Not that one should put too much weight on the wishes or intent of a bunch of slavers who didn't let women or non-land-owners vote, but... Yes, they definitely intended for nobody to be able to tell presses whose words they could or could not print. The recourse was "If nobody will print you, buy your own press."
A recourse Truth Social demonstrates still exists.
Not that one should put too much weight on the wishes or intent of a bunch of slavers
Politics is all a product of it's time; and furthermore, when it comes down to "compromise or realistically get rolled by a foreign adversary", those slavers you look down on still laid the foundation for the social liberalification that ultimately resulted in the world you live in today.
That "bunch of slavers" built a state in which there was the understanding the populace would be armed heavily enough to overthrow it, and it (the Government) was fettered from doing anything to stop that replacement short of Congress declaring War.
That... to put it mildly, was and still is pretty radical in the grand scheme of the history of Government.
Not to let this thread get dragged too far off-topic, but that's another example of why it isn't useful to put too much weight on the reasons they did the things they did in their time (as opposed to asking "What time are we in now, and how should effective government be shaped to serve the people in this time?").
In this modern era, most of the reasons for arming the public are completely obsolete:
- there is no longer a frontier so large the nation cannot defend it and must therefore be able to call up a well-regulated militia to defend its expansive borders against a people who (wisely) would challenge the nation's territorial claims
- the end of slavery means the end of the need for slave-patrols, which were the unwritten reason the South supported the Second Amendment (https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1002107670).
- in the era of planes, drones, e-warfare, bombs, tanks, APCs, and guided missiles, any notion that private firearm ownership actually constrains the government is foolishness. We've watched the government crack open far too many citizen compounds with violence applied to believe that. One could argue we actually watched half the country try to seize power via their Second Amendment-granted rights back in the 1860s and get about 20% of their men exterminated for their trouble. What constrains government activity is the continuing function of democracy to make that government accountable to the people if they find the violence was wrongly-applied or unpalatable. Broadly speaking, American citizens use their broad right of private firearm ownership mostly to kill each other and never to constrain government; the times it appeared government was constrained by private firearm ownership were a lot more about the executive agents on the ground not wanting another "Waco incident" than about the actual power of the private citizens holding weapons to stop the agents.
I like to keep in mind that one of the most ardent advocates for the Second Amendment to check the power of government eventually died via a bullet from his own dueling pistol. As did his son.
Not that one should put too much weight on the wishes or intent of a bunch of slavers
Easier to sling dirt at the founders than admitting you want giant (and for most of the world, foreign) corporations to set the bounds of public discourse, isn't it?
In fact, I'll own it: if history forces me to choose between a 1984 dystopia and a Brave New World dystopia, I'll choose Brave New World 100% of the time. I do trust corporations more than unanswerable governments; at least, I trust my ability to walk away from Amazon more than my ability to walk away from the organization that pays the police.
And on the topic of this article: I trust a world where a Donald Trump gets kicked off of every social media network and responds by starting his own way more than a world where the government says to, for example, Reddit: "You must keep Donald Trump on your site. And as long as we're dictating rules, here are our other demands..."
But do you admit that a handful of giant corporations controlling public debate is a problem? You just think one of the possible solutions is worse than the problem itself?
I should point out that the Westminster Declaration also attacks government censorship - presumably you agree with that part of it? As well as with the counter-speech interpretation of it - i.e. calling out companies that censor, exposing them to social, not legal, consequences?
It's tiresome to see all the problems of government/corporate censorship ignored with "I don't want government forcing me/giant corporations to promote evil people", while ignoring the options of social resistance to this censorship (i.e. not just making alternative platforms, but criticizing and pressuring existing platforms (the pro-censorship side doesn't shy away from pressure campaigns). To compare it with labor rights, they weren't won with "just quit and go work at a factory that doesn't employ children".), and ignoring the instances where government itself is legislating censorship.
Oh, it's a problem. I just think the only solution that isn't just "handing the future to a different taskmaster" is for the public to wake up, understand this is a problem, and choose to decentralize. Use the net to interpret censorship as damage and route around it. I think we're on the same page here.
Comments
Not that one should put too much weight on the wishes or intent of a bunch of slavers who didn't let women or non-land-owners vote, but... Yes, they definitely intended for nobody to be able to tell presses whose words they could or could not print. The recourse was "If nobody will print you, buy your own press."
A recourse Truth Social demonstrates still exists.
Politics is all a product of it's time; and furthermore, when it comes down to "compromise or realistically get rolled by a foreign adversary", those slavers you look down on still laid the foundation for the social liberalification that ultimately resulted in the world you live in today.
That "bunch of slavers" built a state in which there was the understanding the populace would be armed heavily enough to overthrow it, and it (the Government) was fettered from doing anything to stop that replacement short of Congress declaring War.
That... to put it mildly, was and still is pretty radical in the grand scheme of the history of Government.
Not to let this thread get dragged too far off-topic, but that's another example of why it isn't useful to put too much weight on the reasons they did the things they did in their time (as opposed to asking "What time are we in now, and how should effective government be shaped to serve the people in this time?").
In this modern era, most of the reasons for arming the public are completely obsolete:
- there is no longer a frontier so large the nation cannot defend it and must therefore be able to call up a well-regulated militia to defend its expansive borders against a people who (wisely) would challenge the nation's territorial claims
- the end of slavery means the end of the need for slave-patrols, which were the unwritten reason the South supported the Second Amendment (https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1002107670).
- in the era of planes, drones, e-warfare, bombs, tanks, APCs, and guided missiles, any notion that private firearm ownership actually constrains the government is foolishness. We've watched the government crack open far too many citizen compounds with violence applied to believe that. One could argue we actually watched half the country try to seize power via their Second Amendment-granted rights back in the 1860s and get about 20% of their men exterminated for their trouble. What constrains government activity is the continuing function of democracy to make that government accountable to the people if they find the violence was wrongly-applied or unpalatable. Broadly speaking, American citizens use their broad right of private firearm ownership mostly to kill each other and never to constrain government; the times it appeared government was constrained by private firearm ownership were a lot more about the executive agents on the ground not wanting another "Waco incident" than about the actual power of the private citizens holding weapons to stop the agents.
I like to keep in mind that one of the most ardent advocates for the Second Amendment to check the power of government eventually died via a bullet from his own dueling pistol. As did his son.
Easier to sling dirt at the founders than admitting you want giant (and for most of the world, foreign) corporations to set the bounds of public discourse, isn't it?
I contain multitudes; I can do both.
In fact, I'll own it: if history forces me to choose between a 1984 dystopia and a Brave New World dystopia, I'll choose Brave New World 100% of the time. I do trust corporations more than unanswerable governments; at least, I trust my ability to walk away from Amazon more than my ability to walk away from the organization that pays the police.
And on the topic of this article: I trust a world where a Donald Trump gets kicked off of every social media network and responds by starting his own way more than a world where the government says to, for example, Reddit: "You must keep Donald Trump on your site. And as long as we're dictating rules, here are our other demands..."
But do you admit that a handful of giant corporations controlling public debate is a problem? You just think one of the possible solutions is worse than the problem itself?
I should point out that the Westminster Declaration also attacks government censorship - presumably you agree with that part of it? As well as with the counter-speech interpretation of it - i.e. calling out companies that censor, exposing them to social, not legal, consequences?
It's tiresome to see all the problems of government/corporate censorship ignored with "I don't want government forcing me/giant corporations to promote evil people", while ignoring the options of social resistance to this censorship (i.e. not just making alternative platforms, but criticizing and pressuring existing platforms (the pro-censorship side doesn't shy away from pressure campaigns). To compare it with labor rights, they weren't won with "just quit and go work at a factory that doesn't employ children".), and ignoring the instances where government itself is legislating censorship.
Oh, it's a problem. I just think the only solution that isn't just "handing the future to a different taskmaster" is for the public to wake up, understand this is a problem, and choose to decentralize. Use the net to interpret censorship as damage and route around it. I think we're on the same page here.