I've always liked Benjamin Franklin's quote on this subject:
Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters. - Franklin
I like this quote because it highlights the inherent redundancy and ineffectiveness of libertarian ideology. I 100% agree with Franklin but here is the issue, if only good people are capable of freedom because presumably good people won't use their freedom to commit evil, what good is freedom then? If you will only use your freedom to be good then you have no use for freedom because your actions are already restricted by your virtue. Therefore, the only people who benefit from freedom are those who are not virtuous and if these people aren't virtuous then why would you as a virtuous person want those without virtue to have freedom? You wouldn't.
So to me, freedom is useless. What we should advocate for is to control evil. Oppress evil and when you do so you won't actually oppress good people. Good people will always feel free when you oppress evil because good people will never utilize their freedom to do evil anyway so if you restrict people from doing evil, you are not actually transgressing on the freedom of those who are good people.
Freedom of all speech isn't needed. You only need freedom to say good things.
What determines good and evil? The men in charge. Don't like what they think is good or evil? Replace them with your own guys.
Oppress evil and when you do so you won't actually oppress good people. Good people will always feel free when you oppress evil because good people will never utilize their freedom to do evil anyway so if you restrict people from doing evil, you are not actually transgressing on the freedom of those who are good people.
You hit on a reason as to why the ideas of libertarianism/anarchy have propagated so much today. (ignore their origins for now) It's because a large number of people today feel the government is tyrannical or evil and want to throw the whole system out because they don't see a viable alternative. If the government did what people thought was "good", there would be less thought put towards libertarian ideas.
What determines good and evil? The men in charge. Don't like what they think is good or evil? Replace them with your own guys.
But this overlooks or leads to the problem that we don't have a unified polity or nation. The evil men do represent a large number of people, whether through trickery or because the people are evil. You can't just replace them with your own guys. You have to replace or dominate the citizens who put those guys in power. The only solutions I see are:
-> Balkanization: Split up the country smaller units with your good people controlling one region and bad people are forced to another region.
-> Total War against all your neighbors until they submit, a la the French Revolution.
Both lead to some bloodshed, maybe the first less than the second.
I 100% agree with Franklin but here is the issue, if only good people are capable of freedom because resumable good people won't use their freedom to commit evil, what good is freedom then? If you will only use your freedom to be good then you have no use for freedom because your actions are already restricted by your virtue.
There's a massive problem you didn't identify: good people don't always know what is good. This is where freedom of expression, through inquiry and discussion, has corrected a massive catalog of errors that would have destroyed the US otherwise.
Free expression, through the power of discovery, has also guaranteed the supremacy of the US, which is taken for granted.
Franklin's quote is absolutely correct, but it's descriptive, not prescriptive. You are advocating for things we "should" do, but that word is premised on the virtue that we would lack. In fact once the virtue is gone, all that remains is corruption and deterministic natural selection. You would be better off trying to secure your personal future instead of worrying about dying in the workings of an amoral system.
Arguably, none of the expression that benefitted the USA was evil expression and there is a lot of expression that has poisoned the USA. A society that allowed the good expression and not the bad would be healthier than the USA.
If we had psychic foreknowledge, it would be possible to outlaw all "bad" expression. Otherwise there is a necessary discovery process enabled by free expression.
Arguably, none of the expression that benefitted the USA was evil expression
The fact that you had to use the word "arguably" demonstrates the above.
I've always liked Benjamin Franklin's quote on this subject:
I like this quote because it highlights the inherent redundancy and ineffectiveness of libertarian ideology. I 100% agree with Franklin but here is the issue, if only good people are capable of freedom because presumably good people won't use their freedom to commit evil, what good is freedom then? If you will only use your freedom to be good then you have no use for freedom because your actions are already restricted by your virtue. Therefore, the only people who benefit from freedom are those who are not virtuous and if these people aren't virtuous then why would you as a virtuous person want those without virtue to have freedom? You wouldn't.
So to me, freedom is useless. What we should advocate for is to control evil. Oppress evil and when you do so you won't actually oppress good people. Good people will always feel free when you oppress evil because good people will never utilize their freedom to do evil anyway so if you restrict people from doing evil, you are not actually transgressing on the freedom of those who are good people.
Freedom of all speech isn't needed. You only need freedom to say good things.
What determines good and evil? The men in charge. Don't like what they think is good or evil? Replace them with your own guys.
You hit on a reason as to why the ideas of libertarianism/anarchy have propagated so much today. (ignore their origins for now) It's because a large number of people today feel the government is tyrannical or evil and want to throw the whole system out because they don't see a viable alternative. If the government did what people thought was "good", there would be less thought put towards libertarian ideas.
But this overlooks or leads to the problem that we don't have a unified polity or nation. The evil men do represent a large number of people, whether through trickery or because the people are evil. You can't just replace them with your own guys. You have to replace or dominate the citizens who put those guys in power. The only solutions I see are:
-> Balkanization: Split up the country smaller units with your good people controlling one region and bad people are forced to another region.
-> Total War against all your neighbors until they submit, a la the French Revolution.
Both lead to some bloodshed, maybe the first less than the second.
And I fully agree with those solutions. They are the same solutions I come to as solutions so they're obviously the only solutions.
There's a massive problem you didn't identify: good people don't always know what is good. This is where freedom of expression, through inquiry and discussion, has corrected a massive catalog of errors that would have destroyed the US otherwise.
Free expression, through the power of discovery, has also guaranteed the supremacy of the US, which is taken for granted.
Franklin's quote is absolutely correct, but it's descriptive, not prescriptive. You are advocating for things we "should" do, but that word is premised on the virtue that we would lack. In fact once the virtue is gone, all that remains is corruption and deterministic natural selection. You would be better off trying to secure your personal future instead of worrying about dying in the workings of an amoral system.
Arguably, none of the expression that benefitted the USA was evil expression and there is a lot of expression that has poisoned the USA. A society that allowed the good expression and not the bad would be healthier than the USA.
If we had psychic foreknowledge, it would be possible to outlaw all "bad" expression. Otherwise there is a necessary discovery process enabled by free expression.
The fact that you had to use the word "arguably" demonstrates the above.
I disagree. I was just including it because I realize it's controversial but good speech can be predetermined. There are objective morals.