Free speech and liberalism

Your reference to drugs speaks volumes about where you're coming from.

What do you mean RB?

They should be able to take whatever drug they choose

what do you mean? Enjoy living in your somalian paradise.

do we need any rules?

yes lets all become charles bronson

really very silly Gene Hackman (if that is your real name)

People should be able to do what they like? Who picks up the pieces of your drug fueled racist attacks with no recourse? Oh yeah the decent people of this country who want to live in stable, safe, threat free environments.

PS - Enjoy your fish supper tonight.

Gene Hackman 12 Nov 08:42
The people should be free to say what they like.They should be able to take whatever drug they choose.They should be free to hold any view concerning race or sexuality.

Gene,

What would your view be if 'people' said that they wanted to kill all jews, or 'people' held a view that thet wanted to sodomise 5 year old boys?

We would then know where people stood and what they believed in.
You aren't going to stop people having these views and making these choices so why not let them air those views?
That gives the rest of society the opportunity to treat them accordingly.
For example: It is your choice if you want to take cocaine and it is my choice if I want to employ you.
That is true liberalism.

No that's not liberalism. You could just as easily say Hitler should have the freedom to massacre any race he didn't particularly like.

The freedom to discriminate, or the freedom not to be discriminated against? Guessing you are white? :-)

White.
Middle aged.
Working class.
Never taken drugs.
Not a racist.

So,Knight Rider,that's not liberalism?
What is then?

Gene Hackman 12 Nov 09:19
We would then know where people stood and what they believed in.
You aren't going to stop people having these views and making these choices so why not let them air those views?

Because that gives carte blanche for any 'group' to verbally abuse/intimidate any individual they choose to pick on. They could say that blacks/whites ought to be catrated, their children spit-roasted and their sisters and mothers raped.

With no recourse to the law!

Well absolute liberalism is an oxymoron. For example let's say a shopkeeper hates people with blond hair. A blondie wants to buy some sweets from the shop but the shopkeeper refuses. Whose freedom wins out? The right to buy sweets or the right to not serve someone you don't like the look of? It just doesn't work.

Paddy.
People will have those views anyway.
Do you think there are millions of people that are just waiting for complete free speech so they can run out into the street and abuse the nearest black/asian/gay they can find?

no they have Chit Chat for that :-)

Can't agree with you Gene. I'd suggest that what you are advocating isn't liberalism but anarchy!

a bit of liberalism in society is good, but it has past the tipping point and is now one of the main reasons for what is wrong with our society.
drinks/drugs , yeah it`s cool to say you are into them, but there is so much distress, pain and trouble that leads from their wipespread abuse .
the gradual breakdown of the idea of family, for me is a liberal idea, and not a good one.

What I'm trying to say is that the way to stop these things (drug taking etc) is for people to make those choices and then see the result of what that choice has provided.
Another example: Children should have it explained to them - aged about 11 or 12 - that they have the choice not to go to school.
They should also be told that the consequence of that is no job,no dole,no special programmes later on to bail them out.Nothing.
People will then start to become responsible for their actions and decisions.
It may take time ,but it will work.

The people should be free to say what they like.They should be able to take whatever drug they choose.They should be free to hold any view concerning race or sexuality

Wasn't that more or less the situation we had up until towards the end of the sixties?

So is it any better now after all the legislation that has been put in place?

Ultimately yes, I would agree. However, it must be approached over time as it is inconsistent with the current structure of the economy, viz. that coercion is applied by the state to all and so it would be wrong in my view to then allow the discrimination you advocate without first removing the state coercion. With a minimal state, it would be a fair state which allowed boneheads to discriminate personally and lose out as a result (having to have an English plumber rather than a Pole for example) - that way they might learn. As usual, government is the problem.

Immigration or temporary stop-over for usual residents of the Politics forum thread imo.....

twunt magnet :D

Doesn'tsound like any definition of liberalism I've come across. To take the points in order.

1) absolute freedom of speech is an idea so easily dismissed I find it very hard to believe its being suggested in seriouness. Theatre. Fire. Need I go on?
2) society has always recognised that vulnerable people need protecting from themselves. The level and consistency of state interference can be argued over, of course.
3) people are indeed free to believe what they want

(having to have an English plumber rather than a Pole for example) -

Why do they English hate themselves so much? What's wrong with your plumbers?