tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post1790337860380569830..comments2024-03-28T09:59:13.754-07:00Comments on bionic mosquito: Understanding Thomas bionic mosquitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-84944556853795501042020-06-21T11:34:12.257-07:002020-06-21T11:34:12.257-07:00Roger, this could be. It isn't completely con...Roger, this could be. It isn't completely consistent - I have checked several of the comments threads to posts I have published after the switch. There are a few cases where the dialogue continued within the proper comment thread (replies, as appropriate). There are several that do not.<br /><br />My first thought would be that the distinction would be if someone was logged in to their google account that it should work normally - but per RMB (if I remember correctly) this wasn't true for him.<br /><br />So I don't know why the distinction. A search for reports of this problem is not yet successful.<br /><br />I will send a note to google, but given the size of my blog and that I don't take advertising, I doubt I will have any response - this path hasn't helped me in the past.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-24816496712774100662020-06-21T10:13:06.067-07:002020-06-21T10:13:06.067-07:00Bionic, refer to your note above to RMB. I deliber...Bionic, refer to your note above to RMB. I deliberately replied to your comment as a reply, but it showed up as a new thread. I think you are on to something here. Rogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08156823478509665137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-59179232466648361452020-06-21T09:01:53.263-07:002020-06-21T09:01:53.263-07:00I do think about that and I am, like, what the hec...I do think about that and I am, like, what the heck are we waiting for?Rogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08156823478509665137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-37402651665057209592020-06-21T06:55:44.779-07:002020-06-21T06:55:44.779-07:00RMB, see the comment immediately below by Roger. ...RMB, see the comment immediately below by Roger. I am wondering if this is the cause of your not seeing replies by others.<br /><br />I have noticed over the last weeks that many people are replying by starting a new comment thread, as Roger has done here. In this case, the original commenter would not get a notification, as the comment is not in "reply."bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-68827821167695351252020-06-21T06:53:16.682-07:002020-06-21T06:53:16.682-07:00The way the State should - MUST - act in the meant...The way the State should - MUST - act in the meantime is to ensure all voices are heard on "State" property (peacefully, of course), and any actions taken by others to stifle that voice be prosecuted. In other words, the administrators doing the firing would be prosecuted; the students doing the demanding would, at minimum, be kicked out.<br /><br />Think about what that would mean on state college campuses across the country - as well as most private college campuses, as these are also funded significantly by the state.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-31505391629834919102020-06-21T05:12:35.019-07:002020-06-21T05:12:35.019-07:00There are only two types of property ownership: in...There are only two types of property ownership: individual and communal. If more than one person owns anything, then it is communal, even though it may not be what we normally think of as public. For instance, a married couple may own a residence together communally, but that does not make it publicly held. It is still private property and must be treated as such. Public property, e.g., national parks, highways, and courthouses, is held communally, but the owners are named in some amorphous way—the people or the taxpayers, for instance, and the property is controlled and administered in a political manner. Whoever can scream the loudest for the longest time gets to ‘own’ the property. <br /><br />I think it is not possible to “...to have a place where there is no property owner so that all voices are able to be heard.”, unless that place is devoid of human existence, in which case there would be no need to designate it as a free speech zone. In today’s world, all property, no matter the type, is owned by somebody and subject to restriction by said owner. <br /><br />What is more important than who owns the property is to ensure that free speech is allowed and tolerated in the public space in a manner which is civil, open to debate, accessible to everyone, and in accordance with the NAP. While someone can stand on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and expound on his hatred of tyrants everywhere, he is not allowed to use a can of spray paint to deface the statue with graffiti.<br /><br />It is true that private owners can, as Bionic mentioned, restrict speech on their own property. The problem arises when people think they can restrict the speech of others on property which is not theirs. We see this everywhere today in the form of mob rule where people are ‘canceled’, shouted down, fired, forced to apologize, etc., simply because someone didn’t like what they said, even though they were well within their rights to say it. This is the fault of the property owner who is pandering to the mob for some ulterior reason. I doubt that “black lives matter” or “social justice” has much to do with it. More than likely, it is due to the selfish desire for money, power, and influence. It is politics as usual. <br /><br />Since the State owns everything which is considered ‘public’, the State should allow all opinions and voices, without attempting to restrict any of them. To pick and choose which voices will be heard in the public arena is, like playing with fire, subject to getting burned sooner or later. However, it is in the interest of the State to limit certain opinions and to promote others, thereby enhancing their own power and influence. It is politics as usual.<br /><br />We do not need free speech zones, designated by law. These would be a form of “property” and, as such would be subject to change at the “owner’s” whims, which means when the political wind blows in a different direction. What can be enacted by law can be abolished by law. We need something better-- unfettered, free-market, full-bore competition between property owners as to the ideas they will allow and promote on their properties, with the State unable to decide who is heard or what is said. Rogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08156823478509665137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-76665204644079390132020-06-19T09:40:38.269-07:002020-06-19T09:40:38.269-07:00RMB, I have not worked through (and likely won'...RMB, I have not worked through (and likely won't spend time to work through) this issue, albeit my gut tells me something along the lines of what you write is necessary.<br /><br />I won't take the time because, to me, it is one of the things that will just get worked out if / when society is forced to contemplate its destruction - and, therefore, return to a lifestyle and behaviors that afford meaning.<br /><br />I think it was something written by Frank van Dun, about the fully private property society and the one property owner surrounded by others who won't let him leave his property. We can't merely assume the market will resolve such things - what if this poor guy's neighbors want to metaphorically burn him out - force him to just sell at a discount or die in place?<br /><br />Anyway, I don't envision society will ever get to a point where it will have to answer such questions - a public space, as you describe, etc. Such public spaces will exist to the extent society requires it. And we require it if we are to survive. We have just lost that knowledge for a time. bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-22515245035764360722020-06-19T08:08:38.668-07:002020-06-19T08:08:38.668-07:00I would offer that you have found one problem with...I would offer that you have found one problem with a fully private society or ancap society by comparing the 2 paragraphs below.<br /><br />"But if we are stifled in speech in our public forums – where we act in common – whether by law, property, or culture – there is no possibility for truth or justice. And without truth and justice, there is no possibility for liberty.<br /><br />And waiting for all property to be privatized offers no hope in this regard. If you want private property, truth and justice come first. If you want truth and justice, a culture that is grounded in Natural Law is necessary."<br /><br />I think you just highlighted how important it is to have a place where there is no property owner so that all voices are able to be heard. Maybe in an ancap world some property owners will designate some of their property as completely free speech zones. Maybe not. But I don't think we can leave that up to chance.<br /><br />If truth and justice is needed for a safe and stable society, you will have to have freedom of speech, otherwise people won't be able to determine truth and thereby enact true justice. It will all be left to the whims of a property owner.<br /><br />I am also not saying a State is needed either to provide that public forum. Just that there must be one of some nature.RMBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13603112499567064214noreply@blogger.com