Author Topic: The Slippery Slope?  (Read 7251 times)

October 19, 2016, 02:06:03 am
Reply #25


  • *
  • Master of the five stringed banjo

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 413
    • View Profile
I cant believe I missed this thread.

And to give you an idea of the Daily Fail readers, look at the polls on the side. 54% want to ban Blackberry Messenger because it was used to "incite" the riots.

I'm not a fan of social media. It's like a more "powerful" version of television. It invades privacy and allows the 'state', as well as various NGOs and other pressure groups, to beam propaganda and other disinformation straight into people's homes (computers) and hands (smartphones).

I can definitely see very good reasons to regulate social media. Off the top of my head, I can see strong reasons to impose restrictions on the use of social media by violent criminals, state agents and NGOs. I can also see why it would be good to limit the use of social media by people under the age of 16, who could easily be exposed to various criminal / extremist groups, and to impose regulations which prohibit the collection and public exposure of potentially embarrassing information concerning users.

I'm also not a fan of workplaces and schools encouraging the use of Facebook, and I could easily support regulations against authority figures (e.g. employers, teachers, etc...) imposing the use of social media whenever the use of such is not strictly necessary.

Also, why so much hate against socialism in this thread? Socialism is not inherently anti-freedom, it just happens to be an ideology which has been implemented by persons who have little respect for liberty. Capitalism is not inherently pro-freedom, as economic liberties have no intrinsic connection whatsoever to civil liberties.
The way I see it, capitalism, anarchism and socialism all recognize different, but equally valid, forms of fundamentally-opposed rights and liberties. Capitalists see property rights as most important, but these rights conflict with survival and self-determination rights. Anarchists see self-determination rights as most important, but these rights conflict with survival and property rights. Socialists see survival rights as most important, but these rights conflict with property and self-determination rights.

There's also various hybrid systems, such as nationalism, which is the prime example thereof. Nationalism places heavy importance on survival rights with property rights coming in second, but such a position can only permit the partial recognition of property rights, and is highly detrimental towards self-determination rights.

There's no such thing as a perfect system. We live in a world where some rights are not compatible with others, where people can give up some of their "created" (non-natural) rights in order to gain others. Ultimately, as long as the individual's natural rights (such as life, self-defence, free expression, etc...) are fully respected, there's nothing inherently wrong with any socio-economic system.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2016, 02:12:52 am by The-lizard »