From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:34:55 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.141250.17109@Princeton.EDU>
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.233524.26633@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug22.014427.1416@Princeton.EDU>
>>egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>
>>>It's the libertarian who gives up on community by his denial that
>>>government can ever provide the basis for community!
>>
>>No, Ed, you're the one who gives up on community by insisting that
>>government (which is coercive by nature) is the proper basis for it.
>>I believe in community; I'm a member of several communities, all
>>voluntary, and that works fine.  The communities operate primarily by
>>consensus; if you don't like it, leave; form your own if you can find
>>enough people who agree with you.
>
>If you define government as "coercive by nature" then all of your
>libertarian statements about bad old nasty blue-meanie government
>become tautologies.

I don't "define" government as "coercive by nature", I *observe* that
it is.  If an entity makes rules that I must obey under threat of
punishment, and I do not have absolute veto power over the rules, then
that entity has coercive power over me.  (Note my exclusion of
contracts as coercive: I can "veto" any contract by refusing to agree
to it.)

>  However, the consequences are more pernicious than
>just this.  For you implicitly reject the possibility of democracy which
>rejection is itself destructive of democracy.

How do I reject the possibility of democracy?  I merely point out that
a democracy is coercive; that doesn't cause it not to exist.  I don't
believe it's _feasible_ to have a pure democracy with more than a few
hundred participants, but that's more of a statement about existing
technology than a philosophical belief.

>In other words, the fashionable, terminally hip cynicism about
>government as "coercive by nature" is the wedge by which Fascism enters
>our society, NOT oddballs such as Edward Nilges having marginalized
>opinions.

I don't understand you at all here.  I define Fascism as the
philosophy that the individual is subordinate in all ways to the
society (even, that the individual exists for the benefit of society).
I (and all other libertarians that I know) vehemently reject such an
attitude.  How do you define Fascism?

>  Indeed, it is the libertarian's secret hope that the Fascism
>he helps to bring about shall leave him alone as "law-abiding" white
>male, for the libertarian is normally loud in his call for severe
>judicial and extra-judicial punishment of those he considers law
>breakers.

You have stated that you are not a libertarian.  Are you a telepath?
How else can you claim to know "the libertarian's secret hope"?

>The citizens of St Paul MN had a say in the hate speech law which was
>promulgated in hopes of rendering its streets safer, especially for
>minorities.

A law prohibiting all minorities from entering St. Paul would have the
effect of making the streets of St. Paul perfectly safe for all law-
abiding minorities.  The fact that the "hopes" of a law are a good
goal doesn't imply that the law is good.

>  They had NO say in the Supreme Court decision, which was
>even under a libertarian analysis coercive, since it coerced people to
>refrain from passing certain local laws.                

The Supreme Court decision doesn't prevent people from passing certain
local laws.  St. Paul passed such laws; another city could (if its
legislature wished) pass identical laws tomorrow.  The Supreme Court
decision prevents a government from _enforcing_ laws when those laws
violate the rights of people.  Suppose the people of New Jersey got
fed up with you and passed a law making it illegal to be Ed Nilges.
Would you say that they have a right to do that, or would you prefer a
"coercive" Supreme Court decision that prevents them from enforcing it?

>Local government is one form of community; and an Outward Bound patrol
>in the wilderness is a form of government.  The statement that the one
>is "voluntary" and the other is not "voluntary" is bogus; it is in point
>of fact necessary for even the most discontented member of an Outward
>Bound patrol to stick with the patrol in the wilderness, given the fact
>that such a member cannot survive on his own.

I was born a citizen of the United States.  In what way were you
forced to become a member of an Outward Bound patrol?  It appears that
you voluntarily became such a member; by that action, you agreed to
obey the rule of the patrol.

>  And the entire philosophy
>of civil disobedience as formulated by Ghandi and Dr King points up the
>voluntary nature of many government requirements, IF one is ready to
>accept punishment in the joyful spirit of making one's punishment a
>further indictment of the oppressor.

I see.  So if I point a gun at you and demand your wallet, you're
*voluntarily* giving it to me, since you could accept punishment
(death) in the joyful spirit of making your death a further indictment
of me (now a murderer, as well as a thief).

>"Voluntary" versus "coercive" is bogus.

I can tell the difference between "voluntary" and "coercive" a lot
more easily than you can tell the difference between "hate speech" and
"non-hate speech".

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal