Posted on 02/19/2009 8:19:02 PM PST by annalex
A couple of points. The Encyclical does not specify how the bad books are to be suppressed. State censorship is indeed one idea, and it is pertinent to us as we, quite unfortunately, have ourselves a state that does everything. But if we can instead convert the faithless and the idolaters and get them to burn their own books, that would work fine too, and that is the example with St. Paul. Failing that, perhaps we can buy out the copies and destroy them. The methods of suppression are not of importance to Pope Gregory; if they are all you want to talk about, you are on a wrong thread. In real life most suppression is both state and private: we have moderators on FR, Hollywood used to have an effective professional mutual-censorship system now discarded, the state censors some forms of pornography tofay and monitors the radio and TV to some rudimentary extent. That forms of speech suppression naturally emerge in the free market shows that nothing is wrong with the state modeling suppression of speech as well.
In modernity, education and pornography come in the forefront, hence we discussed that. In early 19c, and especially in late 18c the ideas of so-called enlightenment were in some part evil and likewise deserved suppression. Those ideas were fine so long as they remained in the academic sphere; when they were fed to the masses, they lead to the blood bath of the French revolution. It would have been fine to fight the Jacobines and the rest of the rabble with a sword, and in fact they were eventually put down, at least for a while, with military force. But it all started with ideas — with bad books — that agitated the breadth of the society. We have a very similar situation today.
The sewer in the water analogy is correct to the extent that the entire stream of information the American consumer gets is 90% sewer. He can turn off TV, filter the Internet, homeschool the kids (thus limiting their fighting potential when it comes to it) and be choosy about books he buys. And the water consumer can buy a water filter. But it would have been better to simply have clean water. Good analogy.
This is the dumbest statement I've seen on FR this year, and that's saying something.
By this reasoning, the fact that the free market naturally generates (for example) hospitals shows that nothing is wrong with the government running (for example) the health care system. Obviously, the implications go well beyond the specific example; your assertion is a one-stop justification for any and all forms of socialism and communism.
Those ideas were fine so long as they remained in the academic sphere; when they were fed to the masses, they lead to the blood bath of the French revolution.
LOL. The ancien regime ran France into the ground, and it was the fault of a few chattering academics that the people got fed up and cut their heads off?
(Oh, and given that the American revolution was likewise the result of Enlightenment advances, this is hardly the sort of argument that will be well-received on a patriotic forum. Again, I can only suggest that you try DU.)
He can turn off TV, filter the Internet, homeschool the kids (thus limiting their fighting potential when it comes to it) and be choosy about books he buys. And the water consumer can buy a water filter.
Yes, if one prefers capitialism to socialism. You, evidently, do not share that preference.
State ownership of means of production naturally occurs in the free market?
That suppression of certain speech voluntarily occurs in a free society shows that it is a good, just like hospitals that voluntarily occur are a good.
it was the fault of a few chattering academics that the people got fed up and cut their heads off?
Ideas have consequences. Marx wrote something few academics would have the patience to read to the end and see what happened. I also invite you to think whether it is indeed your conviction that the victims of the Robespierre Terror deserved it. How about the Auschwitz Jews?
American Revolution was drastically different from the French. It was not anti-property or anti-clerical, and it severed a colonial tie to England that was tenuous to begin with. It had elements of the enlightenment animating it, to be sure, but that was the case of turning something bad into good.
Desire for clean water is desire for socialism?
I can only conclude that you are either 1)a moron or 2)deliberately obfuscating the fundamental distinction between state and private action. You have a bit too much vocabulary for the former option.
Yes. For example, the consequences of the idea of state censorship are illustrated (literally) in Msg#20, above.
I also invite you to think whether it is indeed your conviction that the victims of the Robespierre Terror deserved it.
"Deserve's got nothing to do with it." The idea of state control of thought has consequences.
Desire for clean water is desire for socialism?
The issue is desire to have the government do your work for you instead of getting off your butt and leading by example and persuasion. The former makes you just another welfare leech.
The public square is legitimate domain of government, so yes, state censorship, in combination with other methods of suppression of bad information, is very desirable; far more so than, for example, state intervention in health care.
At the very least, it would be great if the state returned to strict constructionism as regards the First Amendment and stop defending gossip and pornography as forms of constitutionally protected free speech, and allowed local governments to enforce community decency laws.
On the other hand, imagine that we have anarchy and the present political system collapses. Then nothing will be any longer a government’s job — there will be no government. Then, I assure you, community laws that protect the decency on the public square — including the Internet, print, and TV — will be in force right away, and the church (including, of course, the Protestant communities of faith) will lead the way. Private or public, censorship is a part of natural law.
Again, you are not permitted to STIPULATE that which you are required to DEMONSTRATE. Really, pointing out the same fundamental error over and over again is like responding to an ELIZA automaton.
On the other hand, imagine that we have anarchy and the present political system collapses.
Then, if somebody attempts to infringe my rights, I will have the minor inconvenience of shooting them and cleaning up the trash. A PITA, but that's life.
That the public square is domain of government is a valid assumption. Historically it has been; it was when the Encyclical was given; it is now. That in anarchy it won’t be is a hypothetical; if you want to discuss it further, perhaps this thread is not the best vehicle but briefly, I am game. Beyond “I’ll shoot you”, what makes you think that incidents of private suppression of undesirable speech, for example, at FR, are NOT going to translate to similar phenomena under anarchy?
It is not a valid assumption when it is WHAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PROVE. Have any attempts to explain the concept of "circular reasoning" to you made any impression whatsoever?
That the government plays a role in the information flow on public domain is a historical and social fact. What exactly, am I supposed to prove beyond that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.