Dave Ridleys NH discussion group, FAIL

So I don’t know how many people who come to this forum also use Facebook New Hampshire discussion.
But that’s a facebook Discussion group for a New Hampshire started by Dave Ridley and In my opinion was run in a very libertarian way.
The result of that libertarian experiment is a facebook group is that it’s now taken over by far right wing Moderators It has religious prostelatizing and a Intolerance for anything that isn’t far right wing.
Even before the far right wing moderator takeover.
Even before that, It was over run with right wing bots, it seems.
So that’s Dave’s Libertarian experiment which he now washes his hands of.

well its more like Facebook washing its hands of me… they won’t let me into the account unless I jump through some questionable hoops.


I don’t use Facebook, and haven’t seen the group in question. But what are you arguing here? That Dave somehow acted irresponsibly? That libertarian online fora should feature censorship of non-libertarian views so as to maintain a libertarian character? I hope not, because while I can see the merits of restricting voting rights or power in an organization on the basis of ideology – limiting voting in the Libertarian Party to supporters of the Non-Aggression Principle, for instance – trying to police the purity of speech in public conversations just so you can have a nice little pro-freedom bubble seems undesirable for multiple reasons.

I’m arguing that a free for all will be taken over by bully’s…

Or anyone that has the desire/will to take over…

Then it’s no longer a free for all.

I’m arguing that that is a problem with libertarianism.
A big flaw with it.

And I’m saying that that’s what happened with that fb group

What kind of hoops, if you care to say

Being the most prolific poster, or the rudest poster, or whatever, in an online forum isn’t really the same as “taking over” a physical space though. It doesn’t prevent anyone else from still being able to post whatever they want.

While I guess you could say that the ability of people to choose to be rude or offensive is a problem with libertarianism, I think “solutions” to that problem are often worse than the problem itself.

We live in a society that has grown very thin-skinned about a great number of things, but there’s an argument to be made that recognizing THAT as a problem, and learning to be less quick to anger and take offense is a better solution than trying to police everyone’s speech via a bunch of rules or controls.

1 Like