Robert H. Bork critiques Libertarianism

Robert H. Bork

[Exnihilo]

Apparently everyone enjoys these 'discussions of what it means to have freedom and liberty', so here you go! Let's have a mature discussion, free from name calling and childish behavior.

[Huck]

Apparently everyone enjoys these 'discussions of what it means to have freedom and liberty', so here you go! Let's have a mature discussion, free from name calling and childish behavior.

Not likely. But an interesting article nonetheless. Libertarians will part company by paragraph 3. They do not recognize "the idea of restraints on individuals by communities " as legitimate.

[EBUCK]

Any serious attempt to root out the worst in our popular culture may be doomed unless the judiciary comes to understand that the First Amendment was adopted for good reasons, and those reasons did not include the furtherance of radical personal autonomy.
The 1st Amendment IMO was not added for "good reasons", it was added to keep the Gov under control and out of our hair. The writer needs to understand that the 1st ammendment applies to everyone (including porn. producers) and the minute that some group is excluded from these protections there will be an avalanch of new restrictions following on it's heels. (see the 2nd amm.)I don't know how many times it has been said but, you cannot legislate morality. That is not the gov's purpose or responsability. And even if it was the gov's job it would never work. If you want to see smut removed from everyday life it must be done from within the population on a voluntary basis, not under threat of censorship.

EBUCK

[freeeee]

Economists call the effects an activity has on others 'externalities'

Bork hasn't addressed the externalities of censorship:

One way the Nazis cleansed the country of "un-German" thoughts was through censorship. A "brown shirt" (member of the SA) throws some more fuel--"un-German" books-- into a roaring fire on the Opernplatz in Berlin. May 10, 1933.
Photo credit: USHMM Photo Archives

[Exnihilo]

It is interesting that Libertarians are just fine with restraints on individuals imposed by the free market. I suppose though, any restraint upon individual freedom is okay so long as it doesn't violate the constitution. How arbitrary.

[Exnihilo]

Here is an excellent example of someone pointing to the most extreme form of censorship of materials which have nothing whatever to do with the subject discussed by the author. I suppose the logic goes something like: "once they ban pornography, they'll ban War & Peace!!" I don't know about anyone else, but I don't find this line of reasoning very convincing.

[jrherreid]

So, in your mind anti-pornography activists are much the same as the Nazi censors?

[EBUCK]

Give an example of a restraint imposed by the free market.

EBUCK

[freeeee]

So, in your mind anti-pornography activists are much the same as the Nazi censors?

The former are less violent.

[EBUCK]

You don't believe that our right to bear arms is in jeopardy? It all started with some very minute additions to the process and look at the NorEast now? Don't believe that it can happen?

EBUCK

[NC_Libertarian]

Bork is not qualified to dictate morality to me. After reading this twisted rationalization for totalitarianism, I'm glad he didn't make it to the bench.

[jrherreid]

Ah. But restrictions on access to porn would be the same as, say, restrictions on access to the Bible. Right?

[dead]

The second bit of advice --'If it offends you, don't buy it' -- is both lulling and destructive. Whether you buy it or not, you will be greatly affected by those who do.

Sarah Brady says the same thing about guns.

[jrherreid]

Bork is not qualified to dictate morality to me. After reading this twisted rationalization for totalitarianism, I'm glad he didn't make it to the bench.

He's not the boss of me!

Actually, in a civilized state, someone has to be the boss. It's up to the people to select a just leader.

[freeeee]

Here is an excellent example of someone pointing to the most extreme form of censorship of materials which have nothing whatever to do with the subject discussed by the author.

I thought we were talking about giving the government powers to ban and destroy objectionable material, and to use violence, or threat of violence, to enforce its will; aka censorship.

Am I mistaken?

I suppose the logic goes something like: "once they ban pornography, they'll ban War & Peace!!"

You've not noticed mission creep, incrementalism, or the slippery slope effect anywhere in our government?

Once the precedent is set of putting the First Amendment up to a popular vote, what exactly would protect unpopular speech?

[Redbob]

"Restraints imposed on individuals by free markets"?

Like what, for example? Unless you consider "failure" to be a restraint, when your goods, services, or ideas can't compete successfully - Marxism being a prime example.

[freeeee]

Ah. But restrictions on access to porn would be the same as, say, restrictions on access to the Bible. Right?

Both possess protection under the 1st Amendment's free speech clause. The Bible enjoys additional protection under the 1st Amendment's freedom of religion clause.

[JohnGalt]

That is what Bork says about Microsoft as well...lets not forget that censoring business is no different than censoring speech, but like a reactionary 'Conservative' alla Bill Bennett they look for new legislation to pass rather than an end federal funding of Cultural Marxists in higher learning, the arts and the public schools.

[f.Christian]

Minus reality libertarians/ism is fun--harmless!

Reality is relentless/final---

better to keep into the equation and not play word-mind games---artificial intelligence/fantasy!