As I understand the taxonomy, Libertarians are more closely aligned with anarcho-capitalists, to the point where I tend to consider them equivalent.
Anarcho-capitalists believe in the primacy of property rights above all else. It is a system which explicitly requires an enforcement mechanism - such as, ideally, a private police system, with the right to use force against citizens to protect the rights of property holders.
Anarchism is in general a utopian (but IMO idealistic, and intrinsically unstable) system where no person has authority over any other. There can be no police force because everyone has effectively the same rights. (There are lots of variations on this general theme). Anarchism has a bad reputation (the reasons for this are in themselves interesting) but by definition it is anti-authoritarian.
I personally think that most libertarians I’ve met are actually anarcho-capitalists, and not anarchists. Despite sounding alike, the two systems could hardly be more different.
Please don't take HN threads into ideological flamewar hell. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. For one thing, it is exceedingly repetitive and therefore tedious and therefore usually nasty.
We want curious conversation here. That means people hearing each other and learning from each other across differences. This is very different from (and incompatible with) ideological battle, in which the goal is simply to defeat the other side: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23959679.
We've had to ask you about this quite a few times before. Would you mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart? We'd appreciate it.
There's a time and a place for these kinds of claims but underneath an article titled "Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health" may not be it. ;)
Not really. Paradox of tolerance means not tolerating intolerance. The word “inherent” makes it wrong, though. There’s nothing inherent about conservatism that is anti-democratic.
The Paradox of tolerance only endorses the right of being intolerant towards intolerance; it in no way suggests that it's always a good idea to practice such intolerance. On the contrary, the actual "paradoxical" idea is that some limited tolerance should be extended even to the intolerant to the extent practical, since this helps promote the norm of tolerance in the first place even when intolerant ideas might otherwise appear to be prevalent. IOW, Popper's position is, to a limited extent, consistent with the one most clearly phrased by Thomas Jefferson: "let [the intolerant] stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
People keep parroting this term, but I don't know if they have actually read the quote on Wikipedia.
In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.
Because a core value of modern conservatism in the U.S. (as expressed through the leadership of the Republican Party) is questioning the outcomes of freely- and fairly-held elections (including the last Presidential election), to place new obstacles in allowing qualified citizens to vote, and resisting changes that would make it easier for more people to vote (such as voting by mobile phone, or on a weekend).
You won't find liberals questioning election outcomes that were determined by a margin of thousands of votes with a clear paper trail. The 2000 election in Florida, which you're probably thinking of, involved just a few hundred votes where the intent of the voter wasn't super clear (hence the "hanging chads" brouhaha); and once the election outcome was finally determined, liberals let things go. While they disagreed with the procedure and were upset about the outcome for a while, they didn't let it define their party for the next 4+ years.
Observations of possible irregularities in an election are not proof, however, a fairly held election is one in which the votes can be explicitly audited by any of the candidates, and each voter's valid status can be verified after the vote is completed and counted and a winner is declared. Is that true in today's elections? (and was it ever true). If so, any questions can be resolved through executing an audit, and no one needs to seek the Supreme Court.
Allowing the votes of qualified citizens to be counted in an election is part and parcel of operating a fully auditable election. Whatever fully auditable approach offers the fewest obstacles is where we should land, as long as feasibility and practicality are contemplated. At least once, each voter needs to provide evidence that they are a US citizen, and that they reside in the district for which they are voting. Thereafter, there needs to be an auditable trail connecting their vote with their eligibility.
> a fairly held election is one in which the votes can be explicitly audited by any of the candidates
You're confusing a verification procedure with an outcome. A fairly held election -- i.e., the outcome -- is simply one in which the pollsters and voters adhered to all the rules. And it is possible for an election to be fairly held that is not auditable. Sure, it might make people feel better post hoc about whether it was fair, but that doesn't mean that an unauditable election cannot be fairly held.
We've largely had non-auditable elections throughout our nation's history, and we've survived reasonably well thus far as a democracy. If there were past evidence of fraud that might be serious enough to change the outcome of an election, then the case for strict auditing would be much stronger. But to date, compelling evidence of fraud has never appeared.
No, editors choose not to have the organization they work for say things, censoring things is stopping other people and organizations from saying things, not stopping the organization you are part of from saying things.
This is just a bit strange on the internet, because so much of what we see is one organization exactly repeating what someone else said on their request, so it's the organization saying it, but it feels like maybe it isn't.
What I do not believe in is freedom of mass speech. Your responsibility to the truth should increase in line with your reach. Have 1000 followers in twitter and want to talk about starting the next holocaust? Great, say whatever. A million followers? Yeah, that’s a problem.
I don’t know how this gets enforced, but we simply cannot give every lunatic a megaphone.
>"I don’t know how this gets enforced, but we simply cannot give every lunatic a megaphone."
At least in the US you can't enforce it - and yes, any lunatic can grab a megaphone if they want.
The best way to handle problematic speech is more speech, NOT less. Trying to pretend lunatics don't exist is irrational and often a pretext to just block people that others disagree with. Screw that. Safest place for lunatics is out in the open, not driven underground.
> The best way to handle problematic speech is more speech, NOT less.
This theory is an interesting one. This concept is enshrined in our law. I used to think that this was true, but now I'm no longer sure. For the concept to work, it requires that our populace have an open mind and actually be receptive to different opinions and points of view. Sadly, in the last 30 years or so, we have become less so.
its categorically untrue. it is at best wishful thinking. but if the person who says it knows that the statement is false because of human nature and the way we interact in societies, what does that say about them?
Except censorship of radical ideas has been shown to be effective, over and over again.
I’m on my phone, but there’s a whole bunch of studies that show the effects of banning radical speech on Twitter (think ISIS), and the outcome was, unsurprisingly, less radical speech on Twitter. It didn’t return, it didn’t evolve, it just… died.
Free speech is an important concept, but it’s important at both ends; it’s also free speech to deny someone access to your megaphone, should you happen to own one.
These studies are pretty much worthless. Of course it "works" if you remove your political opposition. At least in the short term. Why do a study if you could have just asked any other dictator?
What does "working" even mean? More support for a political party? Less resistance?
They’re worthless because you don’t like their outcome? There are others, this is a very well researched space.
You don’t have to and shouldn’t take my word for it. Study after study shows that radical ideas can successfully be removed from a platform though censorship.
>Well the way things are headed, we’ll be fighting it out in the open IRL soon.
If so, I think it will be along the lines of two people get into a fight. After about 5 seconds, they are exhausted and realize that getting into a fight was a really bad idea. They will soon stop and hopefully grab a beer together afterwords, perhaps to argue politics some more.
Good. Too many have let things like blatant censorship go on for too long. It's time for more people to be uncomfortable, if for just a little. We are drowning in a morass of complacency :p
The First Amendment expressly provides for freedom of the press, which was the earliest form of mass speech and the one most directly comparable to publishing something to your "1000 Twitter followers". The only form of "mass speech" that's broadly government-regulated in the U.S. is communication that's broadcasted via the radio spectrum, which is inherently a scarce resource.
> the earliest form of mass speech and the one most directly comparable to publishing something to your "1000 Twitter followers"
But that's not what they're calling mass speech.
It's not helpful to take someone's post and change the definitions out from under them.
To rephrase it without that term: Printing press scale speech is great. This new ability that twitter gives us, trivially reaching millions, was not foreseeable hundreds of years ago, is causing problems, and should be treated differently.
Something that's published to "a million followers" will attract criticism very quickly if at all merited. Remember Trump's Twitter feed? That's the scale you're talking about.
The problem is that this doesn't work. The exact point of free speech is that you need to allow people to say things you don't consider true. Back then, you could've easily argued that he spreads scientific nonsense by saying people are equal and that he shouldn't be allowed to talk to such an audience.
You may or may not have noticed that you can be heard without a megaphone. The purpose of a megaphone is not just "to be heard", but to increase your audibility in specific situations. Just as "freedom of speech" does not include the "right to cry "Fire!" in a crowded theater", it isn't terribly obvious that it includes the right to be heard in situations where you can only be heard with a megaphone.
Nobody here is suggesting handing out literal megaphones, the analogy is not very apt in the first place. I was responding to the primary argument made in that comment, which is that speech performed by people with larger followings should be subject to more scrutiny and control, which basically amounts to no free speech.
I strongly disagree. That arbitrary line is dangerous: Who decides when the amount of followers vs kind of message is not allowed? When the message is inconvenient? Inconvenient to who? To the ones in power? Are they good or bad?
Free speech shouldn’t be censored, ever. Instead, we should focus on giving, as a society, much more importance culturally speaking to critical thinking. Critical thinking should be a sacred element and should be promoted in any education level and in any cultural manifestation we citizens are exposed.
Well in the example given, Stephen Douglass was free to speak to a small group, but not to a (for the times) large one. Your criterion is exactly the one that would legitimize censoring Stephen Douglass.
Hey OP, I’m a couple years older than you but have gone through this over the last few years. Also haven’t had a serious relationship since I got divorced in my early 30s and was feeling stagnant in my career.
Things changed for me when I stopped giving a shit about work. It’s something I do for money. I enjoy being good at it, but I work my 40 a week, collect a paycheck, treat my direct reports like human beings rather than “resources” and go home.
I found having a creative hobby outside work helps. Putting all your creative energy into a job is frustrating because the job never gives you back as much as you put in. I took up piano at 35 having never had any exposure. I’m by no means good, but I enjoy it and it gives me something to do. I can see my progress, and it helps me not feel stuck in life. I do it for me.
Similarly, I have a competitive / athletic hobby. I’m not good at that either, but I’ve risen from dead last to middle of the pack. I’ve also met a lot of people through it who are great casual friends (not going to say what it is because it’s a really small niche of a niche).
So maybe try doing more things you know you’re bad at but have always wanted to do. Watching yourself grow through them helps prevent you from feeling stagnant. It also helps you be a more interesting person, which will help you in the dating scene.
And on dating, try to put yourself out of your comfort zone there too. Sadly with the pandemic most dating happens through apps. Maybe go out on a date with someone you normally wouldn’t, like a same-sex partner if the idea has ever held any appeal to you. It’s never too late to experiment, and at our age you should have already realized that nobody other than your mom gives enough of a shit about you to care what you do in life.
Nope; social life is important. I find that I get overwhelmed and drained with large groups, but doing things with a group small enough to fit in a car together is fine. I personally have some hobbies I enjoy for their own sake, and meeting people through those has been rewarding. It’s good to have a mix of “close friends” who you can be open and will support you emotionally, and “activity buddies” who you can geek out about your shared interests with.
Humans are not meant to go through the world alone and modern life can be incredibly isolating. It takes effort to build social connection but it is well worth it.
I don't doubt that social life is important even for introverted people, but this advice[1] in particular would be quite painful for me, even if it's in a small group. The hitrate (micromarriage rate) would be too small. Wouldn't it just be a few hours of small talk 95% of the time?
I am happy with a small handful of friends. If I'm going to add new ones, there has to be a significant overlap in interests that makes the company particularly enjoyable and non-draining. Probably a more interest-specific/targeted approach than Meetup (although maybe Meetup is capable of that, I am not familiar with it)?
Maybe I should try it out and see for myself, though! Could be one of those things that's pleasantly surprising.
[1] "In my case i signed up to Meetup and just attended random stuff until people stuck. This usually involves hiking, pubs and bars, restaurant nights out."
In my experience, you just have to accept the low hit rate. Worst case you’ll have some awkward small talk, best case you’ll meet people that you’ll find a lot in common with, and those relationships will last a while. You just have to accept that it’s going to be awkward a bunch of the time, but you have to put yourself in those situations.
Glad this works for you, but humans are not all the same.
Dont assume what makes you happy also makes other people happy.
This is akin to telling somebody with depression to 'Cheer Up'.
> This is akin to telling somebody with depression to 'Cheer Up'.
If you feel this way, please try to see it as "telling somebody with depression to pick the activity that seems less painful to do and go do it".
It is possible for that depressed person to not be able to do it yet. However, unlike your 'cheer up' example, this is actionable advise that is very likely to (slowly) help lead that person out of the depression if they manage to do it.
I'm an introvert and it works like that for me. I hardly ever feel like socializing. It drains me when I do it. Yet I still enjoy it when I'm doing it and it has a positive effect on my mental state (up to a point, of course).
The key is to find the right balance, and to be aware that there's some "training" to it: the less you do it the harder it gets. Don't give up though because then your mental health may suffer.
Absolutely not. Even introverts need social connections. It's more akin to telling somebody to get fit because it's good for their health.
Introvert does not mean asocial or antisocial. Social connections are a fundamental part of every human's mental health. Maybe some disorders might change this up, but being an introvert is not that.
Perhaps you are sensitive to people seemingly giving you advice, because you aren’t seeking it, nor do you desire to change? Not trying to put words in your mouth, but I think you might be interpreting the recommendations as directed at you. Do you suspect that their advice may have a kernel of truth, and you are reacting to the person who caused your internal self to recoil against change? Just food for thought, not directed at you personally.
Maybe that says more about you than them. You're on a social website right now, engaging with people voluntarily, but you're insisting you're only happy by not connecting with people?
Being an introvert does not remove your monkey brain’s need for social connection. Sure, it means being deliberate about when/how/who, but most people leading a solitary life are not happy.
Thankyou for confirming my point by using the word 'most'.
It is rimportant to remember the group of people (however small) who operates outside of what is percieved as 'normal'.
It's true that people are different. It's worth remembering that a (however small) group of people also tend to justify their own behavior and that they are not "normal" can be an easy escape-latch for avoiding being uncomfortable but healthy.
I've been guilty of this in the past regarding sleep. "I don't need more than 6 hours of sleep per night" I kept telling myself and others, and I ran on that schedule for decades. When I started forcing myself to sleep more, I started to feel even better, and now I'm hovering around 8 hours per night and feel so much better. I didn't even realize I could feel better by doing something I didn't think was necessary, but it did improve me.
I've also done this related to relationships, where I found myself fine with being by myself for long stretches of time. I didn't really see any problems, and when people told me I have to see other people, I also used the "maybe I'm not "normal" and don't need it like others?" argument, which is what I told myself too. I didn't feel bad, but started seeking out more relationships anyways, and got so many benefits and became happier because of it, that I can't go back to being all alone again.
I'm not saying this applies to you, but maybe it applies to others who read. It's easy to get into the trap of lying to yourself (I'm guilty of it multiple times), with all kinds of reasons. If you can see past that, you can become happier, even if you're not miserable right now.
I believe when you read things on the internet, or anywhere, it should be common sense to assume that it does not apply to absolutely everyone/everything in all possible contexts. Use your common sense. It would be unreasonable to force people to preface all words with qualifiers like "most", "usually" and "most likely" - nothing ever applies universally.
That's typical behavior you see on social media Twitter. People say something reasonable, but then someone replies "how wrong!! this does not apply in edge case XYZ!", yeah, obviously. Just ignore it if you believe it doesn't apply to you.
I remember it well. Hands on hearts, droning on between the food pyramid (wherein the USDA redefined "healthy" to mean "buy what the grain lobby sells") and a D.A.R.E. poster. Meanwhile, the CIA was getting caught selling crack.
Only they weren’t getting caught because the media was censored and nobody knew about it. The people talking about it were dismissed as conspiracy theorists.
Some of us did. America has never been a free and Democratic society for all, and we’re actually closer to achieving that than ever if you’re not white/straight/upper-middle class, which is why they’re so desperate to push this bill through.
The government had de-facto control of all mass media before the internet. They could control the narrative to a degree they didn’t need tight surveillance. They lost control of that with the internet and are desperate to get it back.
This is why platforms still try to cater to both sides as much as possible. Watch how uncomfortably the giant platforms handle political squabbles. They don't know how their actions will be taken, so they try to come across as inoffensive as possible.
