A Response To-Nonviolent Censorship is how Nonviolent Societies create Nonviolent Government by @dantheman

in censorship •  3 years ago

@dantheman ,
My response to your post is long so I thought I would make a post and just link it. I have a lot of questions and think it would show great character on your part if you checked out my response and made one back so your followers and myself can fully understand your position on this subject better.

I'm going to be going thru your post and posting quotes with my questions or points and then at the end I will add my main questions and thoughts. So thank you for reading my response and cant wait to hear back from you @dantheman .

Nonviolent Censorship is how Nonviolent Societies create Nonviolent Government by @dantheman in anarchy
"Nonviolent Censorship" is still censorship and is wrong, the free market of ideas is needed to stop the stupid. A "nonviolent society" could be anything, just because there is not violence does not mean that people are not getting forced into something or are free. Just because master didn't whip you or use violence does not make it ok.
This is under anarchy, why are you trying to convince people on the idea of a nonviolent "government" ? a government is a power that governs (controls) and does promote freedom and anarchy is no rulers. so kind of a oxymoron.
Voluntary censorship is the heart and soul of a free society.
No, censorship in any form is denying the right to have freedom of speech and thought.
My definition of a free society is one that is not governed by initiation of violence and where all relationships and business transactions are voluntary.
But force is ok? how can all transactions be voluntary if there is a forced governed even if it is force without violence? for there to be a government force must be used to make the masses submit no matter if it is a force of violence or a no violent force. Is that really freedom to you?
This means self-censorship and discrimination of all kinds are the very foundation of a functioning free society.
Free from everything, even diversity of thought right? how is discriminating against people with opposing opinions a foundation for anything but a hive mind mentality/ echo chamber? you can not progress in anything if you are going to discriminate against ideas that do not go along with he majority.
I know this sounds controversial to those who are deathly afraid of racism, bigotry, and general social pressure.
No it sounds stupid, calling it controversial does not shed it of its hypocritical stupidity. People that are afraid of "racism, bigotry and general social pressure" are people that need to harden the fuck up and realize they are dealing with 1st world problems. boo fucking hoo. Assholes are going to be assholes. You cant blame your life on a couple assholes acting like assholes, that is what they do. Take responsibility for your life and actions.
Please suspend your judgement until you finish reading this article.
I did, believe me I made sure to.
I am not racist and will gladly do business with anyone of any race who offers a profitable opportunity.
you know no one was thinking your raciest till you said that. it like when someone says "im not raciest but....."-smh-

Free Market Solutions to Securing Life, Liberty, and Property
ok now we are talking the actual free market?!?!!? no discrimination because of differing opinion?!?!?!?!? sweet!!!!!
If you follow my blog you will know that I am constantly searching for non-violent alternatives to government.
Nice, so are the rest of us bruh.
The anarchists among us know how challenging this can be.
Are you trying to speak for anyone that considers themselves an anarchist or believes in anarchy? and what is challenging, finding alternatives to government? I'm sure it is when people that claim to be anarchist that start to preach about government. -smh-
Most simply accept on faith that “the market will provide”, but few pursue the question of “how will the market provide?”
No, we know the free market will provide, it has nothing to do with belief. If you really need to know how the free market will provide you must first ask yourself if it is truly a free market if the discrimination of diverse thought is supported? when the market is truly free the second an opportunity opens up to take advantage of there is 50 people trying to fill that opportunity.
Those that do pursue the question of how the market will provide often do so on a purely theoretical basis.
No it is based on when the market was truly free, you know the spark of the industrial revolution? How re you trying to debunk the free market as a theoretical basis with more theoretical basis?

What makes me different from the vast majority of armchair anarchists and voluntarists is that I am actively engaged in an entrepreneurial business of bringing viable solutions to the market.
So you are an armchair anarchist and voluntarist and speaking for all of them but are not part of the group your speaking for because your actively engaged in an entrepreneurial business? How the fuck does that work?
Theoretical market structures in a post-government world are of no use to someone attempting to bootstrap a business securing life, liberty, and property in a totalitarian state.
Then why are you basing this post on Theoretical market structures?

The only non-violent society that will have staying power is the one that can be born under oppression and through its own strength overthrow that oppression while adhering to its own principles.
And freedom of thought and speech don't belong in this world of yours?

Self Censorship is Self Government
ummm no, government is a force that controls. Self censorship is submission to a force trying to control.

Each individual is responsible for not acting in ways that would violate the non aggression principle.
I agree with this statement.
This means that they must censor their desire for revenge.
No it doesn't, the person with the desire for revenge should have the right to say and speak about it. action and words are not the same thing. committing an act of violence should not be supported and neither should the act of censoring that persons desire for revenge. Desire and actions are two different things.
They must hold their punches.
Yes and that is not censorship, it is abiding by the idea of non violence.
They must honor their contracts and avoid fraud, slander, libel, and offensive conduct.
I agree with this statement but do not understand what it has to do with self censorship.

Not only must someone watch what they do, they must watch what they say.
No, they are two completely different things. It is ok to talk about killing but is not ok to kill. Huge difference and I am not talking about the call to order.
This is because you do not own your reputation!
If you do not own your reputation then who owns it? If you do not own that reputation of yourself can you be held accountable for it? -smh-
Contrary to popular belief, you have no right to control what other people think about you.
No, you do not hold the right to control what anyone thinks! -fucking hell-
Your actions are a major contributor to your reputation, but ultimately how your actions are interpreted by others is what defines their opinion of you.
and fuck their opinions of you, all that matters is what your opinion of yourself is. how can they hold their interpretations of your reputation over you if you do not own your own reputation? your basically saying there opinion of you might not be good if you do things they don't like. well good fuck them. what does that have to do with anything?
Their opinion of you then defines their willingness to do business with you.
Yep, that is true statement.
Furthermore, perception matters more than reality because people make their decisions on their perception which may have nothing to do with reality.
Reality is perception, it does not matter more or less then perception. if people are making decisions on their perception of reality it is because it is all they can do. you can not make actions based upon a reality you can not perceive.

What if Society is Wrong?
What if grandma had balls? we going to play the what if game now? what if water was dry and the sky was neon green. should we be discriminative of your "what if" questions if they do not go along with the majority of peoples opinion and there for should you self censor your ideas?

Suppose the vast majority of society is against public nudity?
Ok lets suppose that.
Under such a society business owners would discriminate against naked customers.
and a free market would provide a business that did not discriminate against the nude people to fill in he gap in the market. problem solved and it created more jobs for the economy.
They would do this even if they had nothing against nudity simply because they could lose the business of their other customers.
and at the same time they are losing the naked customers, let alone a business has the right to refuse any customer because of the idea of volunteerism, it would be wrong to force a business to serve someone against their will. and as I said earlier a new company would be made to fill the gap of money wanting to be spent. you should have the right as a company to make decisions that lose you money of it does not conform with your beliefs, that is a huge part of a voluntary society.

Those who wanted to enjoy naked living would need to go to businesses that specialize in serving naked customers.
yep, I agree but it has nothing to do with self censorship though or government.

If nudity was sufficiently taboo, then businesses may ultimately disassociate themselves from anyone known to serve nude customers.
Yes and vice versa, the naked people have the right to disassociate themselves from anyone known to not serve nude customers. pointless. you might as well make a statement like water is wet. :/
This could ultimately make operating a business serving naked customers completely unviable if the business owner wished to maintain the benefits of having a good reputation with the rest of society.
or it could be the deciding factor in making a business survive. it goes both ways. if the majority of people are naked and a business wont server them it will die still has nothing to do with self censoring or government. :/

Suppose your moral code sees nothing wrong with naked living.
ok ill suppose that for sake of argument.
Suppose you wish to enjoy life living in a nudist colony?
ok if I don't see anything wrong with being naked then I could see going to a place that feels the same would be a good idea, go on.
This society would completely shun you.
why would a nudist colony shun me for thinking being naked is ok? O.o
It would ruin your opportunity to find jobs, make friends, and ultimately you would be forced to conform with the prevailing opinion.
what the fuck? if it is a nudist colony, then you would not be shunned and then you would not be at a loss of "opportunity to find jobs, make friends" and you would not be " forced to conform with the prevailing opinion" because you already held the same opinions on it before you went to the nudist colony.
You would be forced to censor your own body anytime you were in the presence of anyone else.
umm no you wouldn't it is a nudist colony, plus trying to assimilate into a society you have joined is something you do, if not go back to a place that holds the same belief as you. you cant expect a whole society to change because you have a different opinion then the majority. at the same time you should have the right to speak your differing opinion. making someone cover their body to stay in a place where the idea of being naked in public is not censorship. stopping someone from talking about being naked is. back to that point that actions and speech/thought are not the same.

What happened to your freedom?
you still have your freedom, you are choosing to wear clothing or not. no one is taking that choice away from you in this situation. what society wants to think does not affect your freedom to choose to do it or not if is a society following your non aggression principle. if you do not conform to society and force is used on you to make you conform then that is wrong and is not true freedom but it is still not censorship.
Is your naked body harming others?
it could be, have you taken into account all the variables? are little kids affected by this? are businesses losing money like your said before? will car accidents happen as stunned drivers see your naked ass walking down the street? it could harm people, might not harm anyone. it all depends.
They seem to think so and ultimately public opinion is the judge of what constitutes “aggression” and therefore what behaviors should be shunned.
how does public opinion constitute aggression? the public has the right to have the opinion that something is "wrong". it does not give the right to use aggression or to censor someone. actions an words again.

If the majority of society has a different opinion on what is “right” and what is “wrong”, then all you can do is keep your behavior out of public spotlight or engage in a discussion and attempt to persuade others to change their opinion.
or you could not give a shit about what society thinks and just do what you want as long as it is not hurting anyone.

Centralized Reputation
word salad anyone?

As a society grows larger than a couple hundred people, it becomes impossible for any one individual to have first hand information from which to derive an independent opinion about another individual.
bullshit, the society could have 100million people in it, that does not change my ability to have first hand information from which to derive an independent opinion about another individual. how would the number of people in the society have anything to do with how I derive an independent opinion about my next door neighbor, or anyone for that matter?
Instead people must delegate the process of reputation to others.
how does one delegate the process of reputation?
This is the birth of government.
How is the delegation of the process of reputation the birth of control(government)?

Most people let the government define an individual’s reputation.
This statement made my brain hurt. How does the government define my reputation let alone anyone else? wouldnt my actions define my reputation?
If the government says someone is “bad”, then they also adopt the same opinion.
no, there is nothing that says you have to believe or agree with a government, unless your enforcing your discrimination towards differing ideas and censorship rule.
Laws and courts are nothing more than the process of defining who has a “good reputation” and who has a “bad reputation”.
wow, ok so laws are ideas put in place by the majority of the society, the courts are only there to enforce the laws that society put in place. none of it has to do with a "good" or "bad" reputation.

Once you have a “bad reputation” few people are willing to risk their own “reputation” defending you.
only if you are now supporting the idea of guilty by association. most people that are not petty faggots dont care about what a true friends reputation is, if they need help they help them because it is a friend. if you wont help a friend out because they have a bad reputation your a shitty friend and i hope that sticks as a reputation for you.
Governments enforce coordinated shunning of those they deem to be bad through the use of prisons.
No, it is governments use force to imprison people that break the laws put forth by the society. has nothing to do with shunning through the use of prisons. What does any of this have to do with the non violent voluntarist society and censorship?
They physically cut off an individuals freedom to do business with others.
How does the government use ones reputation to cut off an individuals freedom to do business with others?

The legitimacy of the entire process depends upon the reputation of the system itself.
Your system is full of holes and has a shit reputation for it so it has no legitimacy right?
Control over the reputation system of society is absolute power.
your society sure has a lot of control over the people in it for a free non violent voluntary system, how is anything enforced if everything is voluntary?

Decentralized Reputation
more word salad anyone?

The key to decentralizing power is to decentralize control over reputation.
no one has control over reputation. how can you have control over peoples opinions?
This is achieved in a free market through voluntary coordinated shunning.
so the person is voluntarily getting shunned? if they are voluntarily doing it does it have an effect? it has to be voluntary by all or you are using force on someone without them voluntarily receiving it. that would be wrong in a society based in non agresion volunteerism.
Each business owner gets to influence public policy by setting the price of doing business with them.
how does setting a price for doing business influence public policy?
A business owner who is against nudity can set the price of eating in his establishment as a combination of money and behavior (wearing clothes).
yes he can, and he can lose money from trying to enforce his beliefs on his customers over caring about profit. still do not see how this has anything to do with censorship

Those who wish to partake in the products offered by the market must be willing to pay the price.
That can be said about any deal where people volunteer to partake in it.
This means they must conform in order to earn the products and services they wish to receive from others.
I guess if you consider handing over the cash of something your buying as conforming.

The more of society that agrees on certain behavior norms, the more costly it becomes to violate those norms.
sure, for everyone. the seller has to lose money to enforce his beliefs and the customer has to pay more to shop somewhere that does hold the same belief. so it is bad for everyone.no one benefits in any way besides enforcing your beliefs on someone at a cost. if that is a benefit.
The most universally demanded behaviors will be against violence, theft, and fraud.
Is that not already the case?
The price for violating these norms will be to pay full restitution or be completely outcast from society.
that is great till the social norm becomes something regressive. then anyone that has a differing opinion will be forced out because of your discrimination of differing opinions from the social majority/norm rule.
A complete outcast becomes a beggar or slave to whomever will care for them and could potentially face death if they are unable to be completely self reliant.
or they find a society that holds the same morals and they strive, or become self reliant and happy because they are not longer having force used upon them to control their thoughts and what they can and cannot say.

The more controversial an issue becomes lower the price of not conforming.
wouldnt the price be higher for more controversial issues? are you saying yelling out shit in public should cost more then murder because murder is more controversial?

Paradox for Anarchists
so the paradox is not for me unless im an anarchist?

An anarchist is advocating a society that allows free expression without fear of others initiating violence in a systematic way.
No, An anarchist is advocating a society with no rulers.
The only way to achieve such a society is to change public opinion.
In order to change any society in any way you must change public opinion or use force.
We all live and die by public opinion.
no we all don't live and die by public opinion, most people dont give a shit what society thinks.

It is public opinion that currently enslaves us under governments and under an anarchy that same public opinion will continue to be the source of all power enforcing the non aggression principle.
how does government use public opinion to enslave us? how would public opinion be used to enforce anything on people that dont care about what the public thinks without the use of force?

This means that without using violence or taxation, a free society could conceivable compel everyone to purchase health insurance.
I disagree, I do not see it as possible to get everyone to agree on one thing and all volunteer for it. There will always be that one asshole that kills the "everyone" aspect. maybe most people but not all. You also have to convince healthy people to waste their money on a service they dont need. So very unlikely.
It could conceivably compel a prohibition of drugs and alcohol.
Your forgetting about the exception to the rule. Besides who are you or anyone else in society to tell someone what they can choose to do if it doesnt hurt anyone else? Why not inform the people of the facts and let them make up their own minds?
It could conceivably self-censor any topic and demand adherence to all kinds of behavior we currently find abhorrent about governments.
So anyone that disagrees with the heard gets ostracized? You can self-censor but you can force others to self-censor on subjects just because you dont like them. Why dont you want diversity of thought?
All of this would be compelled through market forces; it would simply be too expensive to resist.
Companies would start to fill the orders of the people turned away from your markets. If people want to do something you disagree with someone will take advantage on the moment to make money. your business is then losing out on money it could be making over holding an opinion.

What anarchists know is that it is incredibly difficult to get people to agree on anything.
That is because people have different opinions on stuff, not a hive mind where everyone agrees.
Anything that was sufficiently controversial would be permitted because it requires a near universal acceptance of an opinion before coordinated shunning is effective.
Who gets to decide what is sufficiently controversial and what is not? if it was an opinion that was held universally there would be no one to shun. you would only have people to shun if it was not an opinion held by everyone.so basically your talking about bullying someone into agreeing with you. thats fucked up and wrong.
Most people are neutral toward anything that doesn’t impact themselves.
most people have way to many opinions on stuff that does not effect themselves. most of them dont even have a clue what they are talking about.
In fact, most people are willing to “look the other way” if it will make them a buck.
projection? no most people dont.

The difference between a government and a free society is that all social laws must be incredibly simple and general because you would never get any consensus behind anything overly specific.
how is simple and general laws the difference between a government and a free society?
It is the overly specific laws that allow individuals in power to abuse the masses and prevent individuals from making more decentralized judgments.
The laws have to be specific so people dont try to interpret it to mean something else. how does specific laws prevent individuals from making more decentralized judgments compared to the simple and general laws?

Conclusion
fucking finally

Those who complain about censorship motivated by social pressure are simultaneously guilty of applying that kind of censorship through their support of the government required to prevent it.
how come if anyone has a differing opinion on something from you they are complaining? why cant they just be voicing their differing opinion then yours? how does supporting governments role in supporting and defending our right to free speech simultaneously make us guilty for saying censorship is wrong?
We all wish we could live in a world where everyone shared our opinion and we could do what ever we want, when ever we want, wherever we want.
fuck no! i would not want to live in a world where everyone had the same opinion. and I certainly dont want to have your opinions. i want diversity of opinions and new ideas. not some hive mind boring bullshit of everyone likes the same thing. fucking hive mind.
That world is logically impossible.
thankfully, that would be fucking hell!
We will always be bound by public opinion.
you are choosing to be bound by public opinion. public opinion can be wrong u know?
The best we can hope for is to sway that opinion away from accepting initiating violence as necessary toward complete shunning of anyone who initiates violence.
how well is your shunning going to work if some crazy go on a killing rampage? initiating violence on someone that just stabbed 30 people in front of you to stop them from stabbing the next 30 is wrong? what is your public shunning going to do?

I would go so far to say, that a non-violent society would completely self-censor any suggestion of violence.
then it would not truly be non violent because you would be censoring the violence out. without the violence there is nothing to censor.
Such an individual could not be trusted.
yeah cant trust the guy that stopped that killer before he got to kill more innocent people. you could just shun him till his arm gets tired from stabbing people.

Once you realize that an anarchist society would self-censor competing ideas, it becomes very clear why a statist society must censor anarchist ideas.
no it wouldnt, trying to censor someone can only be done by force. censoring competing ideas might be the most regressive thing i have heard in a month. people would still think the world was flat if they used that logic.no societies "must" censor, they choose to.
A statist society would use violence to enforce their censorship, a voluntaryist society would use peer pressure and self-censorship.
both are horrible things to do. physical abuse or mental abuse if you dont agree with us and self censor is what your saying. fucked up.

Censorship is a shield used to protect the prevailing opinion against anything that would change it.
and that is why it is wrong and a stupid idea. what if anyone that tried to say the world wasent flat were getting censored because it was not the prevailing opinion?
Whether it is used for “good” or “evil” depends entirely upon the idea being defended.
censorship can not be used for good, it is only a bad thing. especially when your talking about censoring opinions by mental abuse and bullying.

hope to hear back from you about the questions I had so I can fully understand your point of view on this subject. sorry about the spelling and grammer but this is long and I have to type it in notepad. steemit freezes while typing. maybe ill go back when I wake up and edit it to fix the spelling and stuff.

original post:
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@dantheman/nonviolent-censorship-is-how-nonviolent-societies-create-nonviolent-government

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

there is a hellofalot for me to think about here. thank you for not surrendering to pretense of logic. i am curious, if you would be so kind, as to render your thoughts on this: https://steemit.com/freedom/@lifeworship/censorship-voluntaryism-and-my-thoughts-about-a-free-society

·

sweet ill check it out in an hour or 2 after i finish cooking and eating. xD i will be sure to reply to it.

·
·

cool thanks.

·
·
·

@lifeworship ,
You asked for it so I did it. Hope this gives you another point of view like you wanted. I'm not use to making a response to posts I don't fully disagree with so this was kind of weird to do. lol 8D
Hope to hear back from you.
https://steemit.com/censorship/@skeptic/a-response-to-censorship-voluntaryism-and-my-thoughts-about-a-free-society-by-lifeworship

Okay, since you linked to your post in our translation, I've checked it out. What can I say? I stopped reading by the time you failed to follow the original text in that bit the society shuns nudes, you are supposedly pro-nudity, and would better do in a nudist colony. The meaning of original article is completely different at that point, and you've veered off into incoherence. I'd urge you to do as the article asks, suspend your judgement, open up your mind and read it completely, not start dissecting it bit by bit untill it dissociates in complete incoherency.
I'd actually be interested in your analysis, if you do, because the original article goes completely differently than you think. I'll even check closer to the conclusion, to see if that dawned upon you. It took me a couple of reads to understand what was going on as well.

Okay, I've actually read through all of it. I suggest you re-read the original article. Then you gh through it, and don't argue with every sentense, but do it section by section. But only after you have an understanding of the article as a whole. Right now you have a case of missing the forest because of all the trees.

Hope this helps. :-)

·

I did not change anything, it is word for word copied from yours.
I did read the full thing before responding, I actually had to read it about 5 times before I was ready to even start tackling it.
There was a couple points I agreed with and I said it. I disagree with most of it and that is why I had to respond to every single line. It has nothing to do with me not understanding it. I understand what was typed out. If you feel I didn't understand it please tell me where and how but I'm almost sure I did understand all of it.
Thank you for at least checking it out.
My statements stand and anything you are not sure about if you ask me I can elaborate on it and provide links to back up my claims.

·
·

Okay, but does the fact that it isn't MINE not register with you?
Anyhow, a lot of what you are arguing with isn't the position in the original article. As I didn't write it, I don't feel I have to argue for it, especially as I don't agree with everything in it. But it is quite coherent, much more so than your reply. And on my first couple of reads I was also going WTF, a lot like you are.

·
·
·

O my bad I didn't realize till now your not dantheman. :O my bad on that. It was the same post so I thought it was the same person.

·
·

that's funny, how about this: somebody farted at nuremburg

·
·
·

you can tell the guy with the sunglasses looking right at the camera was the one that did it. 8D

·

ill check it out in a sec. thanks for the comment.