The Conflation Trap

the-metres-gained:

freemarketliberal:

Roderick Long on Capitalism and The Conflation Trap:

Thus we tend to wince when libertarians (or many of them, to varying degrees) rush to the defense of elite corporations and prevailing business models and practices as though these were free-market phenomena. First, we think this is factually inaccurate; and second, we think it’s strategically suicidal. Ordinary people generally know firsthand the petty tyranny and bureaucratic incompetence that all too often characterise the world of business; libertarians who try to glamourise that world as an arena of economic rationality and managerial heroism risk coming across as clueless at best, and shills for the ruling class at worse.

This is also why we tend to be less than enthusiastic about the word “capitalism” as the term for free-market society; as Friedrich Hayek notes, the term is “misleading,” since it “suggests a system which mainly benefits the capitalists,” whereas a genuine free market is “a system which imposes upon enterprise a discipline under which the managers chafe and which each endeavours to escape.” (Law, Legislation, and Liberty, vol.1, p. 62.)

But it is not only mainstream libertarians (and of course, to a far greater extent, conservatives) that tend to conflate the results of crony corporatism with those of free markets; such conflationism is all too common on the traditional left as well. The difference is that the evaluations are reversed; where the right-wing version of conflationism treats the virtues of free markets as reason to defend the fruits of corporatism , the left-wing version of conflationism treats the objectionable fruits of corporatism as reason to condemn free markets.

I *just* tweeted this and was about to post this to tumblr.

THIS THIS THIS

Sidenote: Roderick Long switches between UK English (glamourise) and US English (defense)?

Why Free Speech Matters, and is Absolute

elomis:

Some animals have developed amazing ranges of expressions which allow them to project how they think and feel, but humans are the only animals to have developed something quite so absolutely descriptive as speech.  It’s not universal though; I can understand those who communicate in English, German and French but human animals which communicate in Farsi do it beyond my range of understanding.  Despite how non-universal human speech is, there is still nothing in the universe so descriptive as human speech.  We export understanding of our thoughts, our feelings, our actual existence, a million times better than any other animal.

This is why the concept of free speech matters.  Before I go on I regrettably need to define that term.

Free speech means the ability to say anything.  Free speech is to use that human animal expression mechanism free of any caveats.  Free speech is not the ability to use speech which is inoffensive,  it is not liberty to express speech which fits within any particular social, religious or even legal norm.  Free speech is not responsible speech, or morally correct speech, or the speech which makes you feel good and like there is consensus and love and inclusion.  Free speech is absolute.

Free speech might vilify.  It may be lies.  IT MAY BE PAGES OF LIES.  It may hatefully describe other humans and it might do so without any justification; on the basis of race, and religion, and gender, or sexuality.  It may have an agenda.  It might be bile-laden vitriol dropped from a great height on people who don’t deserve it.  Free speech can be one of the most horrible things that you’ve ever encountered.  It can be partisan, and sneaky, and hateful, and illegal, and wrong.

But it’s free.

The thing about free speech is that despite those bad things, it’s STILL that human-unique ability to express one’s thoughts, beliefs and feelings in articulate sounds.  The minute you say “but” to anything regarding free speech you are putting caveats on someone’s thoughts and essence.  

It’s easy to support free speech when those thoughts and beliefs are the same as yours, or pleasant, or morally right.  The real test - and the value of free speech if it has any at all - is when the speech is not pleasant.   The test is when it’s wrong.  The point where you know that you are on the side of freedom is when you support the right of somebody to vilify race, religion, gender, political persuasion and the facts.  You may rightfully support the consequences of that speech; legal consequences around damaging character, or causing physical injury, or gaining advantage, but you support the expression of belief via articulate noises.

So given all that, here’s how you know you don’t support freedom;

• When you say “free speech doesn’t mean you can say anything” when that is exactly what it means
• When you say “free speech except for hate media”
• When you say “free speech but for when the French/Israel/basketball players/women/gays/Aboriginals/journalists/cows are vilified”
• When you say “free speech unless it crosses the line”
• When you say “free speech up until the limit, because even free speech has limits”
• When you support the establishment of a body to regulate speech
• When you support the establishment of a license to speak, or support a political party that does, knowing that a license is permission and exists only to provide the option to revoke it

When your position is anything other than “I may not agree, they may even be wrong, but I support the right of that other human to translate their beliefs, feelings and essence into a conveyable format, because if I don’t I’m just making excuses for putting caveats on their worth as a human.”

I support actual freedom of speech.  Do you?  I won’t restrict your answer, but I will point out that a single word will do.

I believe in free speech.

Society of Modest Members

• David Bushby
• Kelly O’Dwyer
• Jamie Briggs
• Scott Ryan
• Simon Birmingham
• Michaelia Cash
• Brett Mason
• Mathias Cormann
• Mitch Fifield
• Alex Hawke