Libertarian Philosophy in the Real World: The Politics of Natural Rights
(Now Available)
Nozick’s Libertarian Project: An Elaboration and Defense
The Best of Modern Swedish Art Glass: Orrefors and Kosta 1930-1970
Category Archives: robert nozick
The Gift of Gab
The First Amendment to our Constitution provides a near absolute level of protection against governmental censorship of expression based on its content. There are no exceptions for even obviously false statements or those that most people would regard as offensive or hateful. I defend the (non-utilitarian) moral basis for this protection in Chapter 3 of my Libertarian Philosophy in the Real World, and more casually here.
Some restrictions on speech, not based on the ideas presented, are morally permissible. For example, the state should punish expression that credibly threatens violence or seeks to incite it because this is an example of a crime committed by means of expression. Similarly, there is no constitutional protection for “Your money or your life!” or for publishing information on troop movements during wartime. Finally, state officials, provided that they do so in a fair and neutral way, may legitimately regulate the “time, place, and manner” of expression, so that the rights of other innocent citizens are not violated. There are gray areas, but the principle is clear-cut.
By its terms, the First Amendment applies only to Congress, but has been extended to the various states and their instrumentalities (administrative agencies, universities, etc.) by the Fourteenth Amendment. It does not apply to private citizens, groups, associations, and corporations. Thus, large social media providers (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) and platforms (Reddit, etc.) may enforce markedly different rules, and they do. For instance, Facebook’s “Community Standards” expressly bans “hate speech,” which it defines as:
a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disease or disability. We also provide some protections for immigration status. We define attack as violent or dehumanizing speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation.
Posted in Blog, libertarianism, libertarians, mark friedman, robert nozick
Leave a comment
Democracy and the Rule of Law: Some Additional Thoughts
I have devoted a number of posts on this site to explicating the proper understanding of the rule of law, and its fraught relationship to representative democracy. In a previous post, I describe the threat posed to individual rights by the majority’s desire to finance their own consumption at the expense of other citizens, or even more expediently, by stealing from future generations. But recent events have reminded me that there may be an even more sinister force at work, namely the electorate’s gross ignorance of modern political history and the rudiments of economics. A case in point is Venezuela’s unfortunate history over the last 15 years. Continue Reading »
Posted in libertarianism, libertarians, mark friedman, robert nozick
Leave a comment
Nozick and Hayek on Property Rights
Chapter 2 of my new book, Libertarian Philosophy in the Real World: The Politics of Natural Rights (forthcoming by the end of the year), provides a concise moral justification of property rights, and then discusses the threat posed to them by eminent domain, regulatory takings, and zoning. Subsequent chapters explore equally consequential, but less blatant, assaults on these rights. In arguing that economic liberty is entitled to the same deference accorded other freedoms, I draw on the insights of Robert Nozick and F. A. Hayek, and I wish to very briefly focus attention here on a certain convergence in their thinking. Continue Reading »
Posted in libertarianism, libertarians, mark friedman, robert nozick
Leave a comment
