So what is freedom?

[Radiant head]

I dunno, I tend to evaluate information on its own basis rather than making tenuous impressions of the website title.

[Snowy_One]

I dunno, I tend to evaluate information on its own basis rather than making tenuous impressions of the website title.

But Polygon and Kotaku exist...

[blah the Prussian]

I dunno, I tend to evaluate information on its own basis rather than making tenuous impressions of the website title.

Fair enough. So tell me, what does this article prove? How does it argue in favor of civilian oversight? Also, do you know why there is some "link" between the police and empire? Because you need police to keep an empire. Its like saying there is a link between genocide and bullets. Thanks, Captain Obvious! Does that mean the military should stop using guns?

[Relick]

I'm not particularly interested in the debate about policing in America (mostly since I don't believe I have enough knowledge about the situation), although the question of freedom is something that interests me greatly.

I highly recommend On Liberty to anyone thinking about the topic, and there's plenty of other essays/books such as by Locke and Rawls that are also very intriguing, IMO. I currently see full freedom as the default state of a human, in that if you just had a single human alone, they'd have no obligations or relationships or anything reducing their freedom. Humanity, on the other hand, I see the default state lying elsewhere, since we're vicious creatures, and more importantly, we know we're vicious creatures. Once you have a group of people, it seems most likely to me that they would decide on a common set of rules and laws to abide by that limit their freedom, but in return greatly improve their security. I'd call this "reduced freedom". Having a leader, or a leadership is purely a result of the expansion of these societies and also the division of labour.

From this point of reduced freedom, the people can choose to (or come to accept to, in the case of a leader making the decisions) surrender more of their freedom in return for security, and things beyond security. However, I don't actually think that there is a specific level of freedom that is good for everyone. I believe the most important thing is that the people agree with the amount and type of freedom they have. There's a lot of factors that play into whether people agree with their freedom, though, but generally I think there is a range in which it's unlikely there is going to be any form of societal collapse or revolution (which is currently where most nations in the world rest).

As for desirability, well, I don't think that any society without freedom can survive so I'd say it's 100% imperative in at least some form. Personally, I'd like as much freedom as possible (to the limit of active harm on others), but I can understand that not everyone should have that much freedom, nor would everyone want it. A utopian society in my mind would give as much freedom to each person as they could be trusted with, and that they want. Of course, that would be pretty much impossible to achieve, sadly, and in the mean time instilling cultures and shared values into a society is likely a better way of doing things in order for a one size fits all set of laws to work.

It's important to note that democracy is not necessary at all for people to have extensive freedom. However, a properly functioning democracy is the least likely government form to take away too much freedom from its people. I believe in a constitutional monarchy on top of a democracy as the best form of government in terms of achieving stability and maximising benefit to the society, although this post has gone on long enough already and the best government form is another debate entirely, so I'll leave it there for now xD

[Phoenix Wright]

But why are any of these reforms impossible normally?

why are you asking me this?

I'm pretty certain that that isn't what Anny was suggesting though as these things simply make it so that the police are accountable to the laws, not under direct oversight by civilians.

there cannot be a body of people directly supervising police. that's stupid. what people can do to curb abused police power, hence "oversight," is make it so that--via rallying, voting, and sustaining support for--laws and policies we might introduce as a community force better police into the department in the first place and for said policies and laws to have enough backbone to keep good cops in and bad ones out.

[blah the Prussian]

why are you asking me this?

there cannot be a body of people directly supervising police. that's stupid. what people can do to curb abused police power, hence "oversight," is make it so that--via rallying, voting, and sustaining support for--laws and policies we might introduce as a community force better police into the department in the first place and for said policies and laws to have enough backbone to keep good cops in and bad ones out.

So we seem to be having two different conversations. Anouleth misinterpreted my original thoughts on civilian oversight-that is, civilian ownership of the police- to mean that I favor the status quo, which I do not. I then misinterpreted his post to mean that he did favor civilian ownership of the police. Sorry for the confusion.

[Makaze]

Freedom: The ability to control your own actions and the circumstances that frame them.

True freedom is impossible. We are limited by resources, the limits drawn by the actions of others, and our own desires.

"We can control our own actions." Is that true? Our range of actions is limited to the things we want to do. We don't want to want to do them, we just want to them or we end up in infinite regression.

"We can control our circumstances." Is that true? Can you choose to pluck two apples from a tree when there is only one apple on it?

Edited September 10, 2015 by Makaze

[Relick]

"We can control our own actions." Is that true? Our range of actions is limited to the things we want to do. We don't want to want to do them, we just want to them or we end up in infinite regression.

I think the point of "we can control our own actions" is more to do with being able to decide whether or not to act on wants and needs, and even being able to do things that you don't want, nor need, for other factors. I don't think controlling your wants comes under actions either, since wants aren't actions.

[Makaze]

I think the point of "we can control our own actions" is more to do with being able to decide whether or not to act on wants and needs, and even being able to do things that you don't want, nor need, for other factors. I don't think controlling your wants comes under actions either, since wants aren't actions.

In other words, you control your wants because you want to...?

Suppose you rebel against your first impulse. Why? Because you had a secondary impulse that overrode the first one? Or did you not choose it at all, like how your leg kicks when your knee is hit with a mallet?

Edited September 11, 2015 by Makaze

[Relick]

In other words, you control your wants because you want to...?

Suppose you rebel against your first impulse. Why? Because you had a secondary impulse that overrode the first one? Or did you not choose it at all, like how your leg kicks when your knee is hit with a mallet?

I didn't say anything about controlling wants, only controlling actions. Also important to consider, though, is that we can rationally or irrationally convince ourselves that we want or don't want something. It's not only a random subconscious thing that just happens without much reason.

Edited September 11, 2015 by Relick

[Rapier]

Freedom: The ability to control your own actions and the circumstances that frame them.

True freedom is impossible. We are limited by resources, the limits drawn by the actions of others, and our own desires.

"We can control our own actions." Is that true? Our range of actions is limited to the things we want to do. We don't want to want to do them, we just want to them or we end up in infinite regression.

"We can control our circumstances." Is that true? Can you choose to pluck two apples from a tree when there is only one apple on it?

You may accuse me of being pedantic on this one, but I believe there is something wrong with the term "true freedom". For true freedom to be imposssible we'd need it to be false (on your own terms, it'd mean that we have no ability to control our actions and the circunstances framing them). But it just happens that we have a relative capability of controling our actions and the circunstances that frame them, so it's not that our freedom is false, but that it is relative (I believe that only a triomni-like being could be absolutely free).

Our range of actions is not limited to the things we want to do, first and foremost. I prefer playing games over cleaning the dishes, but that does not mean I am not capable of cleaning the dishes, and it is possible that I will end up doing so despite me not wanting to do it (I may have a rational reason to do it, which tips the scale against my irrational demotivation). Studies also show that with persistence I can turn something which was undesired into a habit, making it less painful and integrating it in my routine. In the end, through reason I can make my brain get used to a task I dislike until it accepts it. It is like rowing against the wind, but it is possible, which is the point.

I can't control the circunstances that frame my actions most of the time, but I can choose along with what the circunstances have presented to me (if freedom were to be false, I absolutely wouldn't), and in some cases I can influence the circunstances and pick exactly what I want, or pick a third choice. So my control over the circunstances is relative, as well. For these reasons I believe freedom exists, but that it is relative.

[Makaze]

You may accuse me of being pedantic on this one, but I believe there is something wrong with the term "true freedom". For true freedom to be imposssible we'd need it to be false (on your own terms, it'd mean that we have no ability to control our actions and the circunstances framing them). But it just happens that we have a relative capability of controling our actions and the circunstances that frame them, so it's not that our freedom is false, but that it is relative (I believe that only a triomni-like being could be absolutely free).

Our range of actions is not limited to the things we want to do, first and foremost. I prefer playing games over cleaning the dishes, but that does not mean I am not capable of cleaning the dishes, and it is possible that I will end up doing so despite me not wanting to do it (I may have a rational reason to do it, which tips the scale against my irrational demotivation). Studies also show that with persistence I can turn something which was undesired into a habit, making it less painful and integrating it in my routine. In the end, through reason I can make my brain get used to a task I dislike until it accepts it. It is like rowing against the wind, but it is possible, which is the point.

I can't control the circunstances that frame my actions most of the time, but I can choose along with what the circunstances have presented to me (if freedom were to be false, I absolutely wouldn't), and in some cases I can influence the circunstances and pick exactly what I want, or pick a third choice. So my control over the circunstances is relative, as well. For these reasons I believe freedom exists, but that it is relative.

Have you thought that through? I think you know that rationality is relative too. You can't apply rationality unless you have a preferred outcome. If your goal depends on annihilating the enemy, it may be rational to sacrifice a lot to attain that goal. If your goal depends on the survival of your people, it may be rational not to take opportunities to annihilate the enemy. Whether you personally feel like letting your friend die or letting that bastard get away in that moment does not change that you have a larger goal, which is something that you want.

You may not wish to do the dishes directly, but your desire to have an enjoyable meal, to avoid diseases, to keep an aesthetically pleasing living space, and so on all require that you clean them. If by "relative freedom" you mean the freedom to focus on how much you enjoy the activity you are doing at the moment and ignore the larger cause and effect, how is that anything more than self-deception? You know that those bigger desires led to the indirect desire to clean the dishes. I hope there's no debate there. Does ignoring some of your wants to frame the choice as not what you wanted on the surface make you free? I could have truck with it if you weren't aware of your deeper desires, but since they are so obvious I can't help but laugh. You might as well say people go to jobs they hate because they are free to choose what to do.

I didn't say anything about controlling wants, only controlling actions. Also important to consider, though, is that we can rationally or irrationally convince ourselves that we want or don't want something. It's not only a random subconscious thing that just happens without much reason.

In scenario 1 (rational decision making), what standard do you use to determine if it is rational or irrational? Whence cometh the goal?

In scenario 2 (irrational decision making), why convince yourself? Whence cometh the desire to think your way out of it?

You could argue that the action you ultimately take is more than a result of the desires because your thought process is involved, and that's true. But if you look a little deeper, the thought process only exists because desires start the process. You think. Why do you think? Because you want to solve some puzzle. You want to. If you don't want to, then you won't think or your mind will wander in ways that are not under your control. That wanting must just happen at some level. Or for those thoughts that you don't create intentionally, they just come to you out of nowhere and you react to them: that's not free either.

In other words, thinking is an action too, and you can't do it intentionally (with your will) unless you have an intent in doing so. If you can't control your intent then you can't control the actions that result either, including your thoughts.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Makaze

[Makaze]

Accidental doublepost; sorry.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Makaze

[Relick]

In scenario 1 (rational decision making), what standard do you use to determine if it is rational or irrational? Whence cometh the goal?

In scenario 2 (irrational decision making), why convince yourself? Whence cometh the desire to think your way out of it?

You could argue that the action you ultimately take is more than a result of the desires because your thought process is involved, and that's true. But if you look a little deeper, the thought process only exists because desires start the process. You think. Why do you think? Because you want to solve some puzzle. You want to. If you don't want to, then you won't think or your mind will wander in ways that are not under your control. That wanting must just happen at some level. Or for those thoughts that you don't create intentionally, they just come to you out of nowhere and you react to them: that's not free either.

In other words, thinking is an action too, and you can't do it intentionally (with your will) unless you have an intent in doing so. If you can't control your intent then you can't control the actions that result either, including your thoughts.

Your logic only applies if you believe that someone's thoughts are a different thing from their physical body. I don't. As far as I'm concerned, if a chemical process within the body causes a change of a want, then that is still the person in control because to me the concept of control is something attributive to an entire individual, not just their thoughts. Sure, you can argue that the brain's conscious thought section is a different thing from the various glands in the body, and within a person, the control lies in various places but there's really no such thing a non-physical thought or action. The way I see it, there's nothing special about thoughts that separates them from the reflexive traits of the CNS - other than awareness.

Of course, my belief here is debatable, but from my position control can have only two definitions:

- Nothing has control.

- Control is individualistic and attributed once, as a whole, to each sentient being.

Technically, I use both, depending on the context. If the context is arguing that people have controllable thoughts, then I go with the first definition, and if the context is arguing about whom has control in situations (i.e. once you start treating sentient beings as units with certain behaviours, as opposed to bags of chemicals) then I use second definition.

Hmm, with all my rambling I feel like we're arguing for the same point just from different perspectives.

[Makaze]

Your logic only applies if you believe that someone's thoughts are a different thing from their physical body. I don't. As far as I'm concerned, if a chemical process within the body causes a change of a want, then that is still the person in control because to me the concept of control is something attributive to an entire individual, not just their thoughts. Sure, you can argue that the brain's conscious thought section is a different thing from the various glands in the body, and within a person, the control lies in various places but there's really no such thing a non-physical thought or action. The way I see it, there's nothing special about thoughts that separates them from the reflexive traits of the CNS - other than awareness.

Of course, my belief here is debatable, but from my position control can have only two definitions:

- Nothing has control.

- Control is individualistic and attributed once, as a whole, to each sentient being.

Technically, I use both, depending on the context. If the context is arguing that people have controllable thoughts, then I go with the first definition, and if the context is arguing about whom has control in situations (i.e. once you start treating sentient beings as units with certain behaviours, as opposed to bags of chemicals) then I use second definition.

Hmm, with all my rambling I feel like we're arguing for the same point just from different perspectives.

Physical hard determinism leads to the same absurdity metaphysical determinism implies, right? In both cases the feeling that you could have done something else is an illusion: you were always going to do that thing. Where are we disagreeing?

[Relick]

Physical hard determinism leads to the same absurdity metaphysical determinism implies, right? In both cases the feeling that you could have done something else is an illusion: you were always going to do that thing. Where are we disagreeing?

I don't think we're disagreeing, it was only your original comment in your first post that felt off to me.

Still, bringing this discussion back to the topic's theme. Determinism would suggest people are always going to do a certain thing, but I think that what happens is definitely influenced by how much freedom is allowed for people. And by this, I mean, as with all decisions they are heavily influenced by their surroundings and some will do great things within a system of low freedom, and others will do great things within a system of high freedom, but if they are in a system opposite to the one they would be better suited for, then they are not likely to take decisions that would be for the greatest benefit of themselves or humanity.

[Makaze]

I don't think we're disagreeing, it was only your original comment in your first post that felt off to me.

Still, bringing this discussion back to the topic's theme. Determinism would suggest people are always going to do a certain thing, but I think that what happens is definitely influenced by how much freedom is allowed for people. And by this, I mean, as with all decisions they are heavily influenced by their surroundings and some will do great things within a system of low freedom, and others will do great things within a system of high freedom, but if they are in a system opposite to the one they would be better suited for, then they are not likely to take decisions that would be for the greatest benefit of themselves or humanity.

If free will exists, then you are just as free when threatened at gun point as when there are no obvious consequences because your decision is not determined in either case.

If free will does not exist, then you are not any less free when threatened than when there are no consequences because your decision is determined in both cases.

Doesn't that mean that the difference is only a perceived difference in freedom? How can you justify it other than the feeling?

If you define freedom as how free someone feels then that changes things.

[Relick]

If free will exists, then you are just as free when threatened at gun point as when there are no obvious consequences because your decision is not determined in either case.

If free will does not exist, then you are not any less free when threatened than when there are no consequences because your decision is determined in both cases.

Doesn't that mean that the difference is only a perceived difference in freedom? How can you justify it other than the feeling?

If you define freedom as how free someone feels then that changes things.

"when there are no obvious consequences" You can't be threatened at gun point if there are no obvious consequences, so I fail to see how your thought experiment helps.

Still, I get your point - is freedom how someone feels or is it an objective quantifiable thing? My answer, is both. For when someone is making a decision, they have a personal freedom which is purely their perceived freedom. An good example is Reek, from A Song of Ice and Fire, as someone who actually does have a lot of freedom, but has been mentally broken in such a way as to make him think that he in fact has little to no freedom. An average citizen of a stable country likely has a perceived level of freedom that makes them feel that certain actions are off-limits, e.g. murder, theft or assault. While they have a freedom to do those things in the sense that nothing is really stopping them, the consequences are what make people believe they don't have that freedom. Another example could be of a religious person who's religion does not allow them to eat a certain meat. They technically have the freedom to do so, but they won't because that is a freedom at a price.

Then, on the other side of things, the quantifiable type of freedom is something that is a factor in influencing how much freedom people perceive they have. If the state allows more freedoms, people will likely perceive themselves to be freer, and vice versa. It's not just the state that can decide on this objective freedom, societal pressures can too, and also family relations (although that comes under societal pressures I guess). What actually counts as freedom is debatable - I work on the basis that everything is free except when there are coercive measures as consequences of an action.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Relick

[Rapier]

Ok, Makaze, I admit I didn't think this through, and that I can't think about this on a deeper level, but I can't agree that there is no freedom because then we wouldn't be able to choose at all. Since we are able to choose, despite not being able to do so in an absolute level (controlling our wills and all the circunstances), then it follows that freedom must exist, no matter how limited, relative and small it is. Freedom is false only if there is no choice and no way to influence the circunstances. Also, if you admit part of our wants are rational, and our rationality can be influenced by us, then we are at least able to exert a minimal control on our freedom.

Also, isn't saying we aren't free because we can't control our will troll logic? If my subconscious tells me to eat chocolate and I do so, how am I less free for doing what I want at the moment, in contrast to not being able to do what I want, which would be the case if I weren't free? Am I mistaking volition with freedom?

Edited September 18, 2015 by Rapier

[Makaze]

Ok, Makaze, I admit I didn't think this through, and that I can't think about this on a deeper level, but I can't agree that there is no freedom because then we wouldn't be able to choose at all. Since we are able to choose, despite not being able to do so in an absolute level (controlling our wills and all the circunstances), then it follows that freedom must exist, no matter how limited, relative and small it is. Freedom is false only if there is no choice and no way to influence the circunstances. Also, if you admit part of our wants are rational, and our rationality can be influenced by us, then we are at least able to exert a minimal control on our freedom.

Also, isn't saying we aren't free because we can't control our will troll logic? If my subconscious tells me to eat chocolate and I do so, how am I less free for doing what I want at the moment, in contrast to not being able to do what I want, which would be the case if I weren't free? Am I mistaking volition with freedom?

I think you are, yeah. I think it's a matter of perception.

Go back to the apples on a tree example. You can't choose to take two apples from a tree with only one apple, right? But what if I asked you how many you wanted without telling you how many are on the tree? Then you could choose any number... but not really.

If you factor in that you couldn't have chosen to want two apples but just happened to want them then all choices work this way.

Having volition doesn't make you less determined, it makes you happier with your perceived options. I guess if you define freedom as the possibility to achieve your goals then freedom exists, but it seems a hollow claim when you were always going to take those chances if they were available to you. It's like arguing that a computer program has more freedom than a simpler one because more of its conditionals are fulfilled.

"when there are no obvious consequences" You can't be threatened at gun point if there are no obvious consequences, so I fail to see how your thought experiment helps.

Still, I get your point - is freedom how someone feels or is it an objective quantifiable thing? My answer, is both. For when someone is making a decision, they have a personal freedom which is purely their perceived freedom. An good example is Reek, from A Song of Ice and Fire, as someone who actually does have a lot of freedom, but has been mentally broken in such a way as to make him think that he in fact has little to no freedom. An average citizen of a stable country likely has a perceived level of freedom that makes them feel that certain actions are off-limits, e.g. murder, theft or assault. While they have a freedom to do those things in the sense that nothing is really stopping them, the consequences are what make people believe they don't have that freedom. Another example could be of a religious person who's religion does not allow them to eat a certain meat. They technically have the freedom to do so, but they won't because that is a freedom at a price.

Then, on the other side of things, the quantifiable type of freedom is something that is a factor in influencing how much freedom people perceive they have. If the state allows more freedoms, people will likely perceive themselves to be freer, and vice versa. It's not just the state that can decide on this objective freedom, societal pressures can too, and also family relations (although that comes under societal pressures I guess). What actually counts as freedom is debatable - I work on the basis that everything is free except when there are coercive measures as consequences of an action.

Doesn't that model ignore that threats and consequences take advantage of your personal desires? Not everyone fears death, for example.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Makaze

[Autumn]

I think freedom works on a scale depending on the limits it has.

Freedom in a philosophical sense is, as Makaze puts it "true freedom". That is freedom from the influence of consequence, upbringing, and physical ability etc. This is the ability to do the thing you "want" whatever that may be, for a being free from the effects of human cognition. This is also unimaginable for humans because, as Relick said, the human mind is biologically part of us, and by trying to imagine what we would want without having all the aspects that makes us, us, such as 'upbringing, physical ability etc" we arrive at a paradox. In the same way it's impossible to imagine a world without us, that is, with oneself dead, since by the act of imagining it we would still be there as an observer and thus not dead. This makes this definition of "freedom" sterile and useless. This brings me to 'functional freedom'.

I think functional freedom (functional as a human on planet earth) is the maximum freedom allowed to an individual without physical or political consequence. That is only limited by one's nature and nuture, the laws of physics etc. This is the freedom to stab someone who is in the close enough proximity to do so, you desire to, and you also have a knife, in the face- and not get any kind of repercussion from doing so. This can be considered to be "true" freedom, in the confines of ability.

Then there is practical freedom, where the limits of consequence, such as getting ostracised from society come into play. This is the level our society functions on, and why we have debates about freedom of speech, etc.

Practical freedom is also what this thread was originally about. I haven't really thought out my stance on this, but as of current I think a minimalist government would be the most desirable. That is, the only function of the state is to protect it's citizens and to punish it's criminals. This way war is avoidable since there is no such power grabbing from the government etc. This is essentially the libertarian idea of how a world could be run and you can look it up on google. Again I didn't think this out too much, so I won't bother debating it.

The one real libertarian value I happen to care about is the freedom of speech. That is the ability to say whatever you want, free from political or physical consequence, that is "functional freedom" the ability to do the maximum within the bounds of the limitations of the human body and planet earth. Bad ideas will spread if no one is able to speak up against it, I cite Orwell's 1984 for why it would be disastrous if the freedom of expression is restricted. As for the potential "hurt feelings" that may result in this, I think it's a necessary sacrifice. I also think stoicism 101 "offense is taken not given" would be a good lesson for these people to learn. So yes, I think a certain kind of freedom is worth "fighting for", what method of "fight" this might be depends on how hypocritical and militant said activist is, I don't have an opinion on that.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Autumn

[blah the Prussian]

I think freedom works on a scale depending on the limits it has.

Freedom in a philosophical sense is, as Makaze puts it "true freedom". That is freedom from the influence of consequence, upbringing, and physical ability etc. This is the ability to do the thing you "want" whatever that may be, for a being free from the effects of human cognition. This is also unimaginable for humans because, as Relick said, the human mind is biologically part of us, and by trying to imagine what we would want without having all the aspects that makes us, us, such as 'upbringing, physical ability etc" we arrive at a paradox. In the same way it's impossible to imagine a world without us, that is, with oneself dead, since by the act of imagining it we would still be there as an observer and thus not dead. This makes this definition of "freedom" sterile and useless. This brings me to 'functional freedom'.

I think functional freedom (functional as a human on planet earth) is the maximum freedom allowed to an individual without physical or political consequence. That is only limited by one's nature and nuture, the laws of physics etc. This is the freedom to stab someone who is in the close enough proximity to do so, you desire to, and you also have a knife, in the face- and not get any kind of repercussion from doing so. This can be considered to be "true" freedom, in the confines of ability.

Then there is practical freedom, where the limits of consequence, such as getting ostracised from society come into play. This is the level our society functions on, and why we have debates about freedom of speech, etc.

Practical freedom is also what this thread was originally about. I haven't really thought out my stance on this, but as of current I think a minimalist government would be the most desirable. That is, the only function of the state is to protect it's citizens and to punish it's criminals. This way war is avoidable since there is no such power grabbing from the government etc. This is essentially the libertarian idea of how a world could be run and you can look it up on google. Again I didn't think this out too much, so I won't bother debating it.

The one real libertarian value I happen to care about is the freedom of speech. That is the ability to say whatever you want, free from political or physical consequence, that is "functional freedom" the ability to do the maximum within the bounds of the limitations of the human body and planet earth. Bad ideas will spread if no one is able to speak up against it, I cite Orwell's 1984 for why it would be disastrous if the freedom of expression is restricted. As for the potential "hurt feelings" that may result in this, I think it's a necessary sacrifice. I also think stoicism 101 "offense is taken not given" would be a good lesson for these people to learn. So yes, I think a certain kind of freedom is worth "fighting for", what method of "fight" this might be depends on how hypocritical and militant said activist is, I don't have an opinion on that.

But what about hate speech? Hate speech isn't just about hurting people's feelings, it often advocates for violence against those groups. Hate speech, in fact, was the reason the Nazis came into power. You say the function of the state is rot protect its people. If that function comes into conflict with freedom of speech, which do you consider more important?

[Autumn]

But what about hate speech? Hate speech isn't just about hurting people's feelings, it often advocates for violence against those groups. Hate speech, in fact, was the reason the Nazis came into power. You say the function of the state is rot protect its people. If that function comes into conflict with freedom of speech, which do you consider more important?

Then someone will call it out. Sure Hitler came to power because WWI made the Germans hate everyone out of it to begin with, or at the very least unsympathetic. So it was indeed was (kind of) the power of "hate speech", but so what? How is the state supposed to restrict it when he has the support of the bloody populace, and the state itself? Nothing would have stopped it, tbf and this was because of WWI, and is currently happenning in the middle east towards- There is no way to stop it, there is no state that wants to or can prohibit it.

What kept Hitler in power, was the restriction of expression. While Hitler was succeeding in the war, the populace treated him like a hero, because they were unsympathetic towards the French, the Jews and the Russians at the start. But once the war dragged on, people became disillusioned with this idea of restoring Germany. Just look at all the accounts of Nazi soldiers. However their voices were silenced and the populace brainwashed with propaganda- How did this happen? The gestapo and the policing of speech. Had the freedom of speech not been curbed, then someone would have spoken out, soldiers and their families will speak out. Just like America's soldiers are, about the war in the middle east right now.

Currently people in the west are more accepting towards other cultures than it ever was. There is no threat of "hate speech" rousing the masses in the modern west. What the west IS in trouble of, is it's incredibly powerful government that is able to wage wars of it's own accord according to it's own interests.

So, yes, the freedom of speech is more important, because it's impossible to curb it when it is beneficial to do so (when hatespeech can rouse an entire population) and the only method in which the spread of bad ideas such as those found in hatespeech, can be stopped, is through time and the freedom of speech.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Autumn

[blah the Prussian]

Then someone will call it out. Sure Hitler came to power because WWI made the Germans hate everyone out of it to begin with, or at the very least unsympathetic. So it was indeed was (kind of) the power of "hate speech", but so what? How is the state supposed to restrict it when he has the support of the bloody populace, and the state itself? Nothing would have stopped it, tbf and this was because of WWI, and is currently happenning in the middle east towards- There is no way to stop it, there is no state that wants to or can prohibit it.

What kept Hitler in power, was the restriction of expression. While Hitler was succeeding in the war, the populace treated him like a hero, because they were unsympathetic towards the French, the Jews and the Russians at the start. But once the war dragged on, people became disillusioned with this idea of restoring Germany. Just look at all the accounts of Nazi soldiers. However their voices were silenced and the populace brainwashed with propaganda- How did this happen? The gestapo and the policing of speech. Had the freedom of speech not been curbed, then someone would have spoken out, soldiers and their families will speak out. Just like America's soldiers are, about the war in the middle east right now.

Currently people in the west are more accepting towards other cultures than it ever was. There is no threat of "hate speech" rousing the masses in the modern west. What the west IS in trouble of, is it's incredibly powerful government that is able to wage wars of it's own accord according to it's own interests.

So, yes, the freedom of speech is more important, because it's impossible to curb it when it is beneficial to do so (when hatespeech can rouse an entire population) and the only method in which the spread of bad ideas such as those found in hatespeech, can be stopped, is through time and the freedom of speech.

If he had been shut down he might have never became a problem. What should have happened was that he be executed for treason in 1923, but whatever. As long as you have clear rules about what can or can't be censored there is little to no risk of tyranny. Hell, Germany today censors the Nazis, and they have remained a functioning democracy because of it. Also, I don't know which a West you live in, but where I come from, there is a good deal of hate speech rousing the population. Some examples:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miloš_Zeman

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Orbán

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Farage

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Le_Pen

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump

That last one you probably know, but the first four are the leaders of extremely xenophobic parties in Europe. In the case of Zeman and Orban, both have actually been elected, and Le Pen, Farage, and Trump are quite popular. S I think it is safe to say that there is an ever present threat of hate speech within the West. You know who doesn't have a popular xenophobic politician? Germany, because it's laws against hate speech created a more tolerant culture. To get everything out there, what should be censored is anything calling for violence against anyone, including the government and white people.

[Makaze]

If he had been shut down he might have never became a problem. What should have happened was that he be executed for treason in 1923, but whatever. As long as you have clear rules about what can or can't be censored there is little to no risk of tyranny. Hell, Germany today censors the Nazis, and they have remained a functioning democracy because of it. Also, I don't know which a West you live in, but where I come from, there is a good deal of hate speech rousing the population. Some examples:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miloš_Zeman

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Orbán

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Farage

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Le_Pen

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump

That last one you probably know, but the first four are the leaders of extremely xenophobic parties in Europe. In the case of Zeman and Orban, both have actually been elected, and Le Pen, Farage, and Trump are quite popular. S I think it is safe to say that there is an ever present threat of hate speech within the West. You know who doesn't have a popular xenophobic politician? Germany, because it's laws against hate speech created a more tolerant culture. To get everything out there, what should be censored is anything calling for violence against anyone, including the government and white people.

Does that sentiment extend to defending that violence after the fact?