* Jim Choate
This is a cop out.
No, you asked for an explanation. The book is an excellent one. Just another example of you wanting somebody else to do it for you.
Right, the book may be an explanation of law and democracy- no one is arguing that, but you're statement is a cop out, because you're not willing to back your statements with a supporting arguement. "Go read a book" fails as a supporting argument because it lacks the connection you're trying to draw with your statement.
Speak for yourself.
I never speak for others, that's their job.
Then don't try to use someone elses book as your words.
For all we know, you didn't read this book.
Irrelevant.
This is relevent, because by not drawing connections necessary to support your argument, you're not offering any reason for your readers to believe that reading this book will add any support to your statements.
For all we know you can't read. You might be having somebody else read and write this text that supposedly comes from you. Not my problem or of any interest to me really.
Now this is irrelevant, because even if I couldn't read, my arguments would still stand. I could be blind, doesn't matter.
By the way your commentary is a ad hominim attack and tends to weaken your argument.
To point out an ad hominem attack is not an argument to begin with, so there's no argument to weaken here. It merely points out a fallacious argument, if anything to help you, because your reader already disposed of your ad hominem, and it already reflected poorly on you. Consider it "help", FYI, for future reference. There's no reason to hold back a netettiquite lesson when one is due. Everyone could smell the bullshit. All I did was identify what kind of bullshit it was and slapped a label on it for confirmation. You shouldn't consider ad hominems as a form of counter attack, or an arguement that is weak or strong, but rather just feedback that your argument in question failed to be effective. Making an ad hominem argument is just like making no argument at all. Some people in forums have developed a way to embed ad hominems in good intellectual content, but your ad hominems are coming out in a pure form. You should try to at least inject some intellect into your ad hominems so we can all get something from them. If you don't at least do this much, you'll end up getting filtered out in peoples procmail scripts.
explain why you think I miss the purpose of law in a democracy.
Your commentary.
So you have nothing to add to this? An argument that goes unaddressed is also an argument lost, so if you leave this alone, it will fail to be effective, just as your ad hominem failed to be effective.
If you don't, your argument falls with it's own dead weight
If I don't what, explain my self? I did, I suggest that you read "We". My argument at no point requires 'We' and I've explained my views much better than you have.
Again, you haven't made any sort of philosophical connection between your unsupported comment and this book. Basically, you copped out of the argument.
- one beauty of free speech: ideas without merit fall,
That's a laughable one. How come religions like Christianity still hang around then? Peoples belief that gay marriage is a sin and will cause the collapse of western civilization? Or that government is 'good'?
No one said YOU had to agree with an idea for it to have merit.
good ideas are carried as far as they're worth.
Not hardly. If that were so then this discussion would have been resolved 200 years ago. It isn't, and it won't be 200 (or 2,000 for that matter) years from now. Your thesis is bogus.
The problem is that you're analyzing this from a bipolar perspective. It's actually a fallacy to argue that there are only two sides to something, and one must be the correct one. This is what you're implying by expecting a quick resolution. Multiple competing ideas often have merit. Just because one perspective is a good one, does not mean the competing ideas are worthless. Because the idea of absolute unequaled free speech is a good one, and ideas that limit free speech also have merit and support from the greatest thinkers of our time, you can't expect a quick resolution, despite the fact that you can only see one side to this as being one with any strength.
Actually it's a perfect comparison. Anyone can put stuff on your front porch. They can't take it away or read it, that is using personal property without permission. Hence, people have a -right- to send you mail. They don't have a right to read your mail without permission.
No one has this right. There is no inherent right to put stuff on someones front porch.
Right to speak and press. People have a right to speak their mind and they have a right to use a press to spread it around.
Yes, as long as it doesn't interfere with other rights. As soon as it does, you can't expect all rights can win protection.
You better talk to a lawyer and do some deeper thinking. People have a right to contact you, you have the right to tell them to go away. You don't have the right to be hermit.
They don't have a right to contact me in certain ways. ie. they don't have a right to break my door down to make contact with me. They may have a right to contact me if they use a form of contact that doesn't infringe on my rights. And, correct, I don't have an inherent right to be a hermit. Your point?
Your views of 'individualism' are the exact sort that Hayek and others warn against.
Why would they warn against this?
And yes, to remove any doubt, I can put up a sign making it clear that such an act is trespassing.
That is correct, YOU are responsible for it. And even that is a perfect defence since there is still a public access to your property where it meets public property, an easment (ie the place where a sidewalk goes). In most cities it ranges from 3 to 4 ft. from the curb. That property is managed under imminent domain concepts even though you are responsible for its upkeep and such.
What's your point here?
I don't know if people have a right to send me mail; but my argument is that reguardless of whether they have this right, I should have a private right of action to claim $500 per spam mail.
I have no problem with a 'private right', sue in civil court till the cows come home. That's not what you're talking about or promoting.
This is *exactly* what I'm advocating. I want to have a private right action against spammers, and I want that to be a protected right via tort law.
You're talking about of both sides of your face.
Lost ya there.