"As to prudence, if it's determined by how others might react to your exercise of your rights..."

I said no such thing. Prudence acknowledges exactly what neither of us argues against being the case: that we must recognize others' rights in our decision-making processes. A failure to do so constitutes coercion.

The reason I bring up the movie theatre example is stated here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoutin.... In this case, what was asserted by Holmes is that no one has the right through expression of their rights to infringe on someone else's. If the speech Facebook was censuring was either profane or dangerous, I would agree that there would be no Constitutionally-protected speech in question and that censure would be appropriate - if not the responsible thing to do. The speech in question, however, directly relates to the expression of another Constitutionally-protected right.

As the Constitution was created to constrain the Federal Government, I don't argue that this is a Constitutional issue whatsoever - which is where rights take precedence. Prudence, however, deals with interactions between private citizens and the responsibilities of one towards another, which is why the ethical question is raised and prudence (rather than rights) becomes the primary focus.

that's why I put nothing on there which I wouldn't
post on a billboard along the road somewhere. -- j
.

I am just lamenting the fact that such an influential
organization is taking this action ... along with so many
others! . we're going down the tubes. -- j
.

well, that link just failed -- and it's a good thing! -- j
.

I think it is a good thing. It's a great answer when someone suggests that we could use Facebook to register to vote.

Oh, wait. Too late. https://apps.facebook.com/registertov...

sounds good to me;;; sign me up! -- j
.

Cloward and Pivens were social workers who thought overloading the 'Great Society' programs of the Democrats would result in a National Guaranteed Income. Although, they didn't get what they expected, they did help to get generations of urban blacks and rural whites onto welfare programs and into lifestyles of never having worked.

What 'strugatsky' and I are proposing is much different and more in line with AR herself (her taking Social Security), and with Ragnar Danneskjöld. Since the monies that fund the social welfare systems are stolen from us in the first place, then it's fair to take them back when available.

on further cogitation, it was cloward and piven who
advised that the welfare system could be improved
by overloading the early war-on-poverty system, to
allow the lefties to finish the conversion to socicalism
after the fall of the system. . that's the reference. -- j
.

john; You've been listening to too much Conservative uneducated nonsense and have got your devils mixed up.

John Hawkins of Right Wing News.com writes: "Ironically, one of the hottest new books for conservatives is far left-winger Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, which was written way back in 1971.
After reading the book, my personal opinion is that Alinsky was a brilliant yet cynical, habitually dishonest, utterly amoral human being with a deep understanding of large swathes of human nature. Was he a good guy? No, not at all. But, is there a lot conservatives can learn from his tactics? Absolutely. Some of it we can apply and some of it we can see how the Left has applied it against us."....
and:
"Adam Brandon, a spokesman for the conservative non-profit organization FreedomWorks, one of several groups involved in organizing Tea Party protests, says the group gives Alinsky's Rules for Radicals to its top leadership members. A shortened guide called Rules for Patriots is distributed to its entire network. In a January 2012 story that appeared in The Wall Street Journal, citing the organization's tactic of sending activists to town-hall meetings, Brandon explained, "his [Alinsky's] tactics when it comes to grass-roots organizing are incredibly effective." Former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey also gives copies of Alinsky's book Rules for Radicals to Tea Party leaders."

he proposed that the welfare system be overloaded
to failure, if memory serves, so that's the parallel.
and Thanks for the downvote! . I'll see you and
raise you by one. -- j

p.s. I may be mixing in some Cloward and Piven.
.

That's a silly accusation.

you sound like Alinsky! -- j
.

Indeed.

Exactly!

If we have a problem with it, stop using Facebook (which I can't stand, but do participate in to keep track of my kids).

Who didn't understand Facebook's invasions of privacy, ridiculous content and biases?

Yes gov't does. They are 'theft', and everyone stolen from should use as much as they can to overload the system to failure, and last but not least, that is how laissez faire capitalism is supposed to work.

The reality is that the government is in fact forcing bakers to make cakes for gay weddings. And just like paying taxes - I think that they are unfair, unjust, a theft - but since I am forced to pay them, I will use whatever "benefits" (or, whatever I can steal back from the thieves) that I can. If the unfair rules and laws are used against me, I have no moral dilemma in using them myself against the thieves and the looters. Meanwhile, make it a point not to use any of the products advertised on FB.

One only has a responsibility to one's self, to recognize his own individual ownership and the rights that flow from that and to exercise those rights in his own self interest--and to recognize those identical rights in others. No other being or entity has a right to interfere, limit, infringe, or attempt to control the exercise of those individual rights or to determine one's self interest.

As to yelling 'fire' in a theater, if there's a fire, I hope someone yells it. As to prudence, if it's determined by how others might react to your exercise of your rights, then I'd suggest that's how we've lost so many of our individual rights in today's society.

The First Amendment asserts that individuals have the right to Free Speech. However, the Courts have recognized that the act of crying "fire" in a movie theater constitutes a breach of acceptable use of that right. Your argument is to say "well he had the right to say what he wanted" and use that to justify any and all expression of that right. My argument is to say "he may have that right, but do the consequences justify such an action in this context?" I am not denying the expression of the right, I am questioning its prudence in application in this instance. I don't think any of what I have said conflicts with either freedom or individual rights. I merely bring into question the responsibilities which accompany those rights.

Yep, I studied a little about that getting my BS in Business and my MBA. Although I subscribe mostly to the Adam Smith school of thought, the folks on the other side don't play by those rules (i.e. IRS targeting conservative groups, etc.)
Now, if we were to use pure free market, we would have to come up with something better and cheaper that espouses our philosophy.

You've got it Herb. Txs for the add.

Simple...don't use Facebook!

I had a Facebook account, for two days, and deleted it. I still have my pickup, my rural home and all of my guns. Life didn't end, after all.

That's your idea of ethics, not those of freedom and individual rights as defined by the founders or by AR. If the free market is allowed to do it's magic, a new source will surface and succeed.

That's called the free market/capitalism.

Not a problem.
I suspect we are actually both on the same page.

Hello johnpe1
It is reprehensible, but I believe it is their right. It is their right to run their company into the ground. It is also our right to boycott, protest publicly on their site, or disengage completely and if desired create competition. It is a case of caveat emptor.
If they have any business sense and desire to grow as much as possible, then they will have to address this issue the same as they will have to address the liberal bias that has recently been acknowledged and become an issue.
I do not participate on facebook for reasons like this, as well as others.
Respectfully,
O.A.