Re: The ACLU and The Price of Free Speech
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Robin Hanson wrote: > Yann Le Du wrote: > > > I agree that many people highly value their ability to express their > > > religion. But how much they value a constitutional guarantee to > > > such expression depends on what they think the chances are that the > > > government would actually try to stop them. > > > >... can't a constitutional rule somehow encourage the existence of an > >educational system that fosters tolerance, and thus lead to a more > >tolerant society ? I agree that the rule is then useless, but is it wrong > >to say that a good rule is one that aims at becoming useless ? > > I suppose it is possible that the first amendment directly causes our > society to be more tolerant of diverse religious expressions. But I'd > want to see more evidence in favor of this theory before accepting it. Well, I don't know anything about the USA 1st amendment and its effects, but hasn't it permitted the building of Temples, Churches, Synagogues and Mosques, etc., close to each other, or at least in the same locality, so that these different religious people went out in the open, met, and somehow got to tolerate each other more ? Hasn't this amendment forced the police to make possible such cohabitation by outlawing those who impeded the constructions ? I would believe tolerance would have then developped after a few generations, as things mixed up well. The problem certainly is that differences in wealth certainly undermined this mixing. If for example some religion encouraged to be rich, and some other to be poor, then I guess the religious buldings would be constructed at different locations, say the rich stuff in the expensive middle, and the poor stuff in the cheap outskirts of the city, so that no mixing would occur. Yann Yann Le Du E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Theoretical Physics Web : http://cdfinfo.in2p3.fr/~ledu/ 1, Keble Road University of Oxford Oxford, OX1 3NP Phone : (44) (0)1865 273 989 United Kingdom Fax : (44) (0)1865 273 947
Re: The ACLU and The Price of Free Speech
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, fabio guillermo rojas wrote: > > > On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Yann Le Du wrote: > > Doesn't the _existence_ of the rule participate in changing the way the > > people "think the chances are that the government would actually try to > > stop them" ? I think there's a retroaction process there. > > You might think so, but for the longest time in American history > the 1st amendment was not taken so seriously. Why? People just > dodn't believe it!! > > > Ok, but can't a constitutional rule somehow encourage the existence of an > > educational system that fosters tolerance, and thus lead to a more > > tolerant society ? I agree that the rule is then useless, but is it wrong > > to say that a good rule is one that aims at becoming useless ? > > > > > > Yann > > You can't rule it out a prioi,but could you provide some examples?? For example, in France, there was a rule that French was the sole language to be studied in the country, all local languages were forbidden. Since then, people evolved, and now everyone speaks French, can communicate, and the rule was abandonned. Now I agree that this kind of law had some very bad side effects, like destruction of interesting forms of the French language, local dialects, Celtic language, etc., but I just state that as an example of a rule that became obsolete. Now, people learn local dialects on top of French, and there's a law to protect these local dialects so that teachers get appointed for that task. Once the dialects will be back, there'll be no need for a rule to protect the dialects. Same thing for mixing up girls and boys. There was a law that said schools should now mix up both sexes, and now both sexes know each other better, and no school would seriously think about separating them again. Some schools do that, but they're a minority whereas there were a majority of these before. Now that rule is obsolete. And it has enabled both sexes to be more tolerant of the other one. I don't know if these examples are interesting for you, or if they provide good illustrations of my question, what do you think ? Also, I'd say that a rule that has no chance of becoming useless has to be avoided. Of course, that means some rules could be enforced in horrible ways to make sure it becomes useless. I guess we could measure the progress and status of a state society by studying the evolution of the interaction between rules and the society. How many rules have become useless globally ? How many have existed and never changed anything ? How many exist today and should have been avoided just because it ain't possible to enforce it ? etc. N.B. Personally, I'm against enforcing anything, and I don't like external rules (authority), but I'm just talking theoretically here. Also, when you say people just don't believe it ( 1st amendment) then I'd like to point out the opposite situation in France for some laws. It is linked to the existence of rules that should have been avoided : when some lobby aks for something, rules are often edicted just to reassure them, but nothing changes in reality. "Now that these birds are protected, I can go to sleep", but they're not in reality, just in the virtual world of law. I wonder if there is any law that is performative, like it exists in language (the works of Austin)... Yann Yann Le Du E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Theoretical Physics Web : http://cdfinfo.in2p3.fr/~ledu/ 1, Keble Road University of Oxford Oxford, OX1 3NP Phone : (44) (0)1865 273 989 United Kingdom Fax : (44) (0)1865 273 947
Re: The ACLU and The Price of Free Speech
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Yann Le Du wrote: > Doesn't the _existence_ of the rule participate in changing the way the > people "think the chances are that the government would actually try to > stop them" ? I think there's a retroaction process there. You might think so, but for the longest time in American history the 1st amendment was not taken so seriously. Why? People just dodn't believe it!! > Ok, but can't a constitutional rule somehow encourage the existence of an > educational system that fosters tolerance, and thus lead to a more > tolerant society ? I agree that the rule is then useless, but is it wrong > to say that a good rule is one that aims at becoming useless ? > > > Yann You can't rule it out a prioi,but could you provide some examples?? -fabio
Re: The ACLU and The Price of Free Speech
Yann Le Du wrote: > > I agree that many people highly value their ability to express their > > religion. But how much they value a constitutional guarantee to > > such expression depends on what they think the chances are that the > > government would actually try to stop them. > >... can't a constitutional rule somehow encourage the existence of an >educational system that fosters tolerance, and thus lead to a more >tolerant society ? I agree that the rule is then useless, but is it wrong >to say that a good rule is one that aims at becoming useless ? I suppose it is possible that the first amendment directly causes our society to be more tolerant of diverse religious expressions. But I'd want to see more evidence in favor of this theory before accepting it. Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
Re: The ACLU and The Price of Free Speech
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Robin Hanson wrote: > Fabio Rojas wrote: > > > But I have often wondered if we could measure willingness to pay > > > for various freedoms, perhaps by just directly asking people. > > > >... There are two kinds of free speech whose price we can measure: > >freedom of one's own speech (I should be allowed to say what I want) > >and the freedom of others speech (other people should say what they > >want even if I don't like it). > > > >The evidence is that a lot of people are willing to pay quite > >a bit for their own free speech. Witness the fact that many > >are willing to die for the right to express their religion. > >In the US, people are willing to pay quite a bit to pursue lawsuits > >that allow them to proseletize (sp?) in public or quasi-public > >places like parks, airports and malls. > > > >The evidence I think points to the fact that extremely few people > >have positive prices for others free speech. The 1st amendment > >was joke for most of this country's history. > > I agree that many people highly value their ability to express their > religion. But how much they value a constitutional guarantee to > such expression depends on what they think the chances are that the > government would actually try to stop them. Doesn't the _existence_ of the rule participate in changing the way the people "think the chances are that the government would actually try to stop them" ? I think there's a retroaction process there. > The main thing that protects individuals right to expression is a > tolerant society, not a constitutional rule. I think people > correctly estimate that there is very little chance now of the > government drastically restricting their religious speech. Thus > I suspect willingness to pay for a constitutional rule protecting > free speech is very low. Ok, but can't a constitutional rule somehow encourage the existence of an educational system that fosters tolerance, and thus lead to a more tolerant society ? I agree that the rule is then useless, but is it wrong to say that a good rule is one that aims at becoming useless ? Yann Yann Le Du E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Theoretical Physics Web : http://cdfinfo.in2p3.fr/~ledu/ 1, Keble Road University of Oxford Oxford, OX1 3NP Phone : (44) (0)1865 273 989 United Kingdom Fax : (44) (0)1865 273 947
Re: The ACLU and The Price of Free Speech
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Robin Hanson wrote: > >The evidence is that a lot of people are willing to pay quite > >a bit for their own free speech. Witness the fact that many > >are willing to die for the right to express their religion. > > I agree that many people highly value their ability to express their > religion. But how much they value a constitutional guarantee to > such expression depends on what they think the chances are that the > government would actually try to stop them. Is that a fair question? Aren't you just saying that people won't pay for a good that is already provided by others? Maybe the real question is: would you rather live in a tolerant society that has no legal gurantee of free speech or an intolerant society with a legal gurantee? And how much would you pay to move from the one that you don't like to the one that you like? By that measure, I don't know what the answer is. A lot of people migrated to the US in the 19th century (intolerant, legal gurantee). -fabio
Re: The ACLU and The Price of Free Speech
Fabio Rojas wrote: > > But I have often wondered if we could measure willingness to pay > > for various freedoms, perhaps by just directly asking people. > >... There are two kinds of free speech whose price we can measure: >freedom of one's own speech (I should be allowed to say what I want) >and the freedom of others speech (other people should say what they >want even if I don't like it). > >The evidence is that a lot of people are willing to pay quite >a bit for their own free speech. Witness the fact that many >are willing to die for the right to express their religion. >In the US, people are willing to pay quite a bit to pursue lawsuits >that allow them to proseletize (sp?) in public or quasi-public >places like parks, airports and malls. > >The evidence I think points to the fact that extremely few people >have positive prices for others free speech. The 1st amendment >was joke for most of this country's history. I agree that many people highly value their ability to express their religion. But how much they value a constitutional guarantee to such expression depends on what they think the chances are that the government would actually try to stop them. The main thing that protects individuals right to expression is a tolerant society, not a constitutional rule. I think people correctly estimate that there is very little chance now of the government drastically restricting their religious speech. Thus I suspect willingness to pay for a constitutional rule protecting free speech is very low. Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
The ACLU and The Price of Free Speech
On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Robin Hanson wrote: > But I have often wondered if we could measure willingness to pay > for various freedoms, perhaps by just directly asking people. I think we already have one good measure: the amount of donations to organizations dedicated to free speech such as the ACLU. There are two kinds of free speech whose price we can measure: freedom of one's own speech (I should be allowed to say what I want) and the freedom of others speech (other people should say what they want even if I don't like it). The evidence is that a lot of people are willing to pay quite a bit for their own free speech. Witness the fact that many are willing to die for the right to express their religion. In the US, people are willing to pay quite a bit to pursue lawsuits that allow them to proseletize (sp?) in public or quasi-public places like parks, airports and malls. The evidence I think points to the fact that extremely few people have positive prices for others free speech. The 1st amendment was joke for most of this country's history. The ACLU provides an excellent example. For the first two or three decades, the ACLU defended the speech of leftists (rightfully so, I think) and then experienced a drop in membership when they started to defend the rights of neo-nazis to have a parade in Skokie, Illinois. It seems to be the case that it relatively easy to fund an organization that defends one kind of free speech because donors are supporting their own free speech while it is difficult to fund an organization that defends others free spech. Robin, do you have other examples in mind? -fabio
