utility@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca (Ronald BODKIN) (01/20/90)
(the rn program here screwed up, so I can't quote your last message) In your posting you mentioned we claim to believe people are welcome to hold certain views. Not true at all. We claim to believe they are FREE to do so -- but just as you are free to pickle your liver by drinking booze non-stop, I don't think this behaviour is WELCOMED by society, nor is it welcome to parade around the streets in a towel, although our society may allow people that freedom (of course it SHOULD allow that on public property). As for "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it", you damn right I'll add in "however, I will not IGNORE what you have said in my dealings with you". As for the question as to how you should deal with people, I'd say that it is only natural to oppose those who are offensive or dangerous, although it is rare that someone will find it in their interest to "boycott" someone's views (rare for a rational person, although the irrational of this world love this kind of waste of time). As for the "whine" word -- I'm not saying you're a whiner, it just fit in nicely with the expression, and I didn't mean to lower the tone of the discussion. In the end, freedom is only permissive it does not relate to a compulsion that other people should support your free action. In political arenas people should act on other's views, even you would agree, but politics is surely only the most important application. For to suggest someone's freedom should enslave another man in his (formerly) free right of association is a hideously contradictory position. As for democracy, if it produces a tyranny of the masses, then I'm opposed. I wouldn't care if everyone else votes for my life to be taken -- you can rest assured I'd fight them with all my efforts (maybe I'd just escape). What's needed is a constitution which chains the power of the government (and no constitution should be "flexible" to the point the chain can be broken). Ron