Charlie Hebdo editor Stéphane Charbonnier said he'd rather "die standing than live on my knees." http://t.co/01AbH3nCQc
— The New York Times (@nytimes) January 8, 2015
Dying and living on ones knees are not the only two options. This is a false dichotomy. Further, dying for causes is very much over-rated.
I can think of dozens of things the government would take you down for right now, if you failed to follow their demands. You can't fight all evil by fighting to death, you will be dead by the end of the week. You pick your spots, be clever and sort of keep in mind (with libertarian adjustment) the words of General George S. Patton:
No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.-RW
I don't think the US progressive PC crowd or the Neocon Evangelical PC crowd would have tolerated a US version of Charlie Hebdo for very long. What would they do with a cartoon of Jesus having anal sex with a cartoon Obama drawn as a monkey, with the "N" word thrown in for fun?
ReplyDeletehttp://notyourexrotic.tumblr.com/post/107455575688/pm-hello-i-agree-that-no-journalist-artist
Probably not rush in an light the office up with AK47s.
DeleteThis whole situation is an interesting time to explore "freedom of speech"(whatever that is).
DeleteIt's obviously a NAP violation to prevent someone from saying what they want, no matter how vile, foul, etc.
Now that said, I find the topic interesting when thinking about it in an "un PC" fashion.
For example, what if someone approached you, & streamed a constant barrage of the most foul/vile things to you about your mother or wife, with them standing right next to you, maybe even in public for example.
I'd be willing to bet that at least 50% of the libertarians here might punch such an individual. They might even acknowledge that doing so would be a NAP violation...but the interesting question is how many libertarians might say, "Well, he deserved it." if they were really honest with themselves?
Keep in mind, I'm setting a scenario where the offender would be verbally offensive, but never threatened violence against you. He simply stood there and said the most heinous things about your wife or mother in front of you and others in public.
I find this whole topic interesting, because it really tests the real world notions of "free speech" and the NAP and how they relate.
I'm sure most here would acknowledge the NAP violation of punching him in retribution, but the question is, would they, like myself, also say that a punch might be justified?(make it more interesting and throw in the notion it might be simply a punch and not death/execution)
I suppose many here might claim I'm not a libertarian because I feel that way, and maybe that's the case even though I hold the NAP highly.
The whole "sticks and stones" argument is valid...but there's something about the "social norms" aspect of natural law that harkens back to duels, challenges, etc. when one's reputation has been assaulted that I find somewhat valid/interesting(even though such a challenge would have to be accepted by the other, so it's not totally relevant)....and might extend to an initiatory punch in the mouth to someone that breaks a social norm in such a way.
Natural law/social norms vs the NAP? We normally think about the two complementing/reinforcing each other, is there a case were they are in tension as well?
Well, the evidence strongly points to Patton being assassinated -- by the U.S. O.S.S. -- for his anti-Soviet views:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.amazon.com/Target-Patton-Assassinate-General-George/dp/1621572919/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1420738179&sr=8-1&keywords=target%3A+patton
So, my sense is that you have to figure out if this life is your one and only shot, or not. I think it is not. I think we reincarnate; evidence from the UVa psychiatry study group convinced me:
http://www.amazon.com/Life-Before-Childrens-Memories-Previous/dp/031237674X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1420738307&sr=1-1&keywords=life+before+life
Be prudent, do good, don't worry about the consequences of living right and speaking truth; we have lots of helpers all around us:
http://www.amazon.com/Proof-Heaven-Neurosurgeons-Journey-Afterlife/dp/1451695195/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1420738369&sr=1-1&keywords=proof+of+heaven
Eh. these are just statements of value. Might as well be arguing with him over which color is better, red or blue. He's saying that he values free speech more than his life. You're saying that you prefer life over freedom of speech. The fact that Charlie Hebdo didn't die years ago fighting some other sort of evil means that he agrees with you, it's just the evil of censorship was the straw that breaks his camel's back. He did pick his spot. It was the freedom to make offensive cartoons.
ReplyDelete