You might be a libertarian if… (restricted thread)

[Darth Xena]

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.

[Juvenal]

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?

[Darth Xena]

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.

[Darth Xena]

Gracias. I read that description and wasn't sure if this applied as we are not going to debate.

[Catholicity]

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.

[Darth Xena]

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.