early Nazi Germany, who is not personally being forced (yet) but who is unable to buy products or services anywhere, would be unable to determine whether the government is fascist or capitalist.

Initiation of force may be hard to determine but it is ultimately "determinable".

In fact, I would argue that it has to be determined and prevented. Otherwise, injustice becomes the norm.

In hindsight we know for certain that there was initiation of force. Just because at the time we could have some doubt, does not mean it is indeterminable.

But even at the time one could make observations and be reasonably certain.

Force does not have to be direct/personal. It can be indirect and as a consequence of an initiation.

There has to be an initiation of force unless this particular Jew you are talking about is some sort of horrible criminal that people are shunning to protect themselves.

The key question would be: are the Jews being boycotted by the entire population without any governmental involvement?

  • So businesses that could make a profit servicing their needs are choosing to lose the opportunity?
  • Charity organization cannot help someone they are set up to help?
  • So this is due to racism by the entire population?
  • By cannot buy, is it they don't have the financial resources. Or is it because they are actively being prevented with threat of force from the government?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

The initiation and the initiator of force has to be identified in order to prevent or repair the injustice.

What point are you trying to make by quoting me? You didn't seem to disagree with anything I said, and you didn't make a new point.

 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...