When is Civility Inherently Uncivil?

Speech need not be hindered. Particularly in cases when it is decidedly boorish; unpopular speech deserves a hearing, plain and simple, no matter how disgusting it may seem. We must respect converse views at all costs!

Unfortunately, over the course of the United States’ historically brief existence many localities have restricted speech, and so while we respect free thinking in principle we do not hold it to be a universal truth–we make a habit of restricting that which is most difficult to restrict–and we lose an important opportunity to weigh our views in light of a diverse array of opinions.

In this context then I want to visit something that has been vexing me since I first heard commentary relating the tragic shooting in Arizona–a view that will hardly seem unique, but will promptly relieve me the anxiety I have felt.

Perhaps it is the blatant lack of evidence supporting such hypotheses that perturb me the most, but it is likely the charge that the views I hold, and the resulting rhetoric that supposedly surround it, is a contributing factor in the shooting death of so many that I find to be infuriating. Once such a charge is leveled, how can you defend yourself? Once you try, you’re promptly accused of living up to the expectation.

The fact is, you’re accused of being so uncivil, while your opposition has merely been trying to speak with you in meek, soothing tones in order to have a “national conversation.” Why can’t you just get along with them, give up your ideas, and move on?

Because my ideas hold as much legitimacy as yours, and you were just as antagonistic when your ideas held less sway.

I’m a libertarian. Some think that means I’m an anarchist, which is ridiculous, or that I favor some other nefarious out-of-the-mainstream views; but what it really means, in sum, is that I favor maximizing liberty at the expense of government largess. How this gets construed as extreme is…perplexing.