Mon. 12/07/09 11:32 EDT
.post #217
[url=Register on the new forum and post there while this one is down - #33 by Autolykos]
Again, very well said. Your (very reasonable) response illustrates perfectly what I meant by “in defense of honest discussion.” Now, instead of honestly expressing yourself, you hold back. John James isn’t even granted the privilege of doing that, since his post has been deleted, which also precludes the opportunity for everyone else to “evaluate it on its own merits.”
And how can I now evaluate your writing “on its own merits,” now that your choice of words is influenced by your desire to avoid sanctions?
You see what I mean? Moderation, either actual or threatened, poisons the possibility of honest discussion.
I hope you’ll consider retracting what you’ve just said here, and also joining me in my request. Let me resort, once again, to “the keyboard.”
I’m both able and willing to make up my own mind, based on the merits of one’s argument. Now, I didn’t read John’s (now deleted) post, but I assume it was something that was quite blatantly rude.
Do you think that such a post hurts you, or hurts my estimation of you?
Not in the least! In fact, such a post tells me nothing whatsoever about you. What it does tell me is something about John James. Why should you, or I, or anyone, object if John wants to show everybody, by his behavior, how rude he can be? That just helps me get to know him a bit better, that’s all.
But, there is a larger issue at stake here.
What is the essence of libertarianism? To me, it is the plea for persuasion over aggression as a means of influencing people.
If we had the power to just snap our fingers and silence all the statists in the world, would finger-snapping pave the royal road to the society we’re striving for?
You know it wouldn’t. Even if it would, we’d all be hypocrites for justifying the end with those means. If we really believe in the power of persuasion, we must walk our talk. It’s not easy, but we don’t choose those means because they are easy; we choose them because they are consistent with our principles. We choose them because they are right.
This is a forum. The idea of a forum, in the broadest sense, is a place where people come to practice the civilized method of influencing others, i.e., the use of rhetoric and argumentation. Please note that “civilized” does not (necessarily) imply “polite” or “honest.” What it does imply is both the absence of coercion, and also the willingness to “evaluate the words of others on their own merits.” And that implies that we grant to the participants of a forum, even the rude ones, the ability both to write their words honestly, and also to read them.
I submit that moderation is antithetical to this process, and I call on you once again, as one libertarian to another, to join me in asking the moderator to please restore John James’s deleted post.