At 11:55 PM +0200 9/25/00, Konrad Podloucky wrote:

You got an interesting point there. Being a "latter-day euro" (from a country which has been accused of having a fascist government by most of Europe, but that's another story) I don't really get it that if I were a Jew (homosexual, guy with a non-german name, ... pick your favorite) I'd have to tolerate a group of loonies who don't grant me the right to live. Sure I can't force you to like me or be nice to me, but I think there are certain very basic rules, each of us has to obey, which make living in a society possible. Let's face it: Society isn't self-regulating and as soon as an ideology, philosophy or whatever severely restricts the way of life of a group it's not worth being tolerated, IMNSHO. The very least I expect from a fellow human being is that (s)he acknowledges my right to exist. Personally I think, burning their literature is going a step too far, but being a European, I understand why they (esp. the French) are so afraid of Nazism. But the Anti-Nazi Hysteria is the wrong way to go.

First, a point of clarification in your language. Your phrase " I'd have to tolerate a group of loonies who don't grant me the right to live. " suggests

that in countries with free speech (nominally, the U.S.) that there is some acceptance of crimes of physical violence. Not so. Saying that Jews should be liquidated is generally legal. There are no laws in the U.S. banning books or articles saying this, nor laws banning Nazi literature, Nazi regalia, etc. (There are attempts by certain Zionist-funded groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center to bankrupt groups like Aryan Nation on trumped-up grounds of "incitement" and "complicity." Sadly, the liberal simp-wimp commies in America are leading our nation in the direction Germany and Austria have gone. Leading some of us to wonder just who really did win the Second World War.) On to the main issue, that of "free speech" and why it matters. There's much that can be said here...entire books on the issue of what "free speech" means, and why it is A Good Thing. Obviously, "free speech" means no laws abridging the expression of opinions, however unpopular or heinous. Free speech does NOT mean "free actions," importantly. In a society with free speech, it is perfectly permissable--in the sense of being legal--to advocate liquidation of the Jews, to propose enslavement of blacks, whatever. It is NOT generally permissable to _implement_ these ideas, naturally. And therein lies the difference. I cannot do justice to the arguments for why the free speech outlook is preferable to one in which Bad Thoughts are not legally expressable. One avenue of thought is that such basics, e.g., as embodied in the U.S. Bill of Rights, are "Schelling points" for stable societies. Sort of a "I'll agree to not interfere with your words and what you read and whom you associate with if you agree not to do the same with me; but you'd better not try to coerce me into your worldview or initiate force against me or I'll respond with massive force." (This is not the most elegant expression of this point of view, but perhaps you get the idea.) This "Schelling point" approach is what "open societies" have largely settle upon over the centuries. "Live and let live." Or, as I like to think of it, a kind of Neo-Calvinist approach: if my neighbor wants to goof off and watch porn all day and go to Klan and Nazi rallies every weekend, that is his choice and it is actually _immoral_ for me to interfere in his choices to fuck up his life." As for Germany, Austria, and all of the other countries which claim to be liberal democracies, open societies, but which have various laws banning Nazi literature, imprisoning people for expressing their view that the Holocaust was exaggerated, and so on, their policies are both _wrong_ and _counterproductive_. Nothing has made Nazism more interesting to young persons, mostly young men, than the hint of illegality. "If they don't want me to know about this, there must be something to it." Plus, the usual flaunting of disrespect for authority. Would such anti-Nazi laws have stopped Hitler's rise to power in the 1930s? Maybe. Maybe it just would have been called something else, to "game around" whatever the specific language of the laws might have been. And, of course, the German and Austrian governments of the time changed the laws as they saw fit. Of course, the crypto relevance of all of this is that strong crypto is already making it possible to distribute Nazi and neo-Nazi material in these countries without any possibility that the governments can halt the flow. This will make such laws moot, which is a good thing. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.

Olav wrote:

...

Nothing has made Nazism more interesting to young persons, mostly young men, than the hint of illegality. "If they don't want me to know about this, there must be something to it." Plus, the usual flaunting of disrespect for authority.

The hint of illegality? Well, of course this is a reason, but the question remains that if all people had legal access to nationalsocialist propaganda such as "Mein Kampf",

Only 300 Km from Germany, in England, we never had any trouble with "legal access to nationalsocialist propaganda such as "Mein Kampf"". It was available to me as a child, in my local (government-funded) library & I managed to locate two copies within 10 minutes in the library of this University. My Dad (an anti-Nazi left-winger) had a copy. IIRC it was the version published in English by the anti-Nazi left-wing publishing company, Gollancz (and yes, I think the founder was a Jew) on the principle that people would be less likely to become Nazis if they could actually read the stuff. It seemed to work. I don't think he ever paid any royalties though. I don't think we've all becopme Nazis yet.

But certainly, this is not the reason that young men join the national-socialist cause. It4s about a feeling of superority,

Superiority? Inferiority rather Why would people who thought themselves superior need to submit themselves to a leader? Ken

At 12:01 PM 9/26/00 -0400, Olav wrote:

The hint of illegality? Well, of course this is a reason, but the question remains that if all people had legal access to nationalsocialist propaganda such as "Mein Kampf", would the fact that that mainpart of our

Actually MK *is* available online to everyone, I think from hitler.com (I was curious when Germany messed with some hitler.de domain...) I don't know if this infringes copyright, but that would be the only law that matters here ;-)

...

And, of course, the German and Austrian governments of the time changed the laws as they saw fit.

A lesson their conquerors have since learned well..

...

Of course, the crypto relevance of all of this is that strong crypto is already making it possible to distribute Nazi and neo-Nazi material in these countries without any possibility that the governments can halt the flow.

Wow, congrats, you actually tied the thread to the topic! DH

On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Tim May wrote:

Obviously, "free speech" means no laws abridging the expression of opinions, however unpopular or heinous. Free speech does NOT mean "free actions," importantly. In a society with free speech, it is perfectly permissable--in the sense of being legal--to advocate liquidation of the Jews, to propose enslavement of blacks, whatever. It is NOT generally permissable to _implement_ these ideas, naturally. And therein lies the difference.

There is a deeper point that needs to be made you're glossing right over. It has to do with that term 'free' or 'freedom' you keep throwing around. Your application does not do justice to the meaning of the term. The reality is that 'freedom' means (even in crypto-anarchy circles) the right (note that word Timmy) to engage in whatever behaviour one chooses so long as it is consensual and doesn't abridge anothers right to expression. Trying to 'shun' somebody for their non-invasive behaviour (e.g. two dykes kissing in a ball park) is the peak of anti-freedom. If a person really respects freedom it is more than 'freedom for me but not for thee'. The kissing of the girls was nobodies business, in or out of the park in a FREE society. Tim, you're a bigot and a hypocrite. ____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Riad S. Wahby wrote:

There's a difference, though. There cannot be any law saying that two dykes can't kiss in a ball park, but neither can there be a law saying that a private organization has to accept it in their place of business.

There is NO difference. The fact that it's a business is irrelevant. It's basic inter-personal respect. I don't know about a law, if the basic society doesn't understand the philosophy then the 'law' certainly won't fix that problem. Bottem line, within the context of 'freedom' (for the dykes or business alike) unless it can be shown that the act will directly interfere with that place of business then the business has no say in it. In other words, the personal likes and dislikes of the owner are NOT expresible through the actions of the business. Simply running a business does NOT increase ones ability to manage others actions. Simply wanting to buy an item does not require that I surrender one iota of my personal liberty. The act by the business of refusing to service me as a customer because I don't have the lifestyle they like IS most certainly an infringement of the civil liberties of the customers and they should be able to take action accordingly against the business for trying to constrain their liberty. Your freedom means you NEVER have a say in my freedom. Only my (or your) abuse of that freedom. Demonstrate that the two dykes infringed the right of the owner to try to make a profit. Then, and only then, will you have a case to infringe their right to express their beliefs. Would it have mattered if it was a guy and his girlfriend? If so, why? Why is a man and a woman kissing not infringing or damaging but two women/men is? It's irrational (which is reason enough to question the business operations - their supposed to be rational) and it's coercive. As usual, more 'freedom for me, but not for thee'. Typical anarcho-capital-crypto-libertarian bullshit. ____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

Jim Choate wrote:

Bottem line, within the context of 'freedom' (for the dykes or business alike) unless it can be shown that the act will directly interfere with that place of business then the business has no say in it. In other words, the personal likes and dislikes of the owner are NOT expresible through the actions of the business.

Except if the action is taking place on the property of the business, it is the owner's perogative to ask the people involved to leave. Property rights are just as important to the ballpark owner as personally expressive rights are to the lesbians at the baseball game.

Simply running a business does NOT increase ones ability to manage others actions. Simply wanting to buy an item does not require that I surrender one iota of my personal liberty.

Except inasmuch as you are now one someone else's property and must obey commands from them to leave.

Demonstrate that the two dykes infringed the right of the owner to try to make a profit. Then, and only then, will you have a case to infringe their right to express their beliefs.

Wrong. I don't have to justify throwing you off of land that I own. When I buy a ticket to a ballgame it is subject to the owner letting me in the ballpark. I understand that when I buy the ticket, I take a risk in doing so; the owner can decide he doesn't want me on his property and throw me out. The fact that I bought a ticket doesn't assure me that I'll be allowed to stay in the ballpark, it only assures me that I won't be turned away at the door. The owner can still decide to throw me out at any time.

Would it have mattered if it was a guy and his girlfriend? If so, why? Why is a man and a woman kissing not infringing or damaging but two women/men is?

Because in the owner's eyes this won't be acceptable to the majority of the fans at the game. I personally say let them do whatever they want, but if there's some tightass bible banger sitting next to the two lesbians who decides that such a display is unacceptable and stops taking his three kids to the game, the owner has a problem.

As usual, more 'freedom for me, but not for thee'. Typical anarcho-capital-crypto-libertarian bullshit.

It seems to me that you're the one taking rights away, or perhaps you genuinely don't believe that property rights are valid. In that case, we have no common ground from which to even begin to discuss constructively. -- Riad Wahby rsw@mit.edu MIT VI-2/A 2002 5105

Tom Vogt wrote:

when I buy a ticket, I buy "access" to the game. nobody pays for tickets just to be on the field. so if the owner throws me out I believe that he should refund all or part of the ticket price, because he is not delivering what I payed for (a live sports performance).

The only catch is that the fine print on the ticket tells you that by using the ticket you are entering into an agreement whereby you can be ejected from the game without refund. This gets into contract law, but ignoring this fine point, we basically agree. -- Riad Wahby rsw@mit.edu MIT VI-2/A 2002 5105

At 05:55 PM 9/25/00 -0400, Konrad Podloucky wrote:

You got an interesting point there. Being a "latter-day euro" (from a country which has been accused of having a fascist government by most of Europe, but that's another story) I don't really get it that if I were a Jew (homosexual, guy with a non-german name, ... pick your favorite) I'd have to tolerate a group of loonies who don't grant me the right to live.

They talk big. Talk is free. If they actually become violent in deed ---smash the individuals who acted. But words are just noise. When you say 'accused of fascism' you mean accused of nationalist-rascism, no? Fascism really means state-control of everything, and its only because of National Socialism of the 30-40s' quirks that they are linked in many minds. The US, has been in the 20th century quite fascist in its control of all property and too sensitive (infringing on rights with social engineering) to race.

Sure I can't force you to like me or be nice to me, but I think there are certain very basic rules, each of us has to obey, which make living in a society possible.

In the US, those rules include tolerance for ideas (that if carried out would be infringements of others rights to be left alone). Of course there are social rules. Within the boundaries of no-nonconsensual-harm (ie, others' right to be left alone), you're free to do whatever, no matter how distasteful to others. Let's face it: Society

isn't self-regulating and as soon as an ideology, philosophy or whatever severely restricts the way of life of a group it's not worth being tolerated, IMNSHO. The very least I expect from a fellow human being is that (s)he acknowledges my right to exist.

Acknowledges your right to exist meaning what? That they not run you over at a crosswalk, sure. That they must invite you to give a speech at their private club? No. And why would you care if some scum acknowledges you or not? As long as they leave you alone, they can rant all they like.

Personally I think, burning their literature is going a step too far, but being a European, I understand why they (esp. the French) are so afraid of Nazism. But the Anti-Nazi Hysteria is the wrong way to go.

We explicitly cannot outlaw political parties here, although in the 50s that was lost in our own form of hysteria at the time. (Communist Party (tm) was officially Bad and Threatening) As far as realpsychology goes, active harassment of fringe groups is only going to make them more attractive. dh