Anarchism, Censorship and Absolute Freedom! - When (if ever)

[Ningram]

I'm a little confused about the concept of "freedom" in a workers' utopia; how far can the ideal of absolute freedom (i.e. the right for a person to think, speak and act however he/she wishes) be taken without the system descending into a state of anarchism. One common suggestion with regard to this issue is that freedom extends until the rights (and freedom) of another person is affected (and thus opening the door to legalised drugs, public nudity etc.). This works up to an extent, yet is there a need to draw the line? Would it be necessary to enforce safety regulations in the name of the health of the masses? Is it fair to tax or indeed expect citizens to follow any laws if true freedom is in force? Is true authority even realistic? Would politically suppression be required in order to repress ideas that seek to destroy a socialist government or purvey beliefs that violate the rights of others (such as fascist parties)? While in theory once a true workers’ paradise had been established those within it would seek to protect it, history shows that if mankind can act upon a thought, then someone eventually will, regardless of how destructive and regressive these actions may prove to be.

There are others issues; if you repress political thought in the name of protecting socialism, must you also censor newspaper editorials, art, literature, music and other sources for the expression of political opinion. If censorship is necessary, how far can it be taken without becoming another Soviet style totalitarian regime, repeating the mistakes of history?

[sc4r]

This is actually one example of the strength of Socialism and democracy contrasted to Capitalism or even anarchism.

There is , of course, no way to draw a definitive line in advance and say 'this type of action is Ok, this type is not' without knowing all the circumstances. So democracy allows the precise judgement to be modified over time.

The danger is that what is termed a dictatorship of the majority will occur where freedoms are unfairly restricted for some simply because a majority dislikes them. This is sometimes held out as an ergument actualy against democracy, but in reality it is a warning that all systems can be abused.

To operate a 'good' democracy one must educate people into having a great deal of respect for the views and wishes of others. People must be taught that the principle of Democracy is more important than any transient law that may be democratically passed, and have it emphatically drummed into them that nothing should be restricted casually and without very careful consideration of whether that thing really is harmful / immoral or merely different.

There is no absolute answer to this conundrum. All systems ultimately rely upon the goodwill of people and all democratic systems rely upon people seeing that if you allow others to be oppressed unfairly there is a good chance that in a different circumstance you may be.

Cuba is right to restrict pro-capitalist speeches and actions to an extent because it correctly judges that if it were allowed it would be perverted and used by a very much more powerful enemy to worm its way into favour before ultimately reneging on the substance of its promise (as was done for example in nicaragua). But were Cuba as powerful as the USA then I would say a relaxation of the rule might be in order because the danger was very much lessened and there would be much less reason to surpress the rights of others.

So the bottom line is that someone must judge. The classical Liveral says 'God' (as interpreted by some man :) will, the Lassez faire capitalist says that it is somehow obvious (but does not say how or why or to whom); the Monarchist says that the Monarch may interpret; and the democrat or socialist (being wiser) says that all may have a say and cautions all against hasty judgements.

P.S. Here is a decent link to a discussion of the subject

http://www.garlikov.com/philosophy/majorityrule.htm




(Edited by sc4r at 8:33 pm on April 2, 2003)

[MiNdGaMe]

Yeah its simply based on morals, regardless of law or not. Individuals know its morally wrong to murder another individual. Majority of murders are committed in 'hot blood' (uninttended). Society has taken a 'pitfall' over the last decades, with racism, homophobia, sexism, capitalism etc... Naturally evolution has begun to change the mindset of individuals who are now realising their oppressions/mistakes.

[Anarcho]

IMO- censorship and prohibitive law should be based on community standards... on a small scale. And those laws that bar me from my freedoms should stop at my door.

example- Lets say I'm a nudist. I understand that, unless the majority of my neighbors are nudists, I am going to have to wear clothes out of my house. But inside my house, I should be free to be naked. If I have guests, they would be free to be naked or not, as they wish. My home = my rules.

If I could get a large number of nudists together, we could start our own community of "clothing optional" living. Or we could change the local laws to reflect our wishes.

The US tries to do this, but the area incompassed by laws on a state level are far to wide. How a law that is meant to cover the same people in San Francisco, Los Angles, and Sacramento can be fair to all those vastly different people is beyond me.

[Ningram]

Quote: from Anarcho on 9:53 am on April 3, 2003
IMO- censorship and prohibitive law should be based on community standards... on a small scale.
Yeah, I guess that could work; however the state would need to retain some controls (on major issues, like murder, rape etc.). You'd also need to have standardised punishments for crimes that violate basic human rights; right to own property (theft), preservation of freedom of speech etc.

[MiNdGaMe]

Aren't we talking about Anarchism?

[Som]

basic human rights; right to own property (theft)

Property is no basic human right.

Property is merely a right of deprivation, control and exploitation, its only a basic right to the capitalists, as its an institution maintaining their control.

Property itself is theft, and is far from a basic human right to a socialist society.

[Ningram]

Sorry, I probably phrased that badly. I didn’t mean “property” in the capitalist sense; rather the basic needs that you would be entitled to and would not share with others (e.g. the clothes on your back, the food in your stomach, the basic necessities of your residence and the tools you use to do your job). You should feel comfortable and safe in the knowledge that your basic entitlements and needs (even if not your “property”) are secure and not going to be taken from you. Sorry, I’m going off subject.

[Som]

ah, so i guess a better way to term that is probably your 'right to well-being'