Friday, October 7, 2016

Confusion About Liberty and Free Speech

An anonymous commenter writes:
My "comment will only be visible after approval", should say it all.

Censorism and the trampling of free speech, right here at ''.

As if the name of the website doesn't say it all; the 'target' is your liberty; as in kill your liberty.

Liberty from a libertarian perspective begins with respect for private property and the non-aggression principle, and the acceptance that a property owner can set his own rules on his own property within the boundaries of NAP.

There is no "right to free speech" on private property. A private property owner can from a libertarian perspective can set any rules he chooses for speech on his property, including comment approval.



  1. This fundamental misunderstanding and confusion is killing the movement. Yes, the U.S. Constitution allows you to own a gun and drug use is not a violation of the NAP. But under the NAP, it quite permissible to have a private property Christian community which bans dope, dopers and positive talk about dope and dopers. It is quite permissible for “progressive” new age types to have a private community which bans guns, Christians and positive statements about Christianity. Libertarians cannot seem confront these simple matters if only to explain to strangers that we are not “exactly” pro gun, pro dope or “socially liberal”. We are pro-private property. Why no outreach to evangelicals to escape the Clintonista indoctrination?

    The only vision presented to the public is one where everything stays the same but without zoning and with legalized drugs and guns so that meth cookers could move next door and your kids would have to go to government school with their kids. And you might get sued for “discriminating” against them. What a vision.

  2. To add to what Robert said, people don’t understand that the origin of the concept of “freedom of speech” applies to relationships between people and government – not to relationships between citizens and other citizens. The right to free speech is a way to limit the power of the government and to demand that they allow you to criticize them. People who complain about not being allowed to trespass onto other people’s websites and property are probably liberal commies who don’t realize it.

  3. This reminds me of a comment made by some popular "libertarian" on facebook before the debate at Hofstra. He was critical of the space allocated as a free speech zone outside of where the debate was to take place (and away from reporters). Of course a bunch of other Gary Johnson supporters followed suit in the comments, blasting it as a despicable breach of first amendment rights.

    I would've hoped that even a run of the mill libertarian could comprehend private property rights. This is what happens when a buffoon like Johnson attempts to lead the libertarian movement.

    1. Considering that Hofstra was hosting a USA federal gunvernment event that is funded by USA tax payers, Hofstra has relinquished its private property rights regarding this event. Therefore the "free speech zone" should have been everywhere that was designated for the event.

  4. Can I take a crap in anonymous' living room as artistic expression shielded by free speech?

  5. But at a minimum, Bob,I would think you would be pleased that at least one fourth-grader is reading your blog.

  6. ─ My "comment will only be visible after approval", should say it all. ─

    Yes, it says "have patience". It also says "It's my play pen, not yours."

  7. Personally, I think moderation of the sort you utilize is counterproductive and stifles interesting discussion. But I don't ever confuse that with some absurd notion that you are "against free speech" or have no right to do as you please.

    You should see how Vox Day handles spam and trolls. He has a very simple and rigorously enforced comment policy (as posted on every page), but comments are never moderated in advance. A quiet post will get many tens of comments. Popular subjects see many hundreds.