From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech (was: Mister Ed Nilges)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:35:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.133400.13173@hubcap.clemson.edu> grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy) writes:
>egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>
>Freedom of speech hardly is cause for others to enjoy what you have to
>say.  It does prevent the government from punishing you (but not from
>others punishing you in their own ways) for what you say.

Punishment is a form of force, and we give government a monopoly of
force.  In societies other than The Moronic Inferno (the USA), job loss
is not thought to be a sort of "punishment" that can be meted-out at
will by any employer; it is difficult to fire people in such societies
precisely because it is recognized that excluding people from jobs as
"punishment" is a form of economic force majeure which should NOT be
deregulated.

Your phrase "others punishing you" is revealingly close to incoherence,
for it portrays society as a kind of network of Punisher wannabes (using
the name of a cartoon character who is equally revealing.)
Unfortunately, a network of Punisher wannabes is nothing more than
Hobbes war of all against all; you cannot punish me, I punish you, and
so on.  Punishment is not many-many, its one-many, such that we give
government the monopoly on punishment.

Deregulating punishment, for example in allowing small businessmen the
right to fire "for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all"
simply produces a call on the part of victims for better regulation.  In
the case of job loss, it has created a litigation industry in which
employees sue their ex-employers for unjust firing.  I've been present
at unjust firings (for example, I was an innocent bystander when a woman
was publically fired by a video store for being "too friendly with the
customers") and I find the victims' reactions understandable; if you
decry the litigation industry created by their real perception of
injustice, then you should support legislation restricting unjust
termination.

Of course, none of this will make sense to the libertarian, normally an
economically comfortable white male who sees advantage in the war of all
against all.  The fact that such people are profoundly deluded and need
to spend a holiday in Bosnia/Herzegovina to see the results of their
"liberty" only means that "nobody ever went broke overestimating the
stupidity of the American people."
>
>profits.  And that most people on the net have some deep-rooted
>pshycological problem which only Ed can determine from miles away by
>reading what we type.

Perhaps this "telepathy" is nothing more than reading comprehension,
hein?  I realize that the favorite way of reading, both in national
politix and on the net, is a sort of crude scan for keywords:


     IF find(instring,"gay people") then DO
        SAY "My opponent don't got no fambly values"
     END

     ...

     IF find(instring,"capitalism") then DO
        SAY "Ed is a crumby socialist who needs to look at Eastern Eur"
     END

     ...

     IF find(instring,"wives, children and Native Americans") then DO
        SAY "Hilary Clinton ain't got no fambly values"
     END


but there ARE deeper ways of parsing text, including ways that tease out
their hidden implications.  If this is "deconstruction" then so be it.

Newsgroups: misc.legal