# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  If elected, should Rand try to ban speech critical of him?

## Cutlerzzz

Here me out: Socialists love welfare and will use propaganda to to try and defend the welfare state. Should Rand shut down anyone critical of him until the welfare state is abolished? IMO, you can't have open discussion and a welfare state. The emotional rhetoric and vote buying schemes of the socialists are too powerful. Exile to a foreign country would be a suitable punishment, until the welfare state is abolished of course.

I support free speech, its just that free speech and a welfare state are not compatible.

----------


## RM918

Sure, he should also execute dissidents and make it a law to have an inspiring portrait of himself in every home.

----------


## Seraphim

Not. Sure. If. Serious.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> Sure, he should also execute dissidents and make it a law to have an inspiring portrait of himself in every home.


Way to go off the deep end. All I'm saying is that Rand should have ICE exile people who speak out in favor of taking our money, have no respect for this countries history or constitution, and take away or money and freedom. Only do this until to welfare state is abolished. We can have open discussion when the welfare state is gone.

----------


## Kotin

what? no.

----------


## Seraphim

Yes, yes HE went off the deep end. 

His response was sarcasm to your OP which is the truely concerning idea.




> Way to go off the deep end. All I'm saying is that Rand should have ICE exile people who speak out in favor of taking our money, have no respect for this countries history or constitution, and take away or money and freedom. Only do this until to welfare state is abolished. We can have open discussion when the welfare state is gone.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Not. Sure. If. Serious.





> what? no.


He's mocking immigration law supporters.  Took me about three seconds to figure that out.

----------


## brandon

No i actually think he is serious.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

So will people actually try to refute me instead of defending this giant deficit?

----------


## William Tell

Of course not.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So will people actually try to refute me instead of defending this giant deficit?





> He's mocking immigration law supporters.  Took me about three seconds to figure that out.


Before I bother.... am I incorrect here?

If your point is that utilitarianism is awful, good point.

If you actually expect me to defend free speech, I'll simply say "NAP" and then go away.

----------


## acptulsa

'Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; [..] she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.'--_Thomas Jefferson_

----------


## Cutlerzzz

Did Jefferson live in a time with 200 trillion in unfunded liabilities?

----------


## cajuncocoa

only in the Rand subforum

----------


## Christian Liberty

> only in the Rand subforum


Which is privately owned

----------


## acptulsa

> Did Jefferson live in a time with 200 trillion in unfunded liabilities?


No, but he did live in a time when a whole bunch of warmongers wanted a major amount of adventurism in France.  And owned a bunch of newspapers which roasted him alive.  And stood by his principles anyway.  To our great benefit; to some degree the precedent still stands, and we of this forum take advantage of that fact daily.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Which is privately owned


it's a joke

----------


## Christian Liberty

> it's a joke


I know, I was joking too.,..

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Way to go off the deep end. All I'm saying is that Rand should have ICE exile people who speak out in favor of taking our money, have no respect for this countries history or constitution, and take away or money and freedom. Only do this until to welfare state is abolished. We can have open discussion when the welfare state is gone.


Must spread some rep around.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> So will people actually try to refute me instead of defending this giant deficit?


We need emboldened text, underlines, and pictures. Lots of pictures.

Then flood this forum with news articles of rabble rousers causing trouble.

Bring the troops home. Have them defend it. Just until we are free, of course. I'm not an authoritarian. I'm just not an utopian.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> We need emboldened text, underlines, and pictures. Lots of pictures.
> 
> Then flood this forum with news articles of rabble rousers causing trouble.
> 
> Bring the troops home. Have them defend it. Just until we are free, of course. I'm not an authoritarian. I'm just not an utopian.


Good idea about the troops. It would be much easier than expanding ICE to the point it could pull it off. Killing two birds with one stone if you end the wars and use the troops to do it.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> No, but he did live in a time when a whole bunch of warmongers wanted a major amount of adventurism in France.  And owned a bunch of newspapers which roasted him alive.  And stood by his principles anyway.  To our great benefit; to some degree the precedent still stands, and we of this forum take advantage of that fact daily.


So no, Jefferson didn't live in an era with 200 trillion in unfunded liabilities where millions of socialists spread lies about it, bankrupting us.

----------


## idiom

> Here me out: Socialists love welfare and will use propaganda to to try and defend the welfare state. Should Rand shut down anyone critical of him until the welfare state is abolished? IMO, you can't have open discussion and a welfare state. The emotional rhetoric and vote buying schemes of the socialists are too powerful. Exile to a foreign country would be a suitable punishment, until the welfare state is abolished of course.
> 
> I support free speech, its just that free speech and a welfare state are not compatible.


Sad straw-manning satire is sad and straw-manning.

FTR I am a firm believer in the more the merrier.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Sad straw-manning satire is sad and straw-manning.
> 
> FTR I am a firm believer in the more the merrier.


I think it's quite analogous of how many people think.

I hear the OP's argument weekly, at least.

And what do I get for pointing out how inconsistent it is? I get labeled an utopian. Or otherwise dismissed as someone not living in the real world.

Well, for those who think bringing war hardened troops from here or there to be placed onto the border to guard against whatever misguided threat they dream up and use sophist arguments to further pimp, while thinking it will not result in a loss of freedom (as well as ensuring freedom is never attained) I'd simply say they are drinking something nationalistically _Strong_.

----------


## osan

> Sure, he should also execute dissidents and make it a law to have an inspiring portrait of himself in every home.



And butt sex.  

Gotta have lots of butt sex.

----------


## amy31416

Jesus...of course not. I think that one of the (supposedly) great things about this country is that a bunch of hippies can form a commune, a bunch of libertarians can have very limited government, a bunch of socialists can have their little welfare town (that'll work well.)

No more of this top-down bull$#@! where some "supreme" leader thinks he or she knows what's best and crushes anyone who says otherwise.

Come on.

----------


## Root

Wtf!!  Can we just stop trying to ban stuff already?  Wow, just wow.

----------


## RonZeplin

The infidels should be waterboarded, to detect impure thoughts of Hillary.  /s

----------


## fr33

So much sarcasm in RPF today...

----------


## Liberty's Last Hero

Damn, first Ron Paul's supporting Putin, and now this?

What is it with faux libertarians and enjoying fascism?

----------


## staerker

There should at least be a free speech tax.

And anyone who says otherwise, just no. Don't even try to promote free free speech unless you're willing to pay for whoever is talking.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Damn, first Ron Paul's supporting Putin, and now this?
> 
> What is it with faux libertarians and enjoying fascism?


The OP was joking around.  When did Ron "support" Putin?

----------


## Liberty's Last Hero

http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com...fending-putin/


http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...of-crimea.html


I don't like using the Beast but it's a good article on the matter.

----------


## kylejack

n/t

----------


## PRB

> Sure, he should also execute dissidents and make it a law to have an inspiring portrait of himself in every home.


or he should just legalize the voluntary citizen's response to them, and not let courts stop people from obtaining justice

----------


## BUTSRSLY

> Here me out: Socialists love welfare and will use propaganda to to try and defend the welfare state. Should Rand shut down anyone critical of him until the welfare state is abolished? IMO, you can't have open discussion and a welfare state. The emotional rhetoric and vote buying schemes of the socialists are too powerful. Exile to a foreign country would be a suitable punishment, until the welfare state is abolished of course.
> 
> I support free speech, its just that free speech and a welfare state are not compatible.


THERE ARE REAL THINGS AND THERE ARE NOT REAL THINGS

STOP THE I EAT APPLES COMPUTERS

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Here me out: Socialists love welfare and will use propaganda to to try and defend the welfare state. Should Rand shut down anyone critical of him until the welfare state is abolished? IMO, you can't have open discussion and a welfare state. The emotional rhetoric and vote buying schemes of the socialists are too powerful. Exile to a foreign country would be a suitable punishment, until the welfare state is abolished of course.
> 
> I support free speech, its just that free speech and a welfare state are not compatible.


 Which of "free speech" or "welfare state" is NOT in the Bill of Rights? 

Kill that one.

----------


## ProIndividual

Epic trolling.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> Which of "free speech" or "welfare state" is NOT in the Bill of Rights? 
> 
> Kill that one.


The Supreme Court has clearly ruled before that there is no automatic right to free speech. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The Supreme Court has clearly ruled before that there is no automatic right to free speech. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater.


SCOTUS is wrong.  libertarians have dealt with the silly "fire in a crowded theater" example many times.  I know you are aware of this as well.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Here me out: Socialists love welfare and will use propaganda to to try and defend the welfare state. Should Rand shut down anyone critical of him until the welfare state is abolished? IMO, you can't have open discussion and a welfare state. The emotional rhetoric and vote buying schemes of the socialists are too powerful. Exile to a foreign country would be a suitable punishment, until the welfare state is abolished of course.
> 
> I support free speech, its just that free speech and a welfare state are not compatible.


I love it!  Tell it like it is, Cutlerzzz!  I'm glad someone finally had the gumption to say it.




> What is it with faux libertarians and enjoying fascism?


 This is nothing to do with fascism.  Fascism is a type of nationalist economic collectivism, kind of a mesh of socialism and mercantilism.  What Cutlerzz is proposing is a practical measure to bring about a free market more quickly, and to crush collectivism.  It is the _opposite_ of fascism.

----------


## ProIndividual

> The Supreme Court has clearly ruled before that there is no automatic right to free speech. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater.


They never made such a ruling. You can legally yell fire in crowded theatre. You can't cause HARM by using any right when unprovoked...hence if anyone gets hurt when yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, when no fire is present (which matters), then you aren't charged with "yelling fire"...you are charged with the harm, not the speech (inciting a panic/riot). 

All natural rights are without restrictions other than violating the right of others. Christopher Hitchens has a speech online where he gets up an yells fire several times...the crowd laughs, and he goes on to explain that that stupid myth comes from a case where SCOTUS deemed speaking out against joining a military in an unnecessary war (WW1) was a good enough reason to give the speaker a multi-year jail sentence. The one who wrote the Decision (Oliver Wendell Holmes) used the $#@!ty analogy of "yelling fire" in a crowded theatre where there was no fire (but omitted the harm part to support his fascist Decision outlawing anti-war sentiments in war time), but later reversed himself in another case.

There are no limits on any rights beyond trampling the rights of others. The brainwashed nonsense to the contrary is just brainwashed nonsense. There is no such law in the United States concerning yelling anything in a crowded theatre, and when pundits on TV use this ignorant idea to make an anti-free speech case, I am quickly reminded how $#@!ing uneducated/brainwashed we are in this school system (including private schools and colleges, that taught me the same bull$#@!).

I realize you're trolling, so I threw that out there for everyone else.

----------


## ProIndividual

> I love it!  Tell it like it is, Cutlerzzz!  I'm glad someone finally had the gumption to say it.
> 
>  This is nothing to do with fascism.  Fascism is a type of nationalist economic collectivism, kind of a mesh of socialism and mercantilism.  What Cutlerzz is proposing is a practical measure to bring about a free market more quickly, and to crush collectivism.  It is the _opposite_ of fascism.


He's trolling (and I hope you are too). No one in their right mind wants to limit liberty to expand liberty (hence, minarchists aren't all there - in terms of logic). It's like growing and centralizing the state to abolish the state (see Marx).

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> They never made such a ruling. You can legally yell fire in crowded theatre. You can't cause HARM by using any right when unprovoked...hence if anyone gets hurt when yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, when no fire is present (which matters), then you aren't charged with "yelling fire"...you are charged with the harm, not the speech (inciting a panic/riot). 
> 
> All natural rights are without restrictions other than violating the right of others. Christopher Hitchens has a speech online where he gets up an yells fire several times...the crowd laughs, and he goes on to explain that that stupid myth comes from a case where SCOTUS deemed speaking out against joining a military in an unnecessary war (WW1) was a good enough reason to give the speaker a multi-year jail sentence. The one who wrote the Decision (Oliver Wendell Holmes) used the $#@!ty analogy of "yelling fire" in a crowded theatre where there was no fire (but omitted the harm part to support his fascist Decision outlawing anti-war sentiments in war time), but later reversed himself in another case.
> 
> There are no limits on any rights beyond trampling the rights of others. The brainwashed nonsense to the contrary is just brainwashed nonsense. There is no such law in the United States concerning yelling anything in a crowded theatre, and when pundits on TV use this ignorant idea to make an anti-free speech case, I am quickly reminded how $#@!ing uneducated/brainwashed we are in this school system (including private schools and colleges, that taught me the same bull$#@!).
> 
> I realize you're trolling, so I threw that out there for everyone else.





> The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] *The question in every* (kc- They are to be the Judges and the emphasis is mine... of course)* case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.*[7]-- Holmes, Jr.


This was the _Schenck v. United States_ case for those interested. _Buck v. Bell_ was another particularly troublesome (read: evil) SCOTUS decision.

The issue with the verbiage used by Holmes, Jr. is that it is an arbitrary definition which has no real boundaries. Most all would agree that using speech to hire another to commit a crime would indeed fall under the definition of a crime itself. The SCOTUS decision, at least how it was and will be officially interpreted, is vague. Congress doesn't like a particular activity or speech, they will indeed seek a remedy to silence it. We have journalists barred from covering court cases, closed trials, people imprisoned for posting popular lyrics to songs, criticism of public officials being prosecuted, people being put in mental institutions for their words, graffiti being prosecuted under hate crime statutes... I mean the list goes on and on. I somewhat limited mine to the last couple of years but before that movie producers were given multiple years, anti-war pamphleteers as well, whistleblowers targeted extensively. Who decides what is harmful to the government if not for the government itself? You can't even tell a juror their rights within the courtroom without fear of retribution.

So while I get your point, and I know you understand this, it's a little bit worse off than simply implying that the SCOTUS did not put another nail in the coffin of free speech with that opinion (I understand your point, though). They'd have done it anyways, especially during war times but nonetheless it is a rather notable point in American history. That whole period, really.

----------


## ProIndividual

Thanks for that post KC...I didn't mean to imply that. I totally agree, and what I was trying to get across was that even Holmes (himself a pretty evil dude imho) pretty much reversed himself on the "fire in a crowded theatre" Decision (not because he was good, or saw the light overall, but because he seemed to come to realize the ridiculous nature of the first vague Decision). 




> According to Finan, Holmes's change of heart influenced his decision to join the minority and dissent in the Abrams v. United States case. Abrams was deported for issuing flyers saying the US should not intervene in the Russian Revolution. Holmes and Brandeis said that 'a silly leaflet by an unknown man' should not be considered illegal.[2][4] Chafee argued in Free Speech in the United States that a better analogy in Schenk might be a man who stands in a theatre and warns the audience that there are not enough fire exits.[5][6]


Notice that SCOTUS didn't overturn anything...his dissent was present in the losing side of the case. HE reversed himself somewhat, but the legal interpretation stayed the same. Also, here is Hitchens' quote on the subject:




> ...Christopher Hitchens parodied the Holmes judgment by opening "FIRE! Fire, fire... fire. Now you've heard it," before condemning the famous analogy as "the fatuous verdict of the greatly over-praised Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes." Hitchens argued that the imprisoned socialists "were the ones shouting fire when there really was a fire in a very crowded theatre indeed... [W]ho’s going to decide?"[7][8]

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> He's trolling (and I hope you are too). No one in their right mind wants to limit liberty to expand liberty (hence, minarchists aren't all there - in terms of logic). It's like growing and centralizing the state to abolish the state (see Marx).


Sometimes it's necessary to do evil things in order to bring about good things.

Sometimes you've got to bomb some foreign people in order to stop intervening in foreign affairs.

Sometimes you've got to kill some babies to stop abortion.

Sometimes you've got to trample the freedom of association in order to preserve freedom.

Sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make money.

And you definitely have to spend money to make omelets.

It doesn't always seem logical, I know.  It can be hard to understand.  But we live in the real world, and that means that when I decide we need to kill just a few well-chosen babies of prominent abortion advocates, you should shut up and go along with it.

Or to bomb a few well-chosen Middle-Easterners.  Or to imprison a few well-chosen businesses hiring dirty Mexican socialists.  Or to burn a few well-chosen statist newspaper publishing houses.

----------


## staerker

Sometimes you have to break a window to stimulate the economy.

----------

