Free & Open Society & toleration
Hi, It has been asserted that I am claiming that a free and open society should not abide any and all actions in contrast to Jim Bell's assertion that a free and open society must tolerate any action. This is not my case at all. I hold that a DEMOCRATIC society with a HEALTHY ECONOMIC system must have some minimum standards on what is allowed. By no means do I hold that the ONLY means of a free and open society is a democracy. It is quite possible to have an anarchy which would also be a free and open society and by DEFINITION would tolerate any action by its members acting individualy or in concert. I hold that for a democratic society to retain concepts of freedom and equity under the law as well as be economicaly viable, especialy in an environment where 'reputation' is critical such as a network over which economic transactions can take place with nothing more than a email order and a EFT, must not provide ex post facto AND carte blanche protection of the speech of the citizens. For such a system to operate requires a 'reputation' system to be in place. For such a system to be viable it MUST protect those reputations otherwise the concept of a 'contract' is worthless. I DO hold that this system MUST provide a priori protection of all speech. I further hold that any distinction between the 'government' and the people of a nation is a false and misleading distinction which is not in the best interest of the society because it by DEFINITION promotes a class society which is by definition contrary to the goal of equity under a democracy. It further provides a mechanism by which the representatives of the 'state' may claim immunity from the very standards they are charged with enforcing. This is because the charter of such a society is itself simply a contract between any arbitrary individual of that society and the sum total of the remaining citizenry (ie the 'state'). I further hold that one of the current legal practices based on precidence which MUST be replaced is our system dealing with defamation. I further hold that our current system of legal representation is inherently flawed and prevents equal representation under the law. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage@ssz.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970201:2001 Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com> said: +I further hold that one of the current legal practices based on +precidence which MUST be replaced is our system dealing with +defamation. I further hold that our current system of legal +representation is inherently flawed and prevents equal representation +under the law. BULLSHIT why don't you toll the bell for freedom while you're at it, and think about 'for whom the bell tolls.' --it tolls for thee. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: Encrypted with 2.6.3i. Requires 2.6 or later. iQCVAwUBMvTgoL04kQrCC2kFAQHeuQP8CtEQx/Rw/fLHqIx9UOfqp3QK4fQXKneV PXDiZvTi9aTLqd/8D64CgNmRizmb26NIMlEBXXt/YreucdYKSWByBkmMozKw7kxY QN3N/of1wZfqbXmJQj2+oV5dG9ieNWM3mkQw8pp79z8qa6jGYMt3xW1aqsYaweR0 Kx8zM9xm8S8= =4Hwo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jim Choate wrote:
It has been asserted that I am claiming that a free and open society should not abide any and all actions in contrast to Jim Bell's assertion that a free and open society must tolerate any action. This is not my case at all. I hold that a DEMOCRATIC society with a HEALTHY ECONOMIC system must have some minimum standards on what is allowed. By no means do I hold that the ONLY means of a free and open society is a democracy. It is quite possible to have an anarchy which would also be a free and open society and by DEFINITION would tolerate any action by its members acting individualy or in concert.
[snip] Nobody has a problem with your ideals, it's just that Jim Bell is trying to say (correct me and forgive me if I'm wrong) that: 1. Society will never subscribe to your ideals. 2. Society is not static, i.e., instead of remaining at a constant level of corruption, the officials will keep demanding more, until there's a sudden, catastrophic break. 3. The AP solution has the potential to stabilize the level of corruption, which should make violent revolutions and genocide unnecessary.
Jim Choate wrote:
It has been asserted that I am claiming that a free and open society should not abide any and all actions in contrast to Jim Bell's assertion that a free and open society must tolerate any action.
This is not my case at all. I hold that a DEMOCRATIC society with a HEALTHY ECONOMIC system must have some minimum standards on what is allowed. By no means do I hold that the ONLY means of a free and open society is a democracy. It is quite possible to have an anarchy which would also be a free and open society and by DEFINITION would tolerate any action by its members acting individualy or in concert.
I have waited, with bated breath, for you to take a position which is short, concise, and well-reasoned. Well, you finally did, but you just couldn't leave it alone, could you? I think that what you have written (above) is a valid and meaningful statement of your position. I see what follows, however, as a train of 'logic' which follows a pre-defined, emotionally-charged justification of a defensive position you have taken, as a result of a real or imagined 'slight'. I have followed your 'libel' thread, as rambling (and sometimes dichotomously incoherent) as it is, and I recognize that you are passionate in your beliefs (for which I salute you), but I think that perhaps your interests might be better served if you let logic lead your emotions. If you did so, I might well hire you as my lawyer (to defend me in your libel suit against me), since you do have a 'bulldog' sense of determination in pursing any position you take. The million-and-one posts you made with the results of your search-engine research on libel only served to accentuate your inability to fully understand the issues underlying libel and defamation. Your own opinions regarding your thoughts and opinions regarding these same issues were much more poignant and enlightening. I would hope that, in the future, you would justify your beliefs and opinions with a revelation of your own points of logic (or illogic) rather than attempting to support them with legalese rulings which often stand on a foundation of sand, especially under close judicial scrutiny. You do, indeed, raise some points that are worthy of valid consideration, and debate, but they tend to get lost in your excessive arguments regarding them. Toto
participants (4)
-
Attila T. Hun -
Dale Thorn -
Jim Choate -
Toto