I think it strikes people as kind of dictatorial and goes against the example Washington set.

But you said it's a problem to have career politicians. What was the problem with FDR? FDR's best moments happened well into his 3rd term. He was a great wartime president. As long as the person has to keep getting elected, why is it bad to keep them in office? — RogueAI

Because having power over others makes it easier to keep that power by controlling the media and establishing long-term relationships with lobbyists. With new people coming in, deals would need to be renegotiated.

Instead of picking the lesser of two evils, I get to pick the more effective of two evils. — MrLiminal

There are other options on the ballot. In 2020, the argument was that you don't want to vote for the racist, DT. But Biden is also racist. There were non-racists on the ballot if that was really one's concern.

The fact that the other options didn't have a chance in that election was due more to people being uninformed of the other options. When independents outnumber Democrats or Republicans why are we not seeing equal representation in the media during the political campaigns?

My advice to your developer is that you need more training.

Why is that a problem? Lincoln made it a career and I think he was awesome. — RogueAI

Why do you think America limited the number of Presidential terms to two? I wonder why Congress doesn't do the same for themselves. They can easily write laws to control the other branches of government but can't seem to write ones that control themselves.

You provided a link to a PBS article when I'm asking for YOUR categorical observations of anarchistic, liberal and socialist behavior. Have you ever observed another person, or do you only observe internet articles? Are you an AI training bot?

I'm not a huge fan of politicians, but what you're saying strikes me as overly cynical and a kind of moral cowardice. In my life, I've seen good and bad politicians and politicians don't seem to me to be any worse than anyone else from some other similar walk of life. Doesn't saying they're all corrupt (or almost all) make it easier then to justify voting for someone you know you shouldn't be voting for? — RogueAI

When you make politics a career - that is the problem.

Is Emma Goldman not a real world example? — Moliere

of what? What did she do to qualify as such?

But then I would do the same for anarchists -- so the philosophers have been listed in this thread, and it seems to me that there are real people doing things with those theories throughout history and today so the idea that real anarchy is a total lack of order just seems ludicrous to me. And it's that picture of complete disorder that's the liberal picture -- whether you're a liberal or not, that's the general background image of the anarchist.

Or no? — Moliere

No.

So, what would a socialist call a liberal participating in an insurrection to overthrow the socialist government - fascist (since anarchists are just rebellious socialists)?

Forget about what some philosopher said. Philosophers are just humans who are trying to make sense of the world they observe. When you, Moliere, observe someone's behavior what types of behaviors would you categorize as "anarchy", "liberal", "socialist", other than them making sounds with their mouth, "I am an anarchist/liberal/socialist"? This is what I have been asking for - real world examples.

No, because you've conditioned out the context in which that is a crime. Disparaging is also a little weak to reach any kind of a legal benchmark.

He certainly could. But I highly doubt anyone would entertain that argument from someone running for President. But, as I understand the law, yes, he could absolutely sue several outlets and untold individuals for defamation. Musk could do the same. But why would they? — AmadeusD

Exactly. Conditioning out the context in which defamation is a crime is having an informed population.

Conditioning out inciting speech would also involve having an informed society. See the connection?

Eh, it's more that I think that your notion of how to look at political philosophies is flawed -- theory is important, but relying upon the meanings of words as we've come to understand them from our background is going to produce flawed results because all backgrounds are politicized. So the notion of anarchy you're espousing is something of a liberal perception of anarchy. — Moliere

You're not reading what I said. How does asserting that both socialists and libertarians have used anarchy as a means to an end espousing something of a liberal perception of anarchy? And why would I be asking for definitions of anarchy if I'm already expressing some bias? You are projecting.

My point in asking the questions that I am is to tease out those distinguishing characteristics of anarchy from all other social frameworks including liberal and socialist ones.

I think this highlights the question we're discussing. I'm just thinking this through myself, but there has to be a difference between "private language" and "private reference," doesn't there? As frank says, we don't need a private language to refer privately. We can use the community language we all know. That's not what's private about private reference -- rather, I'm arguing that it's the independence from "triangulation" or the need to have a listener comprehend the speaker's reference. I read Srap as talking about language, not reference, and if that's so, then what Srap says is clearly true: Robinson Crusoe needs to have inherited and practiced a non-private language before he can make up any designations for the flotsam that washes up on his beach. But once he does that, why would we deny that he's referring to said flotsam when he thinks about it, or perhaps makes a list of tasks? — J

What are we doing when we use a word in the community language differently (ie slang, etc)? It takes time for that use to propagate throughout the community. When does it go from being a private use to community use? Does this mean that language is rooted in private reference that has been simply been agreed upon by the community? Who invented each language? How did each language become a language? Was it the local shaman that found scribbles useful for keeping track of natural events and then taught the use of the scribbles to the community?

Well, it might be your problem, but for my part I'm calling the anarchists anarchists, rather than "confused about what they are saying because pure anarchy is NO order" -- I'm content with continuing to be wrong by that standard. — Moliere

If you're content with that then you must be content with calling people who claim to be a Dark Lord of the Sith a Dark Lord of the Sith, else you would be also be content with being inconsistent.

Then I will be in error from now until forever -- what are we to call the people who call themselves anarchists and organize anarchically and advocate for anarchic things that have nothing to do with an absence of a social framework?

Horizontalists who are confused about anarchy? — Moliere

That's the problem - believing that people who identify in some way or another are always correct in their assertion. Has there ever been a case where someone has misidentified themselves, either by accident or on purpose?

When they claim to be something, what do they mean? What characteristics are they referring to, and how are those arrangement of characteristics distinct from other types of identity?

Man, I just listed a couple of examples to show that there's stuff out there to research -- that question you posed is a good question, but also huge and I wouldn't be able to answer it well without more work. I'd also note that they're just examples -- I'd include a lot of the socialist countries on the list, and I'd include a lot of the anarchist projects often mentioned if you go through the links provided in the thread. The point of the example was to note that we at least have real examples of humans doing this, so that the animal analogies really are just analogies. — Moliere

Nonsense. I thought you did your research prior to posting your examples, or else how would you know what a Marxist is vs an Anarchist? Why didn't you just post a link to the Marxist site and claim that it is an example of both socialism and anarchism? What are the key differences? Until you provide the key differences by defining the words you are using, your examples could be considered analogies as well.

The point was that that the "anarchists" in the Spanish Civil war weren't anarchists. They were socialists participating in an insurrection.

Anarchy is the framework for both Socialists (Bolshevik revolution) and Libertarians (American insurrection of the late 18th century) to overthrow the current framework before their ideas can be fully implemented.

If you are saying that anarchists advocate for worker control and collective ownership of resources then you are conflating anarchy with socialism. Anarchy is not a social framework. It is the absence of one.

No, please reread my post. I'm talking about being influenced. — Quk

But I've been talking about influence all along as well but you seemed to reject how I was using it, so I'm now trying to understand how you are using it and you aren't being very helpful.

If someone makes disparaging remarks about someone else but all listeners know that those remarks are not true, was a crime committed in making those remarks?

Did the left's constant characterization of Trump as a Fascist and Nazi influence more than half of American citizens to not vote for him? Does Trump have a case to sue those that made those claims?

Let's say for Marx The Soviet Union, and for anarchists the Anarchism in Spain -- so not just theories but some historical examples. — Moliere

Ok. Now what are the key differences between Marx The Soviet Union and anarchists in Spain?
I found this:

This group is known as the Battalion of Death, an Italian Anarchist group that fought in the Spanish Civil War. It reminds me of the Soviet and Fascist German propaganda posters. There are many more like this and images that appear to be marketing towards socialists and fascists when you Google "anarchists in spain" images.

So at what point does one cease being an anarchist and become a socialist or fascist? Is anarchy untenable in the long term and always evolves into socialism, fascism or libertarianism? It seems to me that there are some social structures that are not the ends, but the means to an end. One might say that communism is the means by which a society transitions from capitalism to socialism. The only problem is how can we trust those in power to give up their power and actually work to transition towards the end rather than make the means the end.

It depends on how one is defining "refer" and "language". Is referring and language the same thing, or can you have one without the other?

We have a term, "reference," and we're considering how best to use it in order to carve up the conceptual territory. So it might be that we want to reserve "reference" for the cases where triangulation is involved. In that case, we need another term to describe what I'm doing, privately. I was asking Banno which of these outlooks he favors -- hope that makes sense. — J

I'm jumping in here without an clear understanding of how "triangulation" is being used here (a relation between the scribble, the writer and the reader, or the scribble, what the scribble references and the scribbler). I don't see a triangulation unless we leave out the reader/listener as we have three things in the scribbler, the scribble and what the scribble refers to. So it appears there may be some trying to fit a square into a triangle-shaped hole.

Say you were the only person in the world. Why would you even consider drawing scribbles to refer to other things that are not scribbles? Well, maybe you might want to keep track of time, like how many days passed since the last rain, or when the deer migrate, etc. Maybe you want to remember the past so you might make scribbles that remind you of something in the past. I have spreadsheets containing information that I've never shown to anyone. They are for my eyes only, and only I would understand the relationship between the information within the cells. So it seems to me that a reader/listener is not necessary for reference, just some rule where some scribble refers to something else and the rule-maker. Agreement with others about the rules of reference come later.

Yes, but only after you've learned it was a lie. You are diverting from my point. I'm talking about situations where you are being influenced by friend XY because you haven't learned yet that friend XY has lied. You are talking about the situation thereafter. Please refer to my point. — Quk

Sure, but there is no law against lying. Are you saying there should be? Have you ever lied - to anyone?

I'll just pose to you the question I posed to Michael but did not receive a response, which just makes Michael proving my point:

If you don't agree that the differences in the brain are the direct cause of one's actions then you would be happy to give the person that told you to give all your money to a beggar the "Selfless Person of the Year" award, right? — Harry Hindu

I am saying that NOS4A2's claim that speech has no causal power beyond the immediate transfer of kinetic energy in the inner ear is a complete misunderstanding of causation. — Michael

You can say that if you want, but that has no bearing on our conversation, as you have already agreed with me that there are brain differences that are the immediate cause of one's behavior and not what goes on in the inner ear.

Ants and bees in a colony are all brothers / sisters so are essentially a nuclear family and won't share with other colonies more genetically distant. — boethius

Good point.

My own focus has been on local and open source solar thermal technology. Anarchists of this school tend to want to seed such ideas and practices all over the place, and not stay isolated in some analogue of the family. Both socialists and anarchists try to form networks and groups of mutual support generally speaking. — boethius

But this can be said of many social structures so is not a defining property of anarchy.

Sure, if I squint I see that. But analogies are more pedagogical or helps us to orient ourselves -- the thing itself isn't either of the animal metaphors, but human social organization. So it will differ from our closer cousins, even, it's just a metaphor for thinking through things. — Moliere

My point is that we need real world examples to map these ideas to. If we can't find real world examples, then they are just ideas untethered to reality.

Have there been any anarchist societies (seems like a contradiction to me), or societies that reflect Marx's vision in human history? If so, how does that compare to the other social structures that exist, like democracies, republics, libertarian's limited government, despotism, and monarchies? While there are similarities among them all, what are the key differences that make them separate?

That's a bit of a snag for authoritarians proclaiming themselves liberators. — Vera Mont

I don't get your point. If you don't judge people based on past behavior you just end up believing the same people that have lied to you and engaging in useless conversations with people that refuse to be intellectually honest. There's nothing authoritarian about that. It's just simple logic.

I was a male regardless of what I knew or believed until I acquired more information.
— Harry Hindu
And once you acquired more information, you learned what it is to be a woman? Well, all right, sister. Welcome to our rest room! — Vera Mont

Ok, so I was in a hurry in typing that last part, but I'm sure that you knew what I meant.

I'll re-phrase:
My sex was determined at the moment of fertilization despite what I, my mother, father or the doctors knew at that time. It was only in making observations over time that my sex became known to the doctors, my mother and my father. I had to wait to acquire this information (not create it) by making my own observations.

Rather, I'm using closer cousins to get at a metaphor for two sides of human nature -- not that nature is fixed in some sense, but these are two strategies which species like us employ in resolving differences within the social organism. — Moliere

I don't think limiting ourselves to our closer cousins is the way to go. If you want to exclude some species because you claim that they are not what they appear to be (hierarchical), then I will disagree and just say that all social structures are strategies for resolving differences within the social organism and should be taken into account and compared with each other. When you do that, the social structure of ants/bees more closely resembles the utopia Marx envisioned where the resources are owned by the entire society.

Cats only like to share their resources with close family and friends.

The danger there is that anarchists are more organized than cats, and Marxists are less organized than ants. Further, ants only look like they have a hierarchy -- a queen ant and the workers -- but that's our hierarchical prejudices being projected upon the social form of ants. Ant's are far more invested in the collective than any human ever has been. — Moliere

I guess that depends on which definition of "anarchy" and "hierarchy" you are using.

If I were to use animal metaphors I'd say that anarchy expresses our bonobo side and marxism expresses our chimpanzee side, with the intent of dismantling the chimpanzee side. In order to topple hierarchies hierarchies are necessary evils simply because that's always what's worked before. But for the anarchist in order to topple hierarchies we have to start living like they aren't there, and learn how to chill out and have sex all the time without exploiting one another. — Moliere

Again, the AI response:
Bonobos live in matriarchal, female-dominated societies, where females lead the group and maintain strong bonds with each other. They are known for their peaceful and tolerant interactions, often resolving conflicts through socio-sexual behavior like "gg rubbing". In contrast, chimpanzees have a more hierarchical social structure, with males holding a dominant position and engaging in aggressive behaviors, including territorial defense and intergroup conflicts.

It seems to me that you are saying that a social structure is only hierarchical if it is male-dominated. If only the females were in charge, us men would get more sex? Somehow I doubt that would be the case. More likely, only some men would get more sex and all the others would be left limp.

You're going to have to expand on this cats / bees hypotheses. — boethius

You're telling me I need to tell you about the cats and the bees?

AI's response to the above question:
Cats are generally solitary hunters but can form social groups, particularly in feral conditions. These groups, often consisting of related females and their offspring, are not based on a strict hierarchy like dog packs. Instead, social bonds and affiliations between cats are more flexible and can shift based on individual preferences and resource availability.

Ants live in complex, hierarchical colonies where different roles are assigned based on caste, a term referring to job class. The social structure is characterized by a queen, workers, soldiers, and males, each with distinct functions crucial to the colony's survival.

Yup -- that'd be the utopian version of both, but in terms of differentiating them and trying to wrap your mind around it that's a good simplification. — Moliere

Even more simpler, the difference between anarchy and Marxism is similar to the difference between the social order of cats and the social order of ants/bees.

:roll: Then I have no idea what you're saying, as usual.

Aside from the misrepresentation of this topic, are you saying the only reason to write an essay to incite? — Vera Mont

Well, "incite" could be one possible reaction according to some on these forums. Why would someone write an essay with a faulty analysis of the facts?

It's not describing either of those thing. It's pointing out discrepancies between rhetoric and reality. — Vera Mont

Then we agree that people are not always what they claim to be. An individual is what they are based on natural causes (in the context of mating and medicine) and their actions since becoming a legal adult (in the context of the laws of the society they live in) that preceded their existence at this moment in time.

How do you know? Do you recall being born and knowing what gender you were? Are you speaking of every woman's experience, or a man describing what it's like to be a woman? — Vera Mont

Exactly. I was a male regardless of what I knew or believed until I acquired more information.

So what about my argument are you objecting to? You seem to think I'm saying something I'm not. — Michael

Do I seriously need to hold your hand? You must be a p-zombie or an AI training bot.

It follows that, in a society that values freedom and individualism - not communism - that we punish and award an individual's actions, not what someone said that preceded it.

There is always a reaction (unless they’re deaf). It’s just that not all reactions involve the muscles. Just as not all the computer’s reactions involve displaying a character on the screen, e.g for security when typing a password on the CLI nothing is displayed.
— Michael
We're not talking about ANY reaction, just unethical ones, like rioting. If someone tells you to give all your money to a beggar, and you do, should that person win the "Selfless Person of the Year" award, or should you? — Harry Hindu

We're not talking about people that respond by saying. "No! What you are saying isn't true! You're manipulating these people to incite a riot.", or actively oppose what others are saying, right? We're talking strictly about bad acts that followed a speech, right?

So let's focus now on why some people either riot or they don't, or they stampede or they don't. Is it the differences in our brain? Yes, I agree. So it would follow that their "brain differences" is what directly preceded their actions and it is those "brain differences" that we should focus on changing if we want to limit stampedes and riots in the future.

If you don't agree that the differences in the brain are the direct cause of one's actions then you would be happy to give the person that told you to give all your money to a beggar the "Selfless Person of the Year" award, right?

When a society punishes and awards others for an individual's actions - that's pretty much communism, right?

What does that mean?

Brains are just a bunch of interconnected neurons sending electrical and chemical signals to one another. There’s nothing above-and-beyond this.

How the brain responds to its environment (e.g signals sent from the sense organs) is determined by the nature of these connections.

Different brains have different connections, and so respond differently to the same stimulus. — Michael

We agree, we're just using different terms to describe what is happening. So if you want to say that our brains are different and it is because we have different types of connections between our neurons, that is fine. This is not our point of contention. You not taking this understanding that there is a difference in our brains and applying it to the issue, is the issue.

Address the other points I made in the post you cherry-picked.

No we wouldn’t because our brains are not identical. — Michael

Exactly. Our brains do not have the same information.

There is always a reaction (unless they’re deaf). It’s just that not all reactions involve the muscles. Just as not all the computer’s reactions involve displaying a character on the screen, e.g for security when typing a password on the CLI nothing is displayed. — Michael

We're not talking about ANY reaction, just unethical ones, like rioting. If someone tells you to give all your money to a beggar, and you do, should that person win the "Selfless Person of the Year" award, or should you?

It’s really not clear what your problem is. Do you object to the claim that every physical event is caused to happen by some prior physical event? — Michael

I object to you using the term, "physical", but I do not object to the claim that every effect is followed by a cause, but I am also saying that different effects means that there were different causes at play. This must be the case if determinism is true and you need to acknowledge this if you want to keep using determinism as part of your argument.

Bad example. You need to bring a complex example where your evaluation can fail. Now you can say you've never failed in your life and I won't believe you, or you can provide an example where your evaluation has failed and where you had to correct your opinion afterwards. In such a situation you had not enough data and so you relied on someone else's input. — Quk

You spoke about being "all-knowing", which is what I was responding to.

Now you're talking about access to the proper information, which proves my point that in order to make proper decisions means you need access to the proper information. You only realized you made the wrong decision after you have access to more information.

Now that you and I have had that type of experience of being lied to by another human being, wouldn't that make you more skeptical of what people say? Wouldn't that make you less likely to be manipulated by faulty information in the future?

For members of a political party, they are trained to believe that everything their side says is scripture and everything the other side says is heresy. Political parties are like religions in this regard where you do not question your party or religion or else you are excommunicated (canceled).

I already explained it with the analogy of the computers. How each computer responds to someone pressing the "A" key is determined by its internal structure. But its response is still caused by someone pressing the "A" key.

How the human body (including the brain) responds to some given stimulus is determined by its internal structure. But its response is still caused by the stimulus. — Michael

If that were the case, we would all be responding the same way, but we don't so your theory does not fully explain what we observe. How is saying some words and getting no reaction the same as pressing the "A" key and getting a reaction? Some people do not riot when hearing those words, which is not equivalent to your example of typing "A" on a keyboard and getting some kind of reaction. It would be more like typing an "A" and nothing happens. You might think the computer or keyboard is malfunctioning. Is a person that hears some inciting words and is not incited to participate in a riot malfunctioning?

Every essay takes the position it takes on the subject it discusses. The author talking about Kierkegaard makes no appeal to Schopnehauer. The one discussing past and present doesn't get into a critique of Judaism. An op-ed piece on cinema hardly mentions what's wrong with painting and a recipe for bean soup doesn't even consider pumpkin pie. — Vera Mont

Exactly. And I am not off topic discussing authoritarianism and libertarianism in a thread titled: The Authoritarian Liberty Paradox. This is a typical tactic of not agreeing with what said but instead of making an argument against what was said, you assert it is off-topic. Well, my posts have not been deleted for being off-topic, so.... next.

Where does the author say this essay is intended to solve a problem? Or the relative size of evils? — Vera Mont

I don't know. Why would the author write the essay asserting that Libertarianism is actually Authoritarianism unless they planned on inciting others to do something about it? The whole essay is a straw-man. It appears to be an authoritarian describing libertarianism. It's like a man describing what it is like to be a woman.

It's not bashing the ideology; it's showing its shortcomings as a philosophy. It points out the gaps between the stated tenets of the ideology, political theory and social reality, as illustrated by some high-profile figures who claim to be its embodiment. — Vera Mont

Just because someone claims to be a woman does not mean they are a woman. Just because someone claims to be a Libertarian does not mean they are. One is a woman by the way they are born. One is a Libertarian but the way one behaves and treats others with a healthy understanding and respect that others have the same freedoms as you do.

Any unbiased, intelligent person understands that ALL politicians lie and manipulate the facts. I have already pointed out that both Dems and Reps hide their authoritarian tendencies by covering them up with their Libertarian tendencies. Just as you telling me what pronouns I have to use is not an expression of freedom and inclusion. It is a form of authoritarianism. Just as the right likes to talk about religious freedom but that is just cover talk for Christianity is the state's religion and there is no separation of church and state. So the essay appears to be describing the two-party system, not Libertarianism.

The political parties don't want you thinking for yourself, and people typically join political parties to be told what to think because thinking for yourself and doing the research is difficult and time-consuming.

You’ve just gone down rabbit holes of madness arguing minutiae with some of the more esoteric posters. — Malcolm Parry

The transgender issue IS a rabbit hole, so to even participate is to jump down a rabbit hole and argue with esoteric posters.

Philosophy often involves exploring rabbit holes.

A biological woman who looks very much like a man. Has had sex change operation, double mastectomy, hormone treatment, etc. What restroom do you want her to use? — RogueAI

Using your own words, they are a biological woman, so use the women's bathroom. I've asked this before: Why the "biological" qualifier for woman and man? Is there another type of woman or man that is not biological? What about a woman that looks like a man (has short hair, wears pants, and does not wear make-up, had a double mastectomy as a result of cancer) but identifies as a woman? Which bathroom should she use?

Social business as in. . . having a job interview. . . eating with someone. . . talking. . .

Are you obsessed on a daily basis with assessing is the person I'm talking to really XX/XY chromosome or are they faking it? If you say yes you are sexist. . . literally. — substantivalism

No. I'm merely pointing out that there are cases where it is important to know what sex someone is (mating and medical contexts), and you seem to think that knowing another's sex is never relevant in any context. Answer this question: A woman masquerading as a man walks into a gay bar and fools a gay man into believing they are a man. Is that unethical?

It's actually therefore inefficient if a toilet can support multiple roles and most bathrooms I've gone into that are only for one sex. . . single person. . . only have had that in numerous businesses.

What about a toilet removes efficiency? Left up the lid and suddenly its a urinal.

With it is the increased sense of privacy that I do value. — substantivalism

I don't know. Why were urinals invented? I did ask that and you did not answer. Why are hands-free toilet flushing, sinks, soap dispensers and air dryers were invented - to limit the spread of germs. If you like touching a public toilet seat to lift it up, that is your prerogative, but something tells me that you were one of those people that insisted everyone get a vaccine and wear a mask during Covid, sooo....

Identify as what? — substantivalism

Does modifying your body make you the think you are trying to emulate? Does having a "sex-changing" operation make you the opposite sex? Is a hole between a man's legs, that he has to use medical grade stents to keep it from closing, a vagina? Yes, or no?

Yes they can. . . they get to tell you how they want themselves to be referred as. . . or talked to. Why do you think we ask people what THEIR name is and don't just make something up on the spot?

Basic Human communication demands this as such. — substantivalism

Not when they way they want me to speak does not reflect my own views, it reflects theirs. My view is that men and women are adult human males and females, not some psychological or social construct. We are free to disagree and go our separate ways. Neither has to submit to the will of the other. The problem is that delusional people always seek to affirm their delusions by trying to force others into participating in their delusion and will appear offended when others refuse to participate.

Wisdom also recognizes we need generalized categories or universals to designate characteristics and compare ourselves to others. Otherwise you wouldn't know what words or concepts to designate who you are. . . if you didn't contrast yourself with others. — substantivalism

Exactly my point in that "woman" and "man" need to be used consistently and not have open-ended meanings so that we know how to use the terms to refer to ourselves. You said that having a nose-ring and tattoos is an expression of one's sex/gender. I asked which sex/gender does having a nose-ring and tattoos make me? You didn't answer. You don't answer a lot of pertinent questions.

Not one contributor has addressed what it means to be a woman in 2025. — Malcolm Parry

I'm pretty sure I defined a woman as an adult human female somewhere in this thread.

Can’t we, in a free society always just ignore the majority if we want? It may take courage, but the majority shouting down the minority is still immensely better than a government silencing the individual and forcing him to do something he doesn’t want to do.

Screw the majority! Be bold. And screw the government too. In a truly totalitarian state, you can’t say “screw the government” or really, you can only say what the government and the majority it allows to exist says. Majority and government become a monopoly on speech under a government that regulates speech.

The media sucks. The majority is really loud and intrusive. Those are not the same issue as the government regulating speech. — Fire Ologist

What does one mean by the "majority shouting down the minority"? What is a real world example? In a democracy isn't the majority the same as the government? Isn't that why the U.S. isn't a democracy, but a republic where states are both equally represented in the Senate and represented by population in the House?

The ideas of the majority and the minority should be subject to logical criticism. I should have just as much of a right to question the majority as I would have to question the minority.

Speech is regulated not just by having laws saying "You can't say this or that or you go to jail", but by limiting access to information. Less information about an issue means less can be said about the issue.

It seems to me that suppressing information might be easier for the majority than the minority. I see the Democrats/Republican two-party system as the majority and independents as the minority in this respect where alternate candidates are not given the same screen time as the majority when the number of independents is growing and now outnumbers either Democrats or Republicans.