Yes, that follows logically . . .
Yes, that follows logically . . .
2. A fiat currency controlled by a state apparatus is not a "free market", no matter which direction they end up choosing.
I don't know why you thought I had never considered "people saying mean, untrue things about me" when formulating my position.
The holder of a government clearance has agreed via a voluntarily contract not to reveal certain information that the government wants to keep secret. A regular citizen has no such obligation to keep government secrets, even today.
The nuclear example is the easiest to dispose of, since it involves an actual property crime (essentially trespassing).
The others are trickier, but I think the distinction in question isn't about what they did or didn't say, but rather that they aided and abetted an actual property crime. For example, we prosecute the driver of the get-away car just as much as we prosecute the people who actually rob the bank at gun point. This isn't because driving people around is illegal or requires close scrutiny, but because they were knowingly a party to an actual property crime.
Or, for a similar example involving speech, imagine that I pull a gun on you in a darkened alley and say "Your money or your life." Obviously a crime, right? Now add that we happen to be actors in a movie and I am reading from a script when I do so. Obviously not a crime. That is to say, it's not the speech that makes such a thing a crime, it's the actual property crime behind it that does so.
From that perspective, we can see that slander and libel should not properly be considered crimes, since there is no property crime to back them up (you can't have a property right in your reputation, since that exists solely in the minds of others). It's the same with calling Mohammed a pedophile, telling the king of Thailand to piss off, or simply transmitting information to the public at large about how to build a bomb from household ingredients.
Oh and could you give us your address ? We would like to go to yours hours, neighbors, and family, and tell them how much a child porn producer you are. And when you scream libel, lies , we will again laugh at your face.
You can't have my address, but on the off-chance you manage to dig it up yourself, feel free to tell anyone you want anything you wish to about me, true or not. I stand by my position.
And obviously, speech will have consequences, even if they aren't legal ones. If you go to work and insult your boss, you might be fired. If I invite you over to my house, and you yell and swear at me and my family, I'll probably ask you to leave and not be your friend anymore. Those are consequences, but they don't involve violence, jail time, or censorship on the part of a government.
Your personal disagreement with me on my views is immaterial to the point and I'm not sure your style of "debate" is really going to change anyone's mind, but if that's the maximum level of discourse that you can mentally deal with, we can run with it I guess:
Freedom of speech ends the moment it involves the king!
Freedom of speech ends the moment it involves the Prophet Muhammed!
Freedom of speech ends the moment it involves speaking out against the government!
To support otherwise makes you Hitler!
Look up the history of Hitler. How does that work for you??
Is that more to your liking?
But hey, that's ok right?
It's not okay, but it also shouldn't be criminal. You can be opposed to someone doing something and also not want it to be criminalized (see: drug war).
But you said it should all be free... I'm confused...
Why? Because you wrongly assumed I would be outraged by your scenario? I am not.
So I reiterate: There should be no criminal penalties on any speech, information, or data transmitted from anyone, to anyone. What else ya got?
I'm yet to speak to someone who spouts nonsense about all censorship being wrong who actually understands and accepts the consequences that come with it.
Then let me be the first: There should be no criminal penalties on any speech, information, or data transmitted from anyone, to anyone.
Whether Exxon by itself would be enough to trigger a collapse is a good question, but I'd say the consequences there would still be somewhat worse than a "brief period of instability".