Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

You might be a libertarian if… (restricted thread)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • You might be a libertarian if… (restricted thread)

    This is a friendly discussion thread limited to the Jerk[™] and myself- restricted to us two. I don't see where there is still a one on one non-debate-ish thread area, so mods, please move if I am missing something.

    Jerk, first, thank you SO MUCH for inviting me to do this, it is my pleasure. For the readers, this is kind of a tradition with us, having some informal discussion on ideas. The last discussion was "You might be a preterist if…." BTW, jerk, I don't know if you saw my book is nearly done, being submitted to the publisher probably this week (finishing the Scripture index).

    Some necessary qualifications. I had a radical philosophy shift after I left the forum, politically wise, to libertarianism, though I recognize an inconsistent libertarian impulse through my life, particularly in my philosophy when I ran this forum. I think the staff at that time can attest to that. I didn't have a name for it. I probably would have became a libertarian a lot earlier in life if I didn't get sidetracked into a form of Christian fundamentalism with an inappropriate (to my view now) mixing of politics with religion. However, that being said, I have only been a conscious self-identifying libertarian since October 2014. I am not merely a libertarian, but a Libertarian, meanly I affiliate with the Libertarian Party, and thus, am a minarchist and not an anarchist. The mileage will vary if speaking to an anarchist libertarian. Being so new, I am certainly not the Libertarian "Authority" and will probably screw some things up badly, but I appreciate the discussion.

    People ask me what my impetus was for such a rapid and extreme view change (very much a neocon-ish Republican before). Two things. My divorce from my husband of twenty years and the personal liberation I got from that with my resultant further disillusionment with fundamentalism and moving to Colorado and witnessing the enactment of recreational marijuana legalization and see that the world didn't end and the Pot Zombie Apocalypse didn't happen.

    The idea is that I will throw some ideas out there, particularly ones that I resonate with, and we will discuss.

    I was wondering a good place to start, and I thought that it would be the "Libertarian Pledge." This is an affirmation that anyone who wishes to join the Libertarian Party must make, and if you can make this affirmation, you might just be a libertarian…

    "I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals."

    **There is political baggage with this "pledge" relevant to why it was instituted, but it has remained valid even if some of that baggage is obsolete. There was a concern when the Party was founded that it might be labeled a violent (or as we would say today, terrorist-leaning) organization due to its radical ideas, so this was to confirm and solidify that Libertarians are peaceful.

    If you can affirm that pledge, you might be a libertarian. It is more radical than appears on its face.
    Last edited by Darth Xena; 05-01-2015, 11:49 PM.
    The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

    sigpic

  • #2
    Moderated By: Catholicity

    thread moved to one on one debate in the arena

    ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
    Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

    A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
    George Bernard Shaw

    Comment


    • #3
      Gracias. I read that description and wasn't sure if this applied as we are not going to debate.
      The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

      sigpic

      Comment


      • #4
        Jerk, I wanted to add one thing. While I affiliate with the LP, my personal views are more radical than the LP. I will try to differentiate when I answer.
        The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

        sigpic

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Darth Xena View Post
          This is a friendly discussion thread limited to the Jerk[™] and myself- restricted to us two. I don't see where there is still a one on one non-debate-ish thread area, so mods, please move if I am missing something.


          Jerk, first, thank you SO MUCH for inviting me to do this, it is my pleasure. For the readers, this is kind of a tradition with us, having some informal discussion on ideas. The last discussion was "You might be a preterist if…." BTW, jerk, I don't know if you saw my book is nearly done, being submitted to the publisher probably this week (finishing the Scripture index).
          I followed the thread, and checked the book's facebook page last week. Oddly enough, it was your comment there about folks getting fed up with your libertarian posting on your personal page that made me curious enough to ask for a one-on-one.

          Oh, and you're welcome, cannibal.

          Some necessary qualifications. I had a radical philosophy shift after I left the forum, politically wise, to libertarianism, though I recognize an inconsistent libertarian impulse through my life, particularly in my philosophy when I ran this forum. I think the staff at that time can attest to that. I didn't have a name for it. I probably would have became a libertarian a lot earlier in life if I didn't get sidetracked into a form of Christian fundamentalism with an inappropriate (to my view now) mixing of politics with religion.
          Now that was going to be my first question. I was taken by what led to you abandoning futurism — a biblical discussion with her then-husband if you didn't know, gentle followers — and wondered if there wasn't some similar interaction, maybe even with your new husband.

          On a related note, I was a Christian when Roe v. was handed down and played a part knocking on doors, taking names, and making lists as part of the religious organizing in Colorado intended to push back against it. There were questions at the time about which party would get our support, but not about the consequences of becoming political, let alone supporting a single party.

          I've my own ideas about what went wrong with that, and if you want to show me yours, I'll reciprocate with three heads, Christian, atheist, and Taoist. It was that broadly a fundamentally mistake, IMHO.

          However, that being said, I have only been a conscious self-identifying libertarian since October 2014. I am not merely a libertarian, but a Libertarian, meanly I affiliate with the Libertarian Party, and thus, am a minarchist and not an anarchist. The mileage will vary if speaking to an anarchist libertarian. Being so new, I am certainly not the Libertarian "Authority" and will probably screw some things up badly, but I appreciate the discussion.
          Anarchist Libertarians are hard to find?

          People ask me what my impetus was for such a rapid and extreme view change (very much a neocon-ish Republican before). Two things. My divorce from my husband of twenty years and the personal liberation I got from that with my resultant further disillusionment with fundamentalism and moving to Colorado and witnessing the enactment of recreational marijuana legalization and see that the world didn't end and the Pot Zombie Apocalypse didn't happen.
          You're in for a shock when the first underground Twinkie factory is exposed. The truth is out there.

          The idea is that I will throw some ideas out there, particularly ones that I resonate with, and we will discuss.

          I was wondering a good place to start, and I thought that it would be the "Libertarian Pledge." This is an affirmation that anyone who wishes to join the Libertarian Party must make, and if you can make this affirmation, you might just be a libertarian…

          "I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals."

          **There is political baggage with this "pledge" relevant to why it was instituted, but it has remained valid even if some of that baggage is obsolete. There was a concern when the Party was founded that it might be labeled a violent (or as we would say today, terrorist-leaning) organization due to its radical ideas, so this was to confirm and solidify that Libertarians are peaceful.

          If you can affirm that pledge, you might be a libertarian. It is more radical than appears on its face.
          I can see room for radical here. I supported non-violence, or, more precisely, thought I did, until I better understood its religious roots in Jainism. Tossing keys across the room is "violence," to that way of thinking. I can't claim to be an adherent of non-violence by that standard.

          "Initiation of force" can have "radically" different meanings depending on how "force" is interpreted. Armed rebellion could be considered a responsive use of force, and allowed by the pledge if mandatory taxation was considered its initiator, just for example, not that I suspect that's where you were going.

          I don't believe in initiating force ... according to my own radical views, which include standing aside when someone is rushing to their own destruction so long as they're not taking anyone with them. But I'm probably not a libertarian.

          What do you consider an initiation of force?

          Comment


          • #6
            Hola Jerk,

            at you too, and does this one still work?

            I followed the thread, and checked the book's facebook page last week. Oddly enough, it was your comment there about folks getting fed up with your libertarian posting on your personal page that made me curious enough to ask for a one-on-one.
            Yeah, indeed. Have "lost" many old friends (they still follow but we don't talk as much) and acquired a motley band of new ones.

            Now that was going to be my first question. I was taken by what led to you abandoning futurism — a biblical discussion with her then-husband if you didn't know, gentle followers — and wondered if there wasn't some similar interaction, maybe even with your new husband.
            I am the more political of us two, and I didn't discuss my change much with him until it was a done deal. (He is not a Libertarian yet, makes for interesting conversations since we both work from home, and no lie, I talk about this stuff at least four hours a day, and he gamely comes with me to Libertarian events, and will be taking me to Orlando for the 2016 Convention) There was a bit more than that, in that, I was getting into various FB squabbles, and kept being routinely called a liberal by conservatives and a conservative by liberals, so I threw out a term I was vaguely aware of, and said, "well actually I think I am more of a libertarian," then went and read the LP Platform and thought, with the exception of abortion, that is exactly what I am, and while Wayne was out running errands, I switched party affiliations and joined the LP (joining is more than just switching registrations), so when he came back, I literally was like, "Oh by the way, I just joined the Libertarian Party" and he was like… ummm, wut?

            On a related note, I was a Christian when Roe v. was handed down and played a part knocking on doors, taking names, and making lists as part of the religious organizing in Colorado intended to push back against it. There were questions at the time about which party would get our support, but not about the consequences of becoming political, let alone supporting a single party.

            I've my own ideas about what went wrong with that, and if you want to show me yours, I'll reciprocate with three heads, Christian, atheist, and Taoist. It was that broadly a fundamentally mistake, IMHO.
            I would love to hear your thoughts. I might have said something a bit amiss before about mixing politics and religion… I can't say it is per se bad. The way I did it was bad. Primarily because I kinda just accepted, well I am Christian now, everyone knows Christians are Republicans, so I switched my affiliation from Democrat to Republican without really maturing enough to know whether it was absolutely necessary, I kinda just accepted it was and bent things to fit the narrative. If I had matured a bit, would likely have just switched to Independent then. I can't picture myself being a Libertarian at Calvary Chapel Fort Lauderdale. I already was a pariah for my eschatology. Throw in the fact I think all drugs should be legalized, and well, there isn't enough room on my breast for all the scarlet letters, as lovely as my breast may be ;)

            Anarchist Libertarians are hard to find?
            Well a grammatical quibble. Capital L usually refers to Party members, little l is everyone else, including anarchists. Anarchist libertarians are actually the most prevalent in my circles. I am more of the rare one. And they think I am horridly inconsistent, and probably a LINO.


            You're in for a shock when the first underground Twinkie factory is exposed. The truth is out there.
            I already knew;)

            Now more to the meat, and I am sorry I am going to repeat this a zillion times, but I feel it necessary. I know you will be kind and understand my severe limitations, but forum board readers tend not to be. Shocking, I know. I am not skilled at philosophy, my reasoning is more intuitive gut level and as such will be very imprecise--- and I am a baby Libertarian, still wet behind the ears with a terribly soiled diaper. I am also very very new to thinking these things through, and bound to screw up some things royally, and not realize it and screw things up and have to backtrack and revise what I said. I will likely say some things now that next year I will think, WTH was I thinking?? or crap, that was really not very libertarian.

            Also, perhaps there is a disconnect between what I think (how I reason) and how I would advocate implementing. My foundational thinking is more radical than the LP, but in practice I am too pragmatic and incremental for most libertarians, thus the LINO charge. So basically when I am doing my poor attempts at foundational philosophy I get called a brutalist, and when I talk about actual political activism, I get called a LINO.

            I can see room for radical here. I supported non-violence, or, more precisely, thought I did, until I better understood its religious roots in Jainism. Tossing keys across the room is "violence," to that way of thinking. I can't claim to be an adherent of non-violence by that standard.
            I am not an adherent of non-violence in that way as well as no harm was done to something that had the right not to have harm done against it.


            "Initiation of force" can have "radically" different meanings depending on how "force" is interpreted. Armed rebellion could be considered a responsive use of force, and allowed by the pledge if mandatory taxation was considered its initiator, just for example, not that I suspect that's where you were going.
            It can have very different meanings, a flaw in all human reasoning, and I decided to use this to start both with the most foundational idea, but also the hardest, and the one I am most likely to screw up.

            Here is how I understand it as an individual Libertarian, and what I understand is relevant since I "signed" it, and I can only be bound by what I thought I was pledging. Anytime I say "we" and "us" this is a way to say my understanding. I absolutely do not and cannot speak for the Party. One bit of history is necessary to explain my understanding. In 2006 or so (and many many other times since the 70s), people have tried to get that Pledge removed. One of the reasons for some is that they basically thought they were pledging away their rights to civil revolt, ala Boston Tea Party. And I think they are right that they were pledging that away (though there is a platform plank that would seem to allow this--- I don't think it does, but the argument has been made--- I quote it at the bottom of this post). So with that in mind, I think the specific words here are very very important. I don't believe, as an individual, that force is the means to change the political or social order-- with force being a violation of the negative rights of others, including legitimate property rights. I am presuming we both understand negative rights and positive rights the same way. Libertarians generally do not believe in positive rights for adults. I do not believe or advocate I should do it, nor that anyone else should do it, including the government. Is this potentially inconsistent? Are we then charging the American Revolution with injustice? Actually no, we are organized as a political Party, and do the work of a Party with a strategy to achieve our goals. Our strategy is to eschew violence. It can't be taken as an denunciation of historical examples where the opposite was done, but a statement of our beliefs for our present time. This suits me because I also am a Christian and have come to embrace non-violence. This is a rambling way to say, you can have a right to violent self-defense, but that does not require you to violently self-defend yourself, nor does it require you to think that is the best way at any particular time. As an analogy, not related to the Pledge, if only my life were in danger, I do not think I could ever kill anyone in self-defense. Of course, one doesn't know until one is in that situation, but I probably could in good faith sign a pledge with some Christian group for peace that says I wouldn't. But in no way am I saying that I would be unjust to do so in any circumstance at any time. That is rambling, but that is how I understand it.

            Another aside, while the Pledge isn't literally one-sided, many Libertarians who read this take it as an expression of their political activity, not personal activity. Let me explain. As a Libertarian, I do not believe that I can advocate forcing someone else to do something because I think it serves a wonderful political or social goal. In this case, it isn't intended to speak of self-defense at all, or even of individual action per se, but of the individual in relation to society and puts the individual in a thought experiment of neutrality, i.e., put aside what is already actually in place, do not from this point forward advocate the continuation of the initiation of force to achieve these goals. To those that believe in the right to violent revolt, who did eventually capitulate and sign the Pledge, I think this is probably how they understood it. "Initiation" is to be very narrowly construed as being the "first cause" and not the reaction to provocation. This is inherent in my understanding as well, since Libertarians have a very strong sense of the right to self-defense.

            How to define force and the Non-Aggression Principle gets very tricky when people sit down and debate it, and then you get the hand-wringing seen recently in that Civics thread, when actually, it is pretty simple and intuitive for the vast majority of human interactions. Arguing ala Rothbard whether or not parents have a right to starve their children for the hell of it or whether you can grab unto someone else's balcony if you are falling off the roof of a high-rise are not everyday human interactions. (and no, parents can't starve their children for the hell of it and yes, you should grab unto someone else's balcony if that is how you can save yourself from falling to your death).

            I don't believe in initiating force ... according to my own radical views, which include standing aside when someone is rushing to their own destruction so long as they're not taking anyone with them. But I'm probably not a libertarian.
            See, this is where we get into a disjunction that Christians in particular have a problem connecting with. There is nothing unlibertarian about what you said. Libertarianism is a theory of justice between people, and for a minarchist, state justification. It is not a system of morality. So there are two things here.

            Justice. Do you have a "right" to stop him? At first, the answer seems obviously yes. But it isn't. If you have a right to stop him, that would mean he doesn't have a right to resist. But obviously he does. You don't have an actionable cause against him if he resists you trying to stop his disposing of his own property (his body) in a way that harms no one but himself. So no, you don't have a right to stop him. If you stop him, you are forfeiting your right not to be aggressed against, and he might have an action of justice against you for stopping him.

            Morality. Should you stop him? That should be easy but it isn't. As a Christian, I would say you should. And be willing to take the consequences. Including that he might kill you for stopping him, and that is within his rights to do so. And if he decided not to kill himself after killing you, it is the job of the common law and society to determine if he exercised his right of self-defense proportionally with the infraction against his rights. Many libertarians do not include the inherent limiter of proportionality in their discussions of the NAP. I do, and I think those that don't lead to insane conclusions (like Cantwell's argument that you can kill someone for stealing a paperclip. Cantwell also argues for armed uprising and has been kicked out of the Free State Project official group for that, and now that he has rejoined the LP, I expect he will be up for censure on this). Proportionality also answers the ridiculous argument that libertarians love to have about whether the right to self-defense means the right to set off a nuke.

            This example is actually more plausible than most of the odd examples that get thrown out in debate/discussion, so I appreciate it. I will bomb the realistic outlandish ones, and that doesn't bother me.

            What do you consider an initiation of force?
            The unjust (not the same as immoral) intrusion against someone's negative rights. The extent of which has some obvious natural bounds and other bounds are set by societal convention, which can change. That disturbs people, particularly Christians, who want some entire absolutist system. But then again, as a Christian, I wasn't that kind of absolutist, such as my continual arguments that there are rare circumstances in life where deception is not the lesser of two evils, it is the only right thing to do. Example, do you have Jews hiding in your basement when you do. There is nothing wrong with saying, no Mr. Nazi, of course I don't have Jews hiding in my basement.



            Here is that Platform plank I referenced above: 3.7 Self-Determination

            Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.


            As an aside, every Convention the entire Platform is up for a vote. The entire LP platform can be scrapped next May. Which of course means, theoretically, I can go from big L to little l in one day if certain factions get their way. Such is the nature of outlying groups. If that happened, I would simply be a libertarian and go back into political apathy/inaction and drink a lot with the anarchists.
            Last edited by Darth Xena; 05-02-2015, 12:11 PM.
            The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

            sigpic

            Comment


            • #7
              Let me know when you would like me to posit my next (and much simpler--- I started with the beast first), you might be a libertarian if…..
              The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

              sigpic

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Darth Xena View Post
                Let me know when you would like me to posit my next (and much simpler--- I started with the beast first), you might be a libertarian if…..
                We'll get there organically, I think. Gimme a chance to tick* you off on the first one first!


                * expletive reconsidered

                Comment


                • #9
                  I doubt you will tick me off. I have no doubt that I will be stumped on many things. "I don't have an answer for that" is a well-used answer for me lately…. at least in respectful productive dialogs. When it isn't productive, I resort to sarcasm and memes.
                  Last edited by Darth Xena; 05-02-2015, 12:58 PM.
                  The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

                  sigpic

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Jerk, please be gentle. Paprika just said I was butthurt, and I am really butthurt about that :(
                    The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Jerk (and I am lulzing at newbs who will wonder why I am calling you names), I hope you don't mind if I place this here as it relates to our discussion, and I think more people may read this in the future, then will read the original thread where it happened (and I likely will not be going back to that one):

                      Originally posted by From Other Thread From Someone Other than The Jerk
                      My original argument was that libertarians talk out of both sides of their mouth. Quoting them saying they work peacefully does not change the fact that a combination of the NAP and assertions that their governments are police states it's OK to shoot cops.
                      No on many grounds. First your statement conflates justice with morality. "OK" implies morality, and other than bare bones assertion of natural rights, the NAP requires a moral framework, voluntary socialist communities and voluntary Puritan communities could both equally exist under libertarianism. Second, your statement is not specific, you just say the NAP means you can go out and "shoot cops"- which I am going to translate to state agents. So you are actually arguing that allegedly my worldview means that I can go down and murder the receptionist at the DMV because, the State. It doesn't. There isn't a specific "enemy"-- it is a conglomerate in which most of our fellow citizens are complicit. Is there a specific situation in which a specific libertarian would be justified under the NAP (not under the law) to kill a state agent in self-defense? I am sure there is. A SWAT team busting in the middle of the night with no knock surprise on peaceful people risks getting shot. "Should" that libertarian do that? That is a moral question, and the NAP has to operate within a moral framework. You cannot accuse libertarians of being inconsistent because you are judging the NAP outside of a moral framework. Someone can act perfectly within the NAP, and I can still judge their actions as morally wrong. If a begging man comes to my door and will die if I do not feed him, it is perfectly consistent within the NAP to say, I have no positive obligation to feed him. But I have a human one, and a moral one, and I would be a terrible person if I refused.

                      Running around killing state agents is vigilantism. When the State robs me, it isn't the same same as you breaking into my house, where there is a clear aggressor, clear victim, clear causal chain. It is taken out of my paycheck without my consent. The NAP doesn't imply that the first solution or the preferable moral solution is to go Rambo. Sorry, but it doesn't.

                      Further, a right to self-defense does not imply a duty to self-defense. There is nothing inconsistent about saying I don't believe in using violence. The quotes before were from a political party with political strategy and a political goal. The goals are peaceful and consenting to be peaceful is not inconsistent. I could take the Pledge or not. I took it.

                      The NAP (as I and many others understand it) requires proportionality. Killing someone, acting as an agent of the state, simply for being an agent of the state, in the midst of an oppressive system, is not libertarian in my view. It is murder.

                      Now, there are libertarians who advocate for the right to a Boston Tea Party style armed revolution. Since we do not have such a movement, I cannot judge how that would fit within the NAP. There would be clear violations of property rights of non consenting parties etc ad nauseum. Due to these kinds of issues, most libertarians have concluded that the peaceful route is the most consistent route. Period.

                      All the what ifs, or trying to put life into a tidy little box, will not work. No system does this. The NAP presumes a neutral starting ground of voluntarism. We do not have that. Thus it is impossible to put into practice a pure-NAP justice system at this time.

                      I am sorry if that is not satisfactory to you. Of course you are free to think that nearly all libertarians don't understand what they believe, are just all stupider than you, and don't think. Which is the natural consequence of your pronouncement since you acknowledge the that libertarians are NOT particularly violent, with the implication that we are above average in our peacefulness, you want to claim that this doesn't follow logically, consistently, or naturally from our philosophy. When a certain group of people, holding an ideology in common, pretty consistently are peaceful, it is time to consider that there is something inherent about their ideology that makes them that way.

                      TO BE CLEAR TO EVERYONE, THAT OBJECTION IS NOT FROM THE JERK AND MY SNARK AT THE END WASN'T DIRECTED TO THE JERK
                      Last edited by Darth Xena; 05-02-2015, 04:48 PM.
                      The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

                      sigpic

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Sorry about the delay, Deeds, needed to do some ancillary reading, and catch up on some sleep, too. Please understand my questions and comments are going to be quite naive. I had to look up what positive and negative rights are, for instance, and think a bit before I recognized that "NAP" meant "Non-aggression Principle."

                        Originally posted by Darth Xena View Post
                        Hola Jerk,

                        at you too, and does this one still work?
                        Yo, cannibal.

                        It's again, not still. Showed up one day and somebody had found and reloaded the old smileys. I’m not saying it was aliens, but …

                        Yeah, indeed. Have "lost" many old friends (they still follow but we don't talk as much) and acquired a motley band of new ones.
                        It’s the hair. Happens to me all the time. Some folks just can’t handle how awesome my hair really is, let alone appreciate the painstaking efforts it takes to maintain the perfection. Every night there’s a full inventory and inspection in which even the tiniest variance from the ideal leads to banishment.

                        I’d imagine every time your friends look at you, they’re reminded that they are not pink enough.

                        I am the more political of us two, and I didn't discuss my change much with him until it was a done deal. (He is not a Libertarian yet, makes for interesting conversations since we both work from home, and no lie, I talk about this stuff at least four hours a day, and he gamely comes with me to Libertarian events, and will be taking me to Orlando for the 2016 Convention) There was a bit more than that, in that, I was getting into various FB squabbles, and kept being routinely called a liberal by conservatives and a conservative by liberals, so I threw out a term I was vaguely aware of, and said, "well actually I think I am more of a libertarian," then went and read the LP Platform and thought, with the exception of abortion, that is exactly what I am, and while Wayne was out running errands, I switched party affiliations and joined the LP (joining is more than just switching registrations), so when he came back, I literally was like, "Oh by the way, I just joined the Libertarian Party" and he was like… ummm, wut?
                        While Wayne was out, the pod people came? Don't worry, he's got to sleep sometime.

                        I've read the 2014 platform and the founder's statement linked elsewhere now. I have questions and comments, but they can wait.

                        I would love to hear your thoughts. I might have said something a bit amiss before about mixing politics and religion… I can't say it is per se bad. The way I did it was bad. Primarily because I kinda just accepted, well I am Christian now, everyone knows Christians are Republicans, so I switched my affiliation from Democrat to Republican without really maturing enough to know whether it was absolutely necessary, I kinda just accepted it was and bent things to fit the narrative. If I had matured a bit, would likely have just switched to Independent then. I can't picture myself being a Libertarian at Calvary Chapel Fort Lauderdale. I already was a pariah for my eschatology. Throw in the fact I think all drugs should be legalized, and well, there isn't enough room on my breast for all the scarlet letters, as lovely as my breast may be ;)
                        Certainly, all of us should bring our values with us into the voting booth, including religious adherents. But within an organized religious bloc of voters, there is a genuine risk that the process by which one comes to accept the more obscure traditions consequent to one's faith can transfer into acceptance of political policies that demand greater scrutiny.

                        Arguing from my Christian head, echoing your experience with elaboration, as Christian was made to mean Republican, Republican in turn came to mean Christian, with consequences to the moral authority of Christianity in the US. In effect, Republican, but hardly Christian, policies naturally antithetical to Christianity — the preemptive war in Iraq for instance — that would otherwise have been rejected by Christians out of hand, became acceptable or defensible as part of a quid pro quo for legislatively meaningless platform planks that mentioned "God" or "pro-life."

                        What Christian wants a Christianity that says, "Praise the Lord, let's bomb another village" or "Blessed be the greatest of these, for they shall receive another tax break." None, I'm thinking. Yet, with the marriage of American Christianity to the Republican Party, that's what they got, scaled up to whole countries. And while the praise of their God was muted at best, the bombing was shockingly, and awfully, sincere.

                        I'm going to hold off on arguments from my atheist and Taoist sides, as this sidebar is rapidly becoming a dissertation.

                        Well a grammatical quibble. Capital L usually refers to Party members, little l is everyone else, including anarchists. Anarchist libertarians are actually the most prevalent in my circles. I am more of the rare one. And they think I am horridly inconsistent, and probably a LINO.
                        You know, I actually stopped myself from adding "unlike libertarian anarchists." But wait, are you saying libertarians are calling you a Libertarian in name only, as in non-party members telling you that you're not really a member of the party?

                        I live for unintended irony.

                        I already knew;)
                        Right, you've probably got a Twinkie grow room in your basement.

                        Now more to the meat, and I am sorry I am going to repeat this a zillion times, but I feel it necessary. I know you will be kind and understand my severe limitations, but forum board readers tend not to be. Shocking, I know. I am not skilled at philosophy, my reasoning is more intuitive gut level and as such will be very imprecise--- and I am a baby Libertarian, still wet behind the ears with a terribly soiled diaper. I am also very very new to thinking these things through, and bound to screw up some things royally, and not realize it and screw things up and have to backtrack and revise what I said. I will likely say some things now that next year I will think, WTH was I thinking?? or crap, that was really not very libertarian.
                        If you do find yourself thinking poorly of today's arguments next year, I hope it'll be because they were poor arguments, rather than because they were not libertarian. I suspect you'll find there are libertarian principles that stand up to scrutiny, and others that don't.

                        Also, perhaps there is a disconnect between what I think (how I reason) and how I would advocate implementing. My foundational thinking is more radical than the LP, but in practice I am too pragmatic and incremental for most libertarians, thus the LINO charge. So basically when I am doing my poor attempts at foundational philosophy I get called a brutalist, and when I talk about actual political activism, I get called a LINO.
                        This.

                        I am not an adherent of non-violence in that way as well as no harm was done to something that had the right not to have harm done against it.
                        And this.

                        Are abstractly the same. They both speak of principled positions that need to bend for practicality.

                        It can have very different meanings, a flaw in all human reasoning, and I decided to use this to start both with the most foundational idea, but also the hardest, and the one I am most likely to screw up.

                        Here is how I understand it as an individual Libertarian, and what I understand is relevant since I "signed" it, and I can only be bound by what I thought I was pledging. Anytime I say "we" and "us" this is a way to say my understanding. I absolutely do not and cannot speak for the Party. One bit of history is necessary to explain my understanding. In 2006 or so (and many many other times since the 70s), people have tried to get that Pledge removed. One of the reasons for some is that they basically thought they were pledging away their rights to civil revolt, ala Boston Tea Party. And I think they are right that they were pledging that away (though there is a platform plank that would seem to allow this--- I don't think it does, but the argument has been made--- I quote it at the bottom of this post). So with that in mind, I think the specific words here are very very important. I don't believe, as an individual, that force is the means to change the political or social order-- with force being a violation of the negative rights of others, including legitimate property rights. I am presuming we both understand negative rights and positive rights the same way. Libertarians generally do not believe in positive rights for adults. I do not believe or advocate I should do it, nor that anyone else should do it, including the government. Is this potentially inconsistent? Are we then charging the American Revolution with injustice? Actually no, we are organized as a political Party, and do the work of a Party with a strategy to achieve our goals. Our strategy is to eschew violence. It can't be taken as an denunciation of historical examples where the opposite was done, but a statement of our beliefs for our present time. This suits me because I also am a Christian and have come to embrace non-violence. This is a rambling way to say, you can have a right to violent self-defense, but that does not require you to violently self-defend yourself, nor does it require you to think that is the best way at any particular time. As an analogy, not related to the Pledge, if only my life were in danger, I do not think I could ever kill anyone in self-defense. Of course, one doesn't know until one is in that situation, but I probably could in good faith sign a pledge with some Christian group for peace that says I wouldn't. But in no way am I saying that I would be unjust to do so in any circumstance at any time. That is rambling, but that is how I understand it.
                        To tell the truth, having done a wee bit of reading, I can understand negative rights: rights to say no. So positive rights should be posed conversely as the right to say yes, but my reading poses them as obligations instead, and that seems to accord with your usage here.

                        I am confused here. Can you clarify? If I'm reading this correctly, how can a right be considered an obligation?

                        Another aside, while the Pledge isn't literally one-sided, many Libertarians who read this take it as an expression of their political activity, not personal activity. Let me explain. As a Libertarian, I do not believe that I can advocate forcing someone else to do something because I think it serves a wonderful political or social goal. In this case, it isn't intended to speak of self-defense at all, or even of individual action per se, but of the individual in relation to society and puts the individual in a thought experiment of neutrality, i.e., put aside what is already actually in place, do not from this point forward advocate the continuation of the initiation of force to achieve these goals. To those that believe in the right to violent revolt, who did eventually capitulate and sign the Pledge, I think this is probably how they understood it. "Initiation" is to be very narrowly construed as being the "first cause" and not the reaction to provocation. This is inherent in my understanding as well, since Libertarians have a very strong sense of the right to self-defense.
                        To be clear, my comment about violent revolt was intended to stretch the pledge past its breaking point. I'm only vaguely aware of folks who believe in the "right" to violent revolt, and generally dismiss them as folks who believe in the "right" to have a 500-lb JDAM dropped on their heads. (I actually used that rebuttal the last time I had to talk down the PTSD ex-marine ranger/sniper who had once again become convinced they were coming to take his guns.)

                        How to define force and the Non-Aggression Principle gets very tricky when people sit down and debate it, and then you get the hand-wringing seen recently in that Civics thread, when actually, it is pretty simple and intuitive for the vast majority of human interactions. Arguing ala Rothbard whether or not parents have a right to starve their children for the hell of it or whether you can grab unto someone else's balcony if you are falling off the roof of a high-rise are not everyday human interactions. (and no, parents can't starve their children for the hell of it and yes, you should grab unto someone else's balcony if that is how you can save yourself from falling to your death).
                        Rothbard has a wiki. I've read it. It didn't tell me why anyone would think they've got a right to starve their children, or why anyone would think they couldn't grab onto something — because it didn't belong to them? — to save their lives. You said something earlier about whether the balcony-owner would have a "right" to toss them off. Who would argue the affirmative on this? That can't be serious. I can only think these must have been strawman arguments in opposition to libertarianism.

                        In reading Rothbard's wiki after the founder's statement, I do notice a common theme developing here. Libertarianism seems to be a refuge for economic ... umm ... kooks.

                        See, this is where we get into a disjunction that Christians in particular have a problem connecting with. There is nothing unlibertarian about what you said. Libertarianism is a theory of justice between people, and for a minarchist, state justification. It is not a system of morality. So there are two things here.
                        For reference:
                        I don't believe in initiating force ... according to my own radical views, which include standing aside when someone is rushing to their own destruction so long as they're not taking anyone with them. But I'm probably not a libertarian.

                        Justice. Do you have a "right" to stop him? At first, the answer seems obviously yes. But it isn't. If you have a right to stop him, that would mean he doesn't have a right to resist. But obviously he does. You don't have an actionable cause against him if he resists you trying to stop his disposing of his own property (his body) in a way that harms no one but himself. So no, you don't have a right to stop him. If you stop him, you are forfeiting your right not to be aggressed against, and he might have an action of justice against you for stopping him.

                        Morality. Should you stop him? That should be easy but it isn't. As a Christian, I would say you should. And be willing to take the consequences. Including that he might kill you for stopping him, and that is within his rights to do so. And if he decided not to kill himself after killing you, it is the job of the common law and society to determine if he exercised his right of self-defense proportionally with the infraction against his rights. Many libertarians do not include the inherent limiter of proportionality in their discussions of the NAP. I do, and I think those that don't lead to insane conclusions (like Cantwell's argument that you can kill someone for stealing a paperclip. Cantwell also argues for armed uprising and has been kicked out of the Free State Project official group for that, and now that he has rejoined the LP, I expect he will be up for censure on this).
                        You keep referencing people and arguments I don't know (or have barely heard of, like the Free State Project). I'd imagine you're talking about this Cantwell (from the first link that looked promising on Google.) Please feel free to assume I don't need you to rebut arguments from the fringe. This is supposed to be a bit more elementary than that.

                        Now, to your justice argument, there's no prima facie reason to believe abstract rights can't conflict. I can't agree that your right to stop someone excludes their right to resist except in the very best of best case scenarios. Real life is messy. In this instance, we've granted that no one else is going to be harmed, but that's a claim that could be true, or false, or even false without the knowledge of either participant ... a small child sleeping by the bank of the river he's about to drive into. But it could be that the guy trying to stop the driver knows, and has the right under justice to try to prevent it, and the driver doesn't, and retains the right to resist.

                        Proportionality also answers the ridiculous argument that libertarians love to have about whether the right to self-defense means the right to set off a nuke.
                        Oddly enough, that reminds me of another rebuttal I used recently on the grunt. He'd somehow gotten it into his head that Americans have the right to any weapon in use by the military. "No, you can't have a nuke, Kenny."

                        This example is actually more plausible than most of the odd examples that get thrown out in debate/discussion, so I appreciate it. I will bomb the realistic outlandish ones, and that doesn't bother me.
                        Now, while I'd agree, as far as I can tell, that there's nothing unlibertarian about my example, the motivations are quite dissimilar, and I'm not consistent in following it either when it comes to people close to me, like the marine. But I'm not especially concerned with their rights, so much as I'm concerned that stopping someone from jumping off a cliff entails taking responsibility for their future actions.

                        This is a fairly extreme example: When I rescued the grunt, I put the community at risk. That's a fact. A PTSD ranger/sniper with an arsenal could turn his own bad day into a really bad day for a lot of other folks. So now, and for the foreseeable future, I stop by a couple times a week, and talk him down from crazy every other month or so.

                        I wonder how my interventions would play out under the NAP.

                        The unjust (not the same as immoral) intrusion against someone's negative rights. The extent of which has some obvious natural bounds and other bounds are set by societal convention, which can change. That disturbs people, particularly Christians, who want some entire absolutist system. But then again, as a Christian, I wasn't that kind of absolutist, such as my continual arguments that there are rare circumstances in life where deception is not the lesser of two evils, it is the only right thing to do. Example, do you have Jews hiding in your basement when you do. There is nothing wrong with saying, no Mr. Nazi, of course I don't have Jews hiding in my basement.

                        Here is that Platform plank I referenced above: 3.7 Self-Determination

                        Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.


                        As an aside, every Convention the entire Platform is up for a vote. The entire LP platform can be scrapped next May. Which of course means, theoretically, I can go from big L to little l in one day if certain factions get their way. Such is the nature of outlying groups. If that happened, I would simply be a libertarian and go back into political apathy/inaction and drink a lot with the anarchists.
                        I don't imagine I need to mention 3.7 is redundant. We've got a mechanism for that already in the form of a Constitutional Convention, which would be needed to get folks "to agree to such new governance ..." anyway.

                        You've already mentioned you have issues with 1.5, on abortion, and 3.7 here was clearly an outlier for you. I'd rather look, for now anyway, at what you found most compelling about the platform, the things which if changed would cause you to embrace the lower case. What parts of the platform would those be?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Darth Xena View Post
                          Jerk, please be gentle. Paprika just said I was butthurt, and I am really butthurt about that :(
                          This is about your left behind again, isn't it?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Darth Xena View Post
                            Jerk (and I am lulzing at newbs who will wonder why I am calling you names), I hope you don't mind if I place this here as it relates to our discussion, and I think more people may read this in the future, then will read the original thread where it happened (and I likely will not be going back to that one):
                            No worries, cannibal.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                              Sorry about the delay, Deeds, needed to do some ancillary reading, and catch up on some sleep, too. Please understand my questions and comments are going to be quite naive. I had to look up what positive and negative rights are, for instance, and think a bit before I recognized that "NAP" meant "Non-aggression Principle."
                              You know what, I must apologize, you opened my eyes to the fact that I am way too used to rapping with other Libertarians and just assuming everyone knows the "lingo." Christians do that all the time, and it is annoying to non-Christians… sorry:(




                              I’d imagine every time your friends look at you, they’re reminded that they are not pink enough.
                              Oh crap, I'm turning pinko:)


                              What Christian wants a Christianity that says, "Praise the Lord, let's bomb another village" or "Blessed be the greatest of these, for they shall receive another tax break." None, I'm thinking. Yet, with the marriage of American Christianity to the Republican Party, that's what they got, scaled up to whole countries. And while the praise of their God was muted at best, the bombing was shockingly, and awfully, sincere.
                              I hear ya. There were actually a few ideological shifts that came first along these lines. First I went from being philosophically in favour of the death penalty but pragmatically opposed to being just plain opposed. Which led to me becoming much more skeptical of war.

                              You know, I actually stopped myself from adding "unlike libertarian anarchists." But wait, are you saying libertarians are calling you a Libertarian in name only, as in non-party members telling you that you're not really a member of the party?

                              I live for unintended irony.
                              LOL , a bit of both. Anarchists (some) are kinda resentful of what they see as a hijacking of the name for their philosophy by minarchists. So some anarchists call me a libertarian in name only, but yes, I have have had non-Party members pull a “you should just read your Bible” moment on me, by saying “you should just read your Platform” line when I support gay marriage. And let me explain. I do not believe the government has a right to license personal relationships. The “pure” Libertarian position (which is in the Platform) is to deny government that right. Practically I see that isn’t happening soon, and I see a minority that wants the same recognitions and privileges and is denied them. Though I am loath to get the State involved, pragmatically, I think State recognition of gay marriage is equitable, and is a stepping stone. It isn’t ideal. I think the State will get out of marriage when polygamy (and ironically I think it will be a religious liberties issues as we get more fundamentalist Muslim immigrants) comes ot the fore, and I think it will. It is kinda convoluted and not pure, so that makes me a LINO to some.

                              A better irony is in that civics thread where a participant criticized libertarians for calling other libertarians, not libertarian, and called them pseudolibertarian. It hurt my head.

                              Right, you've probably got a Twinkie grow room in your basement.
                              Don’t ask, don’t tell ☺

                              If you do find yourself thinking poorly of today's arguments next year, I hope it'll be because they were poor arguments, rather than because they were not libertarian. I suspect you'll find there are libertarian principles that stand up to scrutiny, and others that don't.
                              I am sure, but I also know that my level of skill at defense hasn’t caught up to my convictions. I get schooled almost daily by other libertarians. And I am still deciding where I land on the “thick” v “thin” scale etc.


                              Are abstractly the same. They both speak of principled positions that need to bend for practicality.
                              Indeed we can have our thought world, but we have to live in the real one. While philosophically I can cheer on Rothbard when he said something like “If there was a magical button to be pushed to abolish all State infringements of liberty, I would break my finger pushing it” – realistically if that button were pushed, society would collapse.



                              To tell the truth, having done a wee bit of reading, I can understand negative rights: rights to say no. So positive rights should be posed conversely as the right to say yes, but my reading poses them as obligations instead, and that seems to accord with your usage here.
                              A positive right is an obligation that someone has to provide you with something. Libertarians generally deny positive rights (unless agreed to under contract, or under principles of guardianship as with children). There are no natural positive rights for adults under libertarianism (this is a generalization, speaking of majority views). A negative right is the right you have that someone not interfere, such as your right to life and liberty.

                              For instance, I have no obligation to feed you, clothe you, or provide you with sustenance. I do have an obligation not to prevent you from doing those things yourself. Once again, we are talking about proper uses of force and coercion, and with a minarchist, the role of the State. This does not mean I cannot feel or argue for or shame others for not having a moral obligation to do those things.

                              To be clear, my comment about violent revolt was intended to stretch the pledge past its breaking point. I'm only vaguely aware of folks who believe in the "right" to violent revolt, and generally dismiss them as folks who believe in the "right" to have a 500-lb JDAM dropped on their heads. (I actually used that rebuttal the last time I had to talk down the PTSD ex-marine ranger/sniper who had once again become convinced they were coming to take his guns.)
                              Gracias, I appreciate it.


                              Rothbard has a wiki. I've read it. It didn't tell me why anyone would think they've got a right to starve their children, or why anyone would think they couldn't grab onto something — because it didn't belong to them? — to save their lives. You said something earlier about whether the balcony-owner would have a "right" to toss them off. Who would argue the affirmative on this? That can't be serious. I can only think these must have been strawman arguments in opposition to libertarianism.
                              Unfortunately it is serious. People actually do argue the affirmative--- we have our extremists. I hate just posting links… but since this is somewhat of a side issue, the fact that there are people who do argue such ridiculous thing is what makes an article entitled “The Case Against Egoistic, Libertarian Baby-Starving” necessary. It makes me die a little inside each time. http://www.rogerbissell.com/id11kk.html

                              In reading Rothbard's wiki after the founder's statement, I do notice a common theme developing here. Libertarianism seems to be a refuge for economic ... umm ... kooks.
                              I am likely one of those kooks:) but I am nowhere near qualified to argue well on economics. Most Libertarians are adherents to an Austrian model of economics. Whether or not this is essential to Libertarianism is debatable as I can conceive of a voluntary society organized on communistic principles in LibPar (abbreviation that Libertarians love to use for Libertarian Paradise.)

                              You keep referencing people and arguments I don't know (or have barely heard of, like the Free State Project).
                              Sorry, truly I am. The Free State Project is kinda fascinating…. A bunch of libertarians moved to New Hampshire to try to get something close to LibPar. It is libertarians of all kind, and a ton of anarchists.

                              I'd imagine you're talking about this Cantwell (from the first link that looked promising on Google.) Please feel free to assume I don't need you to rebut arguments from the fringe. This is supposed to be a bit more elementary than that.
                              Yep, that’s the guy. He is a well known anarchist who is controversial for a ton of reasons. An anarchist shock jock, though I think he really believes what he says. And some things I agree with, but he is certainly a fringe radical.

                              Now, to your justice argument, there's no prima facie reason to believe abstract rights can't conflict.
                              I am not sure I can adequately defend this right now, but I actually do think there is such a reason. Let me try to explain. Remember, we are talking not about moral duties or rights, but justified force (in a legal—state sense)


                              I can't agree that your right to stop someone excludes their right to resist except in the very best of best case scenarios.
                              I was taking as a premise in my statement, a best case scenario where all facts are known. I don’t think we can make philosophical statements about rights without starting there.

                              Real life is messy. In this instance, we've granted that no one else is going to be harmed, but that's a claim that could be true, or false, or even false without the knowledge of either participant ...
                              Actually, I don’t think so… more below.

                              a small child sleeping by the bank of the river he's about to drive into. But it could be that the guy trying to stop the driver knows, and has the right under justice to try to prevent it, and the driver doesn't, and retains the right to resist.
                              When I speak of rights here, I am speaking of actionable rights, and have to presume the stance of the outside observer with all the facts. In that circumstance, you have the right to stand in the place of the child and exercise the rights of self-defense to that child. You are not exercising a right over the man to prevent him from killing himself, but to prevent him from killing someone else. While the parties at the time may not all know this, in adjucticating the matter or philosophically talking about rights, these facts are relevant. The man does not have the right to resist you preventing him from harming someone else, but does have the right to resist you stopping him from killing himself. I know this is splitting hairs, but this is how I resolve it, and still maintain there cannot be this conflict in rights. I could argue that if you know that there is a child, in tackling him, in order to resolve the conflict over proper coercion, you should be saying “look you asshat, go jump over there, there’s a kid there.” These are the types of facts that would go into an after the fact adjudication. But yes, life gets messy, and sometimes the causal chains and relationships are not immediately clear.


                              Oddly enough, that reminds me of another rebuttal I used recently on the grunt. He'd somehow gotten it into his head that Americans have the right to any weapon in use by the military. "No, you can't have a nuke, Kenny."
                              Sadly, this is an argument in libertarian circles.


                              Now, while I'd agree, as far as I can tell, that there's nothing unlibertarian about my example, the motivations are quite dissimilar, and I'm not consistent in following it either when it comes to people close to me, like the marine. But I'm not especially concerned with their rights, so much as I'm concerned that stopping someone from jumping off a cliff entails taking responsibility for their future actions.
                              THANK you for that insight… you are right. Motivations make all the difference in the world for determining if someone holds to something or not. Externally, then, your actions would not be unlibertarian. And your last sentence is very interesting to me, because things that like are why I hold to a deontological view of the proper role of coercion and force and not a utilitarian one. I don’t think we can ever really know the ultimate utilitiy. Deontological ethics are probably the most popular in Libertarians today.

                              I don't imagine I need to mention 3.7 is redundant. We've got a mechanism for that already in the form of a Constitutional Convention, which would be needed to get folks "to agree to such new governance ..." anyway.
                              We Libertarians don’t trust the government to pay attention to the Constitution so we like to repeat the things that we think are important. Many Libertarians are not Constitutionalists either… that is another issue.

                              You've already mentioned you have issues with 1.5, on abortion, and 3.7 here was clearly an outlier for you. I'd rather look, for now anyway, at what you found most compelling about the platform, the things which if changed would cause you to embrace the lower case. What parts of the platform would those be?
                              That is a good question, and I am not sure I can solidly answer it as it was kind of a whole. But let me point out some key issues that were the drawing point for me, and if these were substantially altered, I would have to reconsider.

                              As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.


                              I do not believe in forcing people to be “good” or serve others. This is what turns me off from leftism. I am very very concerned about racism and true bigotry. The state solutions are force.

                              This sentiment is repeated many times (in the preamble and statement of principles and in the actual platform). I will repeat it to show how much force this statement has in its repetition.

                              We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose….

                              Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others.

                              Individuals own their bodies and have rights over them that other individuals, groups, and governments may not violate. Individuals have the freedom and responsibility to decide what they knowingly and voluntarily consume, and what risks they accept to their own health, finances, safety, or life.

                              Libertarians support free markets. We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of entities based on voluntary association.

                              The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself.

                              Libertarians embrace the concept that all people are born with certain inherent rights. We reject the idea that a natural right can ever impose an obligation upon others to fulfill that "right." We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should neither deny nor abridge any individual's human right based upon sex, wealth, ethnicity, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Members of private organizations retain their rights to set whatever standards of association they deem appropriate, and individuals are free to respond with ostracism, boycotts and other free market solutions.


                              That last statement is probably the most important to me. If the LP moved away from its belief in radical freedom of association, even for people they believe (as I do) to be irrational and repugnant, I might change. Though it is possible, that I would stay and simply disagree because ultimately, their policy of very limited government would make it impossible to enforce any lesser standard of freedom of association. One could say (this was actually a bill that Governor Gary Johnson vetoed) that pet shops should absolutely walk their dogs two hours a day three days a week. If there isn't a Dog Walking Enforcement Agency, it is moot.

                              This should raise the question, and I will answer it. No, philosophically I don’t believe in anti-discrimination laws. Pragmatically I can and could support them in cases of great crime and where we have great national culpability that is nearly irremedial, such as kidnapping people and making them slaves. I do think such measure should have a sunset provision and let the market and free associations and pressure take care of it.

                              Sorry if this is somewhat scattershot…. It takes me a horridly long time to write (this took several hours), and my workload right now is huge (well it is always huge).
                              Last edited by Darth Xena; 05-03-2015, 11:35 PM.
                              The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

                              sigpic

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X