What is to be done?
At present time, the Powers That Be on Substack have not decided to Apologize and Surrender to the would-be Montagnards calling themselves Substackers Against Nazis. That is pleasant to consider. It is nice that, for the moment, the principle of Freedom of Speech is holding on a platform centered on it.
This being the case, consider what follows a thought experiment.
In order for Freedom, not just of speech, but of any kind, to exist, it must be valued. I am not speaking of the Natural Right that exists by virtue of our creation as rational beings. I am speaking of a community in which humans can speak their mind. In order for that to exist, those within it must value the right to speak, in itself, for itself. Otherwise the community is sundered on an eternal question, and the value is not centered.
Thus, if a community wants freedom, and some there (either long-established or newly-entered) start to speak against freedom, to demand that freedom be rescinded, what is do be done with them? Debate in good faith, to convince them of their error? Demand they respect the community’s norms? Certainly.
But how if they will not?
This is where matters become complicated. If a community cannot defend it’s core values, it cannot defend itself. If bad actors are permitted to act with impunity, then the community belongs to them. The exception to the rules mark sovereign behavior. Thus, every society, at some level, must create the Other, must create Anathema.
That this cuts so very against the grain of our age is why we must stop to consider it. We say that all men are equal, and all welcome. But this welcome must be reciprocal. If it is not, you have invited a viper into your house, and it will speedily poison you.
Thus, if freedom, of speech, of anything, is a value, then we must insist upon it. And with he who has no respect for it, he who demands its overturning, we have two options: either give him his way, or send him away.
Many will not like this. I myself do not love it. Many will say that good speech defeats bad, that Truth will out in the end. These are noble ideas, and credits to the people that hold them. Many will say that the Principle of Freedom is too high to be sullied, even in its own defense. This has the virtue of consistency.
And yet, all Principles must be defended in order to live. Whatever one thinks of the Non-Aggression Principle, most who accept it hold that defense of one’s natural rights constitutes a legitimate use of force. Ayn Rand argued that “no man may initiate the use of physical force against others.… Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.” The “only” is a limiting word, but outside of that limit, permission exists. He who attempts to violate my rights may not object to my forceful defense of them. This is practically axiomatic.
The Leftist himself understands this quite well. When he pretends to value Freedom of Speech, he applies the Great Asterisk that he calls Karl Poppers Tolerance Trap. Tolerance is good, except when it tolerates those who do not reciprocate tolerance. If intolerance is tolerated, than intolerance wins, and tolerance is destroyed. Therefore, he who speaks intolerance calls it upon himself.
The Old Testament underwrites this in another way. All through the story of the ancient Israelits runs the principle that he who abandons God, abandons Israel, and is by that fact subject to foreign gods and foreign kings. If ye will not serve Yahweh, ye will be a slave to idols. Your choice determines your fate, and no objection will be heard, only repentance.
So, he who abandons nonviolence, is subject to violence.
He who abandons tolerance, is subject to intolerance.
He who abandons freedom, is subject to tyranny.
So everyone who signed the Substackers Against Nazis petition should be banned from the site forthwith, in the name of Freedom of Speech. Unless they choose to repent their actions, I cannot see how they could possibly object.
Do unto others...
It would be trivial to add a short sequence to the terms and conditions covering this.
1. Step 1 - assume reciprocity; those who attack free speech on the platform do so in good faith; use the gift of free speech to explain the position;
2. Step 2 - if this is ignored, use their own request of restricting speech against the Restrictors to test their theory; that is, permanently remove them using their own logic which we are reluctantly testing using their own suggested method of permanent banning;
3. Step 3 - reassess the situation with the remaining Substackers, now minus the Restrictors; does anyone still want to restrict speech? If so, return to STEP 1 with the new Restrictors.
That may help overcome resistance to your sensible suggestion and keep consciences free. And avoid the whole "we are tolerant, so we can't ban them" loophole the clowns exploit in their emotional urge to win at all costs.
The time has come.
Tolerance for intolerance of tolerance has to end.
Its only fair.
Otherwise we are only left with....... intolerance.