Comments on: The most pernicious race of little odious vermin that nature ever suffered to crawl upon the surface of the earth

By: Graham

Graham — Fri, 20 Mar 2020 16:25:03 +0000

Well, it’s the only kind of legal standard I can come up with that’s consistent with the legal and moral order of our societies when I was born and before modern progressivism, in that it allows for maximum free speech, far more than we theoretically and practically have now, while preserving the right to take action, which predates modern hate laws, if someone actually holds a rally and mobilizes people to kill their neighbours. You didn’t always have to weait until the killing actually started. And there were always provisions to cover advocacy of treason or rebellion.

I agree, ultimately even these depend on the willingness of the government, judiciary, and citizens to take a reasonable view of the definitions. I am only suggesting this as a pre-postmodern definition that could actually be so interpreted. If you lack sufficient citizens to even follow such strict language, then no constitutional document will serve and the effort to write one is pointless.

In this case, I appreciate that the definition of “immediate public disorder” would be subject to such wild reinterpretation as to break the English language. Proving that America, and such similar countries, do not have enough sane citizens to maintain a republic.

As any American Founder could by now probably agree.

By: Lucklucky

Lucklucky — Thu, 19 Mar 2020 21:04:59 +0000

“But he added a line about how a citizen ‘can say, write or publish anything not likely to cause immediate public disorder.’ That still strikes me as a more specific, better standard.”

No. Bad standard, you are just giving an incentive for disorder by those that don’t like what they hear.

By: Harry Jones

Harry Jones — Thu, 19 Mar 2020 17:44:28 +0000

“anything not likely to cause immediate public disorder” is a license for the tyranny of the triggered.

Words don’t cause public disorder. Disorderly people cause public disorder. Words are just an excuse.

By: Graham

Graham — Thu, 19 Mar 2020 17:18:39 +0000

My two takeways-

1. The wise Brobdignagian ruler would grant freedom of conscience, much as Elizabeth I said in matters of religion she needed outward conformity but would not “make windows into men’s souls”. This is a wise measure on the whole, and a necessary prerequisite for much. But in the end, utterly valueless without freedom of speech and action. Which he would not grant. Or at least was very ambivalent about, depending on his definition of “prejudicial to the public.”

The late John Reilly, alternate history analyst of New Jersey, once proposed a constitution for a world state drawing on his understanding of what universal states were really about- police measures. But he added a line about how a citizen “can say, write or publish anything not likely to cause immediate public disorder.” That still strikes me as a more specific, better standard.

2. Satirists aren’t always utopians, but Swift seemed to share this desire for the end of history. It seems like the Brobdignagians think a proper society should have none. Or one with all the fun taken out.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 19 Mar 2020 16:26:07 +0000

Swift reminds me of Voltaire or John Cleese, men who become rich and famous mocking and tearing down the civilization that sustains them because it doesn’t measure up to their fanciful ideals.

What amazes me about the Anglosphere is that up until women were given the right to vote, peacetime government spending was about three percent of GDP! Money was gold and taxes were almost non-existent by today’s standards. Until 1914 Englishmen traveled and worked freely without ID cards or any sort of registration, and the only contact most people ever had with the government was the post office.