I love it!
Hilary Clinton is working with Senator Santorum to pass a law stifling freedom of speech, in the name of protecting our children from sex and violence in TV and video games. Meanwhile, George W. Bush has explained that it is really the job of parents to filter what their children see, not the government.
I've thought it over, and I don't believe I have a right to control what other people watch or say besides myself, and my children. Even when you want to watch or say things that I believe are wrong. (And there are a lot of things I believe it is wrong to watch or say.) Therefore, the government, since it is allegedly acting as my representative, can have no authority from me, even by vote, to control what you watch or say. If they think they have such authority, I don't know where they got it.
Meanwhile, I'll raise my children with my values, despite what the rest of you guys do. And I'll even take opportunities to discuss and advocate my values. But I don't have the authority to impose them. Looking at the official rhetoric coming out of these two political leaders, I know who is closer to me on the issue, at least in thought about what the ideal should be, versus who believes the government can take any action they want in order to please a subset of its citizens.
Re:Control
jdavidb on 2005-03-16T15:39:31
I don't understand this at all. The government has no authority to act if YOU don't believe in what they are doing?
I guess my argument wasn't clear.
:) Sounds like I came across as saying, "If I don't believe it is right for the government to do X, then the government has no authority to do X." Which would be begging the question. What I was trying to say was, "I don't believe that I as an individual have the right to do X. Therefore, since the government derives its authority by delegation of its citizens, it does not possess the right to do X since it cannot have been delegated by me (or anyone else)."
I'm probably not offering a new argument you haven't heard before. Just asserting the libertarian belief that government cannot assume powers that its citizens do not possess.
In this specific argument, I'm applying that principle to free speech rights. I'm saying I don't have the right to censor, as many liberals seem to think conservatives desire to do, and so I don't believe my government possesses that right either, and that I cannot in conscience justify a vote or an attempt to otherwise influence my government to censor, and that I don't believe even a vote would legitimize such an action.
I recognize that the current state of the airwaves being administered as public property complicates this issue, but I left that complexity out of my post because I mainly just wanted to be pointing out that the sides appear to be swapped here from what liberal assumptions would lead one to expect. The goal was to say, "Hey, liberals and anti-Bush folks! Are you sure your statements about conservatives wanting to stifle free speech are true?"
Re:Control
pudge on 2005-03-16T16:19:03
"I don't believe that I as an individual have the right to do X. Therefore, since the government derives its authority by delegation of its citizens, it does not possess the right to do X since it cannot have been delegated by me (or anyone else)."
Ah. Well, I don't buy that at all, either. People collectively have more authority than they have individually. The authority to make war, for example.
In the case of censorship of the airwaves: they are a public trust regulated by the government. If the government does not have the right to censor because you do not have the right to censor, then the government also does not have the right to regulate for the same reason, which means that pirate broadcasters cannot be prevented from hijacking your local NBC affiliate's signal tonight, preventing you from watching The West Wing.
The case for video games is even easier. As a parent, you have the natural right to tell a company they cannot sell a product to your child. The government therefore also has that right, according to your theory.
Re:Control
jdavidb on 2005-03-16T17:12:27
As for the authority to make war, people individually have the right to act in their defense, and the authority to make war derives from that.
As for parental authority, yes I have the right to forbid a company from selling a product to my child, but I do not have the right to forbid a company from selling a product to anybody else's child.
Re:Control
pudge on 2005-03-16T17:31:31
As for parental authority, yes I have the right to forbid a company from selling a product to my child, but I do not have the right to forbid a company from selling a product to anybody else's child.
But you cannot enforce you right to forbid that company from selling to your child without the government's aid. So unless you have a way to determine how companies could figure out which kids to sell to and which not to, the government has to make a choice: help you enforce your right, or don't.
Re:Control
jdavidb on 2005-03-16T19:24:28
But you cannot enforce you right to forbid that company from selling to your child without the government's aid.
I'm not sure we share that axiom.
Re:Control
pudge on 2005-03-16T19:30:46
How do you figure you can stop a company from selling to your child without the government's aid? At gunpoint?
