Open Society

Is Hate Speech an Externality?

It occurs to me that "hate speech", and other forms of politically correct speech prohibitions, are largely an attempt to solve an externality problem, a problem I think would be better left unsolved. In other words, the speech of others will occasionally insult or offend us, it may refute a belief from which we take great comfort, or disspell a falsehood which we had an interest in perpetuating. In whatever case, the speech of others may adversely affect our quality of life, and often in a way which is far more meaningful to us than water or air pollution, the traditional subject of the externality problem.

That said, I think we can also characterise the supporter of free speech as one who is willing to incur the costs of these externalities, to tolerate insult, offense, and other consequences, which might come to pass from the speech of others. I do not think this attempt to stop free speech from adversely affecting others is at all consistent with the idea of an open society, and has the potential to destroy it altogether. If we value open and free inquiry, peace and rationality, then it is a duty to bear these costs, and to encourage others to do the same.

A note on Foundationism

Something I wrote on Foundationism:

"It is often supposed that knowledge must be constructed upon a foundation. In this view, rational investigation consists of wiping the slate clean to begin anew, and then seeking basic beliefs which can serve as a foundation, relative to which all knowledge can be justified. The metaphor is of a building with foundations and a framework, which must be constructed piecemeal, but no matter how elaborate or impressive, a building is only as strong as its foundations, which if unstable can bring the entire structure to collapse.

In this context, the primary purpose of rational investigation is to identify a set of foundations which can serve as a solid support for knowledge. This purpose is present in everyday language when we ask: "how do you support that theory?", or "is that belief well founded?" It is here an implicit standard that knowledge should be supported, which in turn presupposes that knowledge can be supported. In other words, the foundational theory of knowledge is implicit, and often taken for granted in ordinary discourse, from school yard to the lecture hall.

The foundational theory of knowledge also implies a theory of criticism. In this view, criticism is conducted by checking to see whether a proposed idea is justified or unjustified relative to basic beliefs. If it is justified (or at least not in conflict) with basic beliefs, it is then knowledge. However, this theory of criticism implies a problem. If criticism is conducted relative to basic beliefs, and two parties in a discussion hold to different foundations, then there is an impasse where no agreement can be reached. There are logical limits to criticism.

The problem is deep. How are we to decide which basic beliefs are correct? If we try and check to see which basic beliefs are justified, then we will get different results depending which basic beliefs we choose. The choice among rival sets of basic beliefs would seem to be irrational: a leap of faith. If this problem cannot be solved, then it would seem that rational discussion among people who choose to make a different leap of faith is impossible, and no particular leap of faith can be better than any other, each is an arbitrary choice and all knowledge is relative.

To respond to this problem, it is often claimed that particular basic beliefs are self-evident, and it is a common claim when challenged upon basic beliefs that they are in no need of defence, because they are self-evident, and beyond question. Therefore, it is often believed that the holy grail of foundationism, and rational philosophy, is to identify a set of basic beliefs which are self-evident. It is supposed that this would defeat the relativist, who would point to the unjustifiability and arbitrariness of our foundations.

I can only wonder though why self-evidence should be considered in such esteem.It is an all too common occurrence, that different people come to varied and often contradictory conclusions regarding what is self-evident, in much the same way as they do regarding ordinary evidence. I am not aware of by what means self-evidence is elevated to that infallible plane which seems to make it such a desirable goal, or what relation to the truth which it is supposed that self-evidence possesses, or is that supposed to be self-evident?

It is also a puzzle to me that foundationists should honour self-evidence with such esteem. To me, the prime concern of rational investigation is the truth, which is objective i.e. what is true for one is true for all, and yet to also be concerned with self-evidence is puzzling, as it is little other than an expression of subjective confidence. I think foundationism is mistaken, and places unnecessary limits upon criticism. The search for a solid foundation for knowledge would destroy rationality, and not strengthen it as intended."

Thought of the Day...

"Society remains primitive insofar as individuals are regarded as agents to butcher for - and to be butchered for - the collective. Society progresses only as the depraved romance of the collective gives way to respect for the individual - the individual whose life and property are never regarded as being at the disposal of the state." - Donald Boudreaux

On Philosophy

On Philosophy:

"I tend to think that the first half of every problem in philosophy is understanding the problem, and only the other half actually concerns the solving of the problem. That too much time is spent on the latter, and too little on the former, I think, has been to the detriment of philosophy for a very long time."

"To become acquainted with a problem is half the task, and in the process we may discover that there was never a problem in the first place."

"It is an often overlooked fact, that it is we who choose the standards which would render an idea problematic, those standards are not forced upon us, and we can just as easily reject them."

"The source of all suffering is desire, and the identity of the self with that desire. To transcend desire, to not identify with our own desires or doctrines is to achieve a kind of enlightenment, and relief from suffering."

"I think it is commonly assumed a set of standards, such that knowledge, meaning, or morals must satisfy which are unobtainable, and that many suffer for these standards, which must be appeased for relief from the existential despair they impose."

"The attitude of most philosophers is that of an addict or slave, who must placate his master or suffer at the whip."

On Liberty

Recent thoughts on liberty:

"I think it is a common misinterpretation of libertarians, that because a libertarian does not wish to outlaw drug use, or other irresponsible choices, that they must also approve of those choices. There are, however, choices which a libertarian might disapprove of, and consider foolish or even immoral, and yet still tolerate."

"I believe it is important to respect, promote and defend liberty, wherever and whenever it is challenged, even if this occasionally entails tolerating choices which I disapprove of. If I am to ask the same of others, and that they not impose their own preferences on me, then I would be a hypocrite to do anything else."

"[It] would seem to be the problem, that one person may disapprove of smoking marijuana, another of masturbation, another of wearing revealing clothes, and another of worshipping a different God, yet if each chooses to no longer tolerate this diversity, and impose their preferences on each other, then the mutual respect of liberty which makes peaceful coexistence possible is under threat."

"The term 'individual liberty' seems highly misleading, it would seem to suggest that there is another kind of liberty, but according to the definition of 'liberty' of which I am familiar, there is no such alternative."

"I would suggest that free-markets are a consequence of libertarianism, rather than the objective. A free-market economy tends to arise alongside liberty, since very rarely do people choose to enter into any other kind of economic arrangement."

"There is nothing in libertarianism which is in opposition to the formation of collectives, except where membership in a collective is maintained by coercion, rather than choice."

"It is an unfortunate fact, that if each is free to do whatever he pleases, then nobody is free from the coercion of others. In other words, if we are to have liberty at all, then liberty must be defended, and for the provision of a police force, justice system, and army, I reluctantly take the position that taxation is necessary."

"[There are circumstances where libertarians] may reluctantly accept taxation to address a problem. For example, the externalities caused by pollution would be a prime candidate for regulation, to capture the full cost of such activity which would be missed by the price system. That said, it would be a most unsatisfactory circumstance to be in, and we should seek an alternative solution, one more compatible with liberty."

"The ideal of liberty is not something which need be realised without exception, as there will always be crime and misuse of power. Instead, liberty is a guiding principle which a libertarian endevours to respect, promote and defend. It is rather like the ideal of truth for science, in that it is not necessary for scientists ever confirm that they have found the truth, nor even find the truth at all, but simply to hold truth as an ideal to strive for."

"I tend to be uncomfortable with the idea of others paying for my healthcare, since it encourages an intrusive preoccupation with my health, habits, and diet, at the expense of my privacy. I most certainly do not want to feel the same way about others, yet if I am going to be forced to pay for their bad health, habits or diet, then it is unfortunately my business too."

"[Libertarians tend to hold] that man is both easily corruptible and pervasively fallible, and that nobody can be trusted with arbitrary power over others, whether they are kings, emporers, presidents, politicians, bereaucrats, idealogues, CEOs, capitalists, popes, workers, or "the people"."

"The libertarian ideal is one where government is not only small, but also highly constrained, in that at least a minimum of liberty is preserved, and beyond the scope of even democratic reform."

"If a criminal does not respect the basic liberties of others, we do not tolerate his behaviour and might think it appropriate to fine, imprison, or even execute him, and if a voter or politician does the same, then what?"

"If success in the marketplace is dictated by politicians and bereaucrats, then businessmen will direct its resources away from satisfying consumer demand, and toward corrupting government. It is only that so much power rests with politicians in the first place, that they can sell the liberty of others to the highest bidder."

Thought of the Day...

Just because I imagined it doesn't mean it isn't true.

My Shoes

I have a monopoly on my shoes. There is no other pair of shoes that is exactly like mine, there are none that share the same creases, odour and history as my shoes. In the market sector of 'Lee's shoes' I am the sole trader (excuse the pun). I have an absolute monopoly, and in the absence of competition I am free to charge whatever price I choose.

I use this monopolistic position to exploit the consumer, who must either pay a high price or go without. In fact, to make the situation worse, my monopoly is enforced by law. It is either impossible or illegal for a competitor to enter the marketplace. This is surely an intolerable evil. There is, afterall, no such thing as a good or acceptable monopoly, right?