Seeing an Individual in a Group of Individuals

[Adonai One]

Who defines the interests of the individuals? Their representatives or the individuals themselves?

Or dogma?

The most common problem I see with "rules" is the vague idea of the "public good" and "common sense." There is always the cop-out in most political theory and that's the social contract which is implied consent when you join a community, that your contributions are implicitly owned by "the community" -- which in the end is just a buzzword for the executive powers within the community. It makes things sound voluntary and just when it's just synonymous with "what you will do is up to the discretion of the powers that be."

And we can live under a social contract, that's fine but it's pretty absorbent and conformatory. Ultimatums for new and dynamic people is a good way to inhibit diversity in thought and culture.

I propose free will is respected at all times during conversation and in-thought on a individual-basis in a community that holds itself as positive and radiant. Speech should not be censored unneccessarily unless it's pure noise pollution as in the case of the Swedish poster.

the 'moderation' in this case is a re-asserting of the fact that one individual does not have the right to run roughshod over the interests of a group of individuals. It is a re-assertion of Equality; rather than the stomping down of one person for 'being who they are'.

Does the moderation know what's best for individuals? Does it know what the interests are for everyone? Are they the sole judgers of equality?

The whole fallacy here is our reliance on a centralized group of voices on judging what the "common interest" is. It's a veil. Let's accept the fact that a community often has owners, if that's what they want. Let's accept that we may be removed and censored at their sole discretion. Let's not play with words and make everything sound nice and fair when the real fact is that there may not be equitable representation of all individual interests.

It's so idealistic to think otherwise. This isn't a just world. It's not inherently a re-assertion of equality. It may only be the assertion of power according to subjective preference.

Of course, the majority of members are not privy to the decision making process that led to the outcome, so part of this dis-ease is a fear of the unknown and being in the dark on these issues; and part of this is an 'authority issue', and not wanting to be subject to 'rules' and being 'assessed' behaviourally by an other-self. That is catalyst in itself for the concerned individuals.

It's also catalyst for the ones with power. Not to only those being ruled. That's another fallacy I see here.

Being subject to "rules" isn't some keystone of society unless you view humans as cattle that need be put in their place. Rules are a restriction of free will and are not needed when the veil is removed.

There is no justice nor equality in what you propose. Only illusions of it. It remains illusory until every last individual is sovereign and his choice remains his own.

What you have proposed is this:

Accept the authority here because I have on good terms that what they believe is just and represents our subjective idea of the "public interest." We justify it because we believe [insert action here] infringed on others [in this way].

Pure idealism. Which is fine. Idealist and emotional arguments work on most people. They have never convinced me.

I will also add is that you never added any real conflicts. You only added arguments against removing noise-pollution under clear parameters. Nothing with areas of grey.

This makes things very one-sided, my friend, and it overly simplifies the issue.