The Wisdom of Ayn Rand

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

To think that you can further conservative goals by sacrificing liberty and not run into a nanny state once it has been sacrificed and then have the gall to call libertarians naive is highly entertaining. [/quote]

Of course conservatives can further conservative goals by sacrificing liberty, as is sometimes necessary when liberty leads to a bad result - what you don’t get, and is the result of predictable libertarian myopia, is that these “sacrifices” don’t strictly come from inviting state coercion to further a conservative goals. Far from it - conservatives may feel the need to restrict liberty for some End, but most often the preferred vehicle for doing so is some other institution other than the state.

Libertarians never get this - maybe they never will. [/quote]

Libertarianism does not call for the destruction of naturally arising social constructs and to say that it does is to conflate what many secular anarchists would like to see and what actual libertarianism requires. I have absolutely zero qualms with whatever social institutions exist out there, religious or otherwise, in so far as they do not try and prevent others from living their own lives. Nothing about beating back the leviathan of government even remotely implies this, in fact, if anything the beating back of government is PREDICATED on the notion that just such social institutions would provide the structure many nanny state types claim only the state can provide.

Your whole argument about libertarianism being the handmaiden of the state rests on the above assumption that to be a libertarian you must hate god and religion, want to erase all cultural norms, societal structures and mores and start completely from scratch in some moral de novo world. This could not be more false if you tried. The fact that some self-ascribed libertarian anarchists like Rand ALSO think religion is a net negative does not mean to love liberty is to hate all prior conceived social constructs or require their destruction.

What is the phrase so many folks around here like to use? Straw man fallacy or something like that? I think I just saw one.

You are very cavalier with the term ‘naive’ and seem to think all libertarians, and basically anyone besides yourself, must be ‘naive’ beyond repair. But if you think that you can somehow use the state to achieve your desired end via coercion and then stop it right there then I think you might just want to stop throwing those stones in your glass house. All these examples of nations acting badly you have pointed to how have they justified their actions? How did they come about? Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mussolini, etc., etc. all started with the notion that they were going to bring order to society and make it greater via there efforts. Of course they would stop once certain ends were achieved, but those ends never seemed to materialize. But how could anyone think it is naive to assume the government would keep its word or relinquish it’s power once it got it?

Or maybe you don’t think you should use the state for these purposes and thus avoid the above scenario of government run amok. Instead government should be kept very small so that social institutions could pick up the slack and organize things better and more voluntarily. If this is what you mean then you might just be more of a libertarian than you think.
[/quote]

That is a standard operating procedure by the so called conservatives (HERE), if you do not agree with them than you do not understand the subject matter or you are mentally deficient

162

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

To think that you can further conservative goals by sacrificing liberty and not run into a nanny state once it has been sacrificed and then have the gall to call libertarians naive is highly entertaining. [/quote]

Of course conservatives can further conservative goals by sacrificing liberty, as is sometimes necessary when liberty leads to a bad result - what you don’t get, and is the result of predictable libertarian myopia, is that these “sacrifices” don’t strictly come from inviting state coercion to further a conservative goals. Far from it - conservatives may feel the need to restrict liberty for some End, but most often the preferred vehicle for doing so is some other institution other than the state.

Libertarians never get this - maybe they never will. [/quote]

Libertarianism does not call for the destruction of naturally arising social constructs and to say that it does is to conflate what many secular anarchists would like to see and what actual libertarianism requires. I have absolutely zero qualms with whatever social institutions exist out there, religious or otherwise, in so far as they do not try and prevent others from living their own lives. Nothing about beating back the leviathan of government even remotely implies this, in fact, if anything the beating back of government is PREDICATED on the notion that just such social institutions would provide the structure many nanny state types claim only the state can provide.

Your whole argument about libertarianism being the handmaiden of the state rests on the above assumption that to be a libertarian you must hate god and religion, want to erase all cultural norms, societal structures and mores and start completely from scratch in some moral de novo world. This could not be more false if you tried. The fact that some self-ascribed libertarian anarchists like Rand ALSO think religion is a net negative does not mean to love liberty is to hate all prior conceived social constructs or require their destruction.

What is the phrase so many folks around here like to use? Straw man fallacy or something like that? I think I just saw one.

You are very cavalier with the term ‘naive’ and seem to think all libertarians, and basically anyone besides yourself, must be ‘naive’ beyond repair. But if you think that you can somehow use the state to achieve your desired end via coercion and then stop it right there then I think you might just want to stop throwing those stones in your glass house. All these examples of nations acting badly you have pointed to how have they justified their actions? How did they come about? Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mussolini, etc., etc. all started with the notion that they were going to bring order to society and make it greater via there efforts. Of course they would stop once certain ends were achieved, but those ends never seemed to materialize. But how could anyone think it is naive to assume the government would keep its word or relinquish it’s power once it got it?

Or maybe you don’t think you should use the state for these purposes and thus avoid the above scenario of government run amok. Instead government should be kept very small so that social institutions could pick up the slack and organize things better and more voluntarily. If this is what you mean then you might just be more of a libertarian than you think.
[/quote]

Here, here! Excellent post.

163

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
That is a standard operating procedure by the so called conservatives (HERE), if you do not agree with them than you do not understand the subject matter or you are mentally deficient
[/quote]

That’s standard operating procedure for MOST people these days, and one of the HUGE problems with the current political environment.

Modern “news” media, between the internet, TV and radio, allows you to completely hide yourself in your own echo-chamber. People are becoming (to such a large degree) incubated in their own world views, finding and getting all their information from a media that exists to confirm the world view they already have. When “every intelligent person you know”, everyone you read online, every voice you hear on the radio, and every (non-straw-man) talking head you see on tv agrees with you… it’s no wonder we’ve gotten to the point where most people believe disagreement about this sort of thing only arises through misinformation, ignorance and outright stupidity.

164

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
That is a standard operating procedure by the so called conservatives (HERE), if you do not agree with them than you do not understand the subject matter or you are mentally deficient
[/quote]

That’s standard operating procedure for MOST people these days, and one of the HUGE problems with the current political environment.

Modern “news” media, between the internet, TV and radio, allows you to completely hide yourself in your own echo-chamber. People are becoming (to such a large degree) incubated in their own world views, finding and getting all their information from a media that exists to confirm the world view they already have. When “every intelligent person you know”, everyone you read online, every voice you hear on the radio, and every (non-straw-man) talking head you see on tv agrees with you… it’s no wonder we’ve gotten to the point where most people believe disagreement about this sort of thing only arises through misinformation, ignorance and outright stupidity.[/quote]

You may be correct to a degree, it just seems the so called right is more vicious with their condemnation

165

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
You may be correct to a degree, it just seems the so called right is more vicious with their condemnation [/quote]

Maybe. But I’d attribute that largely to two factors:

  1. “Conservatives” tend to be older. Older people of all stripes tend to be more rigid/less flexible in their ideologies and give themselves more “credit” for having figured it out. Like I said, this happens more with EVERYONE as they get older. There’s good data showing it… but statistically, people who vote Republican tend to be older.

  2. The “right” has less effective/subtle spokespeople, and makes less effective use of modern media. My example here would be the debt ceiling. The American left generally supports raising the debt ceiling. What could be considered media and spokespeople from the left have pretty effectively been able to frame the raising of the debt ceiling as an inevitability… something that MUST be done, and isn’t really a debatable political issue: rather just a political distraction. They were very effective at making this position mainstream. This is a much more effective nuances approach than the American right often takes, where they are simply much more direct. The American right would be much more likely to just come out and say “you’re wrong”, than embark on a media campaign.

I hope this is making sense. In other words, the mindsets are the same: you wouldn’t disagree with me if you were smart/educated/had the ‘right’ information, but the right’s approach tends to be a direct “we’re going to tell you you’re wrong”, where the left would rather re-craft the language of the debate in such a way that they become the implicitly correct side.

The “politically correct” stuff the left does is another good example of this: a slight re-frame of the same issue and vocabulary shift. Right? Anyone with a half-a-brain is against illegal activity, or at least believes the government should be against illegal activity. So substitute illegal for undocumented… now we’re debating undocumented workers… totally different debate, right? I mean we could all agree if that if were illegal that would be a problem… but they’re simply undocumented, and it’s racist to have a problem with undocumented workers. Only a bigot would harbor malice towards someone for simply being undocumented.

In the end, you still have large groups of people who think anyone who disagrees with them is either just ignorant or really stupid, even if they express it differently.

166

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
You may be correct to a degree, it just seems the so called right is more vicious with their condemnation [/quote]

Maybe. But I’d attribute that largely to two factors:

  1. “Conservatives” tend to be older. Older people of all stripes tend to be more rigid/less flexible in their ideologies and give themselves more “credit” for having figured it out. Like I said, this happens more with EVERYONE as they get older. There’s good data showing it… but statistically, people who vote Republican tend to be older.

  2. The “right” has less effective/subtle spokespeople, and makes less effective use of modern media. My example here would be the debt ceiling. The American left generally supports raising the debt ceiling. What could be considered media and spokespeople from the left have pretty effectively been able to frame the raising of the debt ceiling as an inevitability… something that MUST be done, and isn’t really a debatable political issue: rather just a political distraction. They were very effective at making this position mainstream. This is a much more effective nuances approach than the American right often takes, where they are simply much more direct. The American right would be much more likely to just come out and say “you’re wrong”, than embark on a media campaign.

I hope this is making sense. In other words, the mindsets are the same: you wouldn’t disagree with me if you were smart/educated/had the ‘right’ information, but the right’s approach tends to be a direct “we’re going to tell you you’re wrong”, where the left would rather re-craft the language of the debate in such a way that they become the implicitly correct side.

The “politically correct” stuff the left does is another good example of this: a slight re-frame of the same issue and vocabulary shift. Right? Anyone with a half-a-brain is against illegal activity, or at least believes the government should be against illegal activity. So substitute illegal for undocumented… now we’re debating undocumented workers… totally different debate, right? I mean we could all agree if that if were illegal that would be a problem… but they’re simply undocumented, and it’s racist to have a problem with undocumented workers. Only a bigot would harbor malice towards someone for simply being undocumented.

In the end, you still have large groups of people who think anyone who disagrees with them is either just ignorant or really stupid, even if they express it differently.[/quote]

Speaking as one of those older people, it is not true that older people lack the sophistication of the youth.

I do agree to the extent that the so called conservatives lack the sophistication to rationally discuss tough issues ,that is why the ploys of inferring intellectual superiority arise. That way a so called conservative needs not answer any questions that are too difficult

The so called conservative has this neat little package that is easily disrupted by facts or abstract thought

167

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

Libertarianism does not call for the destruction of naturally arising social constructs and to say that it does is to conflate what many secular anarchists would like to see and what actual libertarianism requires.[/quote]

I never said libertarianism called for the destruction of these “social constructs”…I said there overriding moral philosophy destroyed them whether intentionally or not, hence my commentary about unintended consequences. Libertarians prize only freedom, and if a person has decided that one of the “social constructs” impedes their freedom and should be cast off, the libertarian doesn’t say “that’s wrong” or “that’s bad”, they say “hey, if that works for you, have at it”, even if that libertarian personally desires to abide by the “social construct”. Thus, they justify the destruction of these “social constructs” in the name of their higher good - freedom - every time.

Excellent, you made my point for me. These “social constructs” have no value outside of the value an individual chooses them to have - or not. That, friend, is the cause of their disintegration, intentional or not.

This entire line is a strawman. My argument isn’t premised on any such assumption that libertarians have to hate god and religion or that they want to erase cultural norms, etc. My argument was that despite a libertarian’s wishes - whetver they might be - the libtertarian’s philosophy leads to the erasure of these, intentionally or unintentionally.

Whew, that’s good. It’s especially good since I never claimed otherwise. Even libertarians that love “social constructs” are unwittingly unraveling them.

Well, what you are describing is not a straw man, and in fact, it is you who are guilty of the straw man, as you are assigning positions to me that I don’t have and attacking those positions. Ironic, aye?

Well, this isn’t true - I don’t think anyone besides myself is naive, and I do think that the fundamental aspect to libertarianism is naive because it assumes away too about Human Nature in its philosophy. Accordingly, for believing in a naive philosophy, I think libertarians are by extension naive.

This is straight from the libertarian brochure and it’s dull, but in any event - so, based on this, not a fan of the US Constitution?

[quote]Or maybe you don’t think you should use the state for these purposes and thus avoid the above scenario of government run amok. Instead government should be kept very small so that social institutions could pick up the slack and organize things better and more voluntarily. If this is what you mean then you might just be more of a libertarian than you think.
[/quote]

I’m no libertarian, that is for sure. The problem, of course, is that libertarianism hoists itself by its own petard, as I stated earlier - it (intentionally or not) umdermines the very social institutions you claim should “pick up the slack” because it operates on the basis that these social institutions are take-them-or-leave-them, it’s up to the individual. This moral relativism disintegrates these social institutions over time because according to libertarians, the existence of these social institutions are no better than the non-existence of these social institutions.

Then, when these social institutions are in tatters, the only institution left to clean up the mess is the nanny-state. Why? It’s the only institution that doesn’t judge you or your behavior. Families do, churches, do, communities do, public morality laws do - but not the nanny-state, which only provides generous insurance for “free” acts gone horribly bad.

No thanks. Libertarianism is the political philosophy equivalent of wisdom found in a gumball wrapper or fortune cookie, and there are better books to read.

168

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

Libertarianism does not call for the destruction of naturally arising social constructs and to say that it does is to conflate what many secular anarchists would like to see and what actual libertarianism requires.[/quote]

I never said libertarianism called for the destruction of these “social constructs”…I said there overriding moral philosophy destroyed them whether intentionally or not, hence my commentary about unintended consequences. Libertarians prize only freedom, and if a person has decided that one of the “social constructs” impedes their freedom and should be cast off, the libertarian doesn’t say “that’s wrong” or “that’s bad”, they say “hey, if that works for you, have at it”, even if that libertarian personally desires to abide by the “social construct”. Thus, they justify the destruction of these “social constructs” in the name of their higher good - freedom - every time.

Excellent, you made my point for me. These “social constructs” have no value outside of the value an individual chooses them to have - or not. That, friend, is the cause of their disintegration, intentional or not.

This entire line is a strawman. My argument isn’t premised on any such assumption that libertarians have to hate god and religion or that they want to erase cultural norms, etc. My argument was that despite a libertarian’s wishes - whetver they might be - the libtertarian’s philosophy leads to the erasure of these, intentionally or unintentionally.

Whew, that’s good. It’s especially good since I never claimed otherwise. Even libertarians that love “social constructs” are unwittingly unraveling them.

Well, what you are describing is not a straw man, and in fact, it is you who are guilty of the straw man, as you are assigning positions to me that I don’t have and attacking those positions. Ironic, aye?

Well, this isn’t true - I don’t think anyone besides myself is naive, and I do think that the fundamental aspect to libertarianism is naive because it assumes away too about Human Nature in its philosophy. Accordingly, for believing in a naive philosophy, I think libertarians are by extension naive.

This is straight from the libertarian brochure and it’s dull, but in any event - so, based on this, not a fan of the US Constitution?

[quote]Or maybe you don’t think you should use the state for these purposes and thus avoid the above scenario of government run amok. Instead government should be kept very small so that social institutions could pick up the slack and organize things better and more voluntarily. If this is what you mean then you might just be more of a libertarian than you think.
[/quote]

I’m no libertarian, that is for sure. The problem, of course, is that libertarianism hoists itself by its own petard, as I stated earlier - it (intentionally or not) umdermines the very social institutions you claim should “pick up the slack” because it operates on the basis that these social institutions are take-them-or-leave-them, it’s up to the individual. This moral relativism disintegrates these social institutions over time because according to libertarians, the existence of these social institutions are no better than the non-existence of these social institutions.

Then, when these social institutions are in tatters, the only institution left to clean up the mess is the nanny-state. Why? It’s the only institution that doesn’t judge you or your behavior. Families do, churches, do, communities do, public morality laws do - but not the nanny-state, which only provides generous insurance for “free” acts gone horribly bad.

No thanks. Libertarianism is the political philosophy equivalent of wisdom found in a gumball wrapper or fortune cookie, and there are better books to read.

169

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

Libertarianism does not call for the destruction of naturally arising social constructs and to say that it does is to conflate what many secular anarchists would like to see and what actual libertarianism requires.[/quote]

I never said libertarianism called for the destruction of these “social constructs”…I said there overriding moral philosophy destroyed them whether intentionally or not, hence my commentary about unintended consequences. Libertarians prize only freedom, and if a person has decided that one of the “social constructs” impedes their freedom and should be cast off, the libertarian doesn’t say “that’s wrong” or “that’s bad”, they say “hey, if that works for you, have at it”, even if that libertarian personally desires to abide by the “social construct”. Thus, they justify the destruction of these “social constructs” in the name of their higher good - freedom - every time.

Excellent, you made my point for me. These “social constructs” have no value outside of the value an individual chooses them to have - or not. That, friend, is the cause of their disintegration, intentional or not.

This entire line is a strawman. My argument isn’t premised on any such assumption that libertarians have to hate god and religion or that they want to erase cultural norms, etc. My argument was that despite a libertarian’s wishes - whetver they might be - the libtertarian’s philosophy leads to the erasure of these, intentionally or unintentionally.

Whew, that’s good. It’s especially good since I never claimed otherwise. Even libertarians that love “social constructs” are unwittingly unraveling them.

Well, what you are describing is not a straw man, and in fact, it is you who are guilty of the straw man, as you are assigning positions to me that I don’t have and attacking those positions. Ironic, aye?

Well, this isn’t true - I don’t think anyone besides myself is naive, and I do think that the fundamental aspect to libertarianism is naive because it assumes away too about Human Nature in its philosophy. Accordingly, for believing in a naive philosophy, I think libertarians are by extension naive.

This is straight from the libertarian brochure and it’s dull, but in any event - so, based on this, not a fan of the US Constitution?

[quote]Or maybe you don’t think you should use the state for these purposes and thus avoid the above scenario of government run amok. Instead government should be kept very small so that social institutions could pick up the slack and organize things better and more voluntarily. If this is what you mean then you might just be more of a libertarian than you think.
[/quote]

I’m no libertarian, that is for sure. The problem, of course, is that libertarianism hoists itself by its own petard, as I stated earlier - it (intentionally or not) umdermines the very social institutions you claim should “pick up the slack” because it operates on the basis that these social institutions are take-them-or-leave-them, it’s up to the individual. This moral relativism disintegrates these social institutions over time because according to libertarians, the existence of these social institutions are no better than the non-existence of these social institutions.

Then, when these social institutions are in tatters, the only institution left to clean up the mess is the nanny-state. Why? It’s the only institution that doesn’t judge you or your behavior. Families do, churches, do, communities do, public morality laws do - but not the nanny-state, which only provides generous insurance for “free” acts gone horribly bad.

No thanks. Libertarianism is the political philosophy equivalent of wisdom found in a gumball wrapper or fortune cookie, and there are better books to read.

170

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

Libertarianism does not call for the destruction of naturally arising social constructs and to say that it does is to conflate what many secular anarchists would like to see and what actual libertarianism requires.[/quote]

I never said libertarianism called for the destruction of these “social constructs”…I said there overriding moral philosophy destroyed them whether intentionally or not, hence my commentary about unintended consequences. Libertarians prize only freedom, and if a person has decided that one of the “social constructs” impedes their freedom and should be cast off, the libertarian doesn’t say “that’s wrong” or “that’s bad”, they say “hey, if that works for you, have at it”, even if that libertarian personally desires to abide by the “social construct”. Thus, they justify the destruction of these “social constructs” in the name of their higher good - freedom - every time.

Excellent, you made my point for me. These “social constructs” have no value outside of the value an individual chooses them to have - or not. That, friend, is the cause of their disintegration, intentional or not.

This entire line is a strawman. My argument isn’t premised on any such assumption that libertarians have to hate god and religion or that they want to erase cultural norms, etc. My argument was that despite a libertarian’s wishes - whetver they might be - the libtertarian’s philosophy leads to the erasure of these, intentionally or unintentionally.

Whew, that’s good. It’s especially good since I never claimed otherwise. Even libertarians that love “social constructs” are unwittingly unraveling them.

Well, what you are describing is not a straw man, and in fact, it is you who are guilty of the straw man, as you are assigning positions to me that I don’t have and attacking those positions. Ironic, aye?

Well, this isn’t true - I don’t think anyone besides myself is naive, and I do think that the fundamental aspect to libertarianism is naive because it assumes away too about Human Nature in its philosophy. Accordingly, for believing in a naive philosophy, I think libertarians are by extension naive.

This is straight from the libertarian brochure and it’s dull, but in any event - so, based on this, not a fan of the US Constitution?

[quote]Or maybe you don’t think you should use the state for these purposes and thus avoid the above scenario of government run amok. Instead government should be kept very small so that social institutions could pick up the slack and organize things better and more voluntarily. If this is what you mean then you might just be more of a libertarian than you think.
[/quote]

I’m no libertarian, that is for sure. The problem, of course, is that libertarianism hoists itself by its own petard, as I stated earlier - it (intentionally or not) umdermines the very social institutions you claim should “pick up the slack” because it operates on the basis that these social institutions are take-them-or-leave-them, it’s up to the individual. This moral relativism disintegrates these social institutions over time because according to libertarians, the existence of these social institutions are no better than the non-existence of these social institutions.

Then, when these social institutions are in tatters, the only institution left to clean up the mess is the nanny-state. Why? It’s the only institution that doesn’t judge you or your behavior. Families do, churches, do, communities do, public morality laws do - but not the nanny-state, which only provides generous insurance for “free” acts gone horribly bad.

No thanks. Libertarianism is the political philosophy equivalent of wisdom found in a gumball wrapper or fortune cookie, and there are better books to read.

171

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
You may be correct to a degree, it just seems the so called right is more vicious with their condemnation [/quote]

Maybe. But I’d attribute that largely to two factors:

  1. “Conservatives” tend to be older. Older people of all stripes tend to be more rigid/less flexible in their ideologies and give themselves more “credit” for having figured it out. Like I said, this happens more with EVERYONE as they get older. There’s good data showing it… but statistically, people who vote Republican tend to be older.

  2. The “right” has less effective/subtle spokespeople, and makes less effective use of modern media. My example here would be the debt ceiling. The American left generally supports raising the debt ceiling. What could be considered media and spokespeople from the left have pretty effectively been able to frame the raising of the debt ceiling as an inevitability… something that MUST be done, and isn’t really a debatable political issue: rather just a political distraction. They were very effective at making this position mainstream. This is a much more effective nuances approach than the American right often takes, where they are simply much more direct. The American right would be much more likely to just come out and say “you’re wrong”, than embark on a media campaign.

I hope this is making sense. In other words, the mindsets are the same: you wouldn’t disagree with me if you were smart/educated/had the ‘right’ information, but the right’s approach tends to be a direct “we’re going to tell you you’re wrong”, where the left would rather re-craft the language of the debate in such a way that they become the implicitly correct side.

The “politically correct” stuff the left does is another good example of this: a slight re-frame of the same issue and vocabulary shift. Right? Anyone with a half-a-brain is against illegal activity, or at least believes the government should be against illegal activity. So substitute illegal for undocumented… now we’re debating undocumented workers… totally different debate, right? I mean we could all agree if that if were illegal that would be a problem… but they’re simply undocumented, and it’s racist to have a problem with undocumented workers. Only a bigot would harbor malice towards someone for simply being undocumented.

In the end, you still have large groups of people who think anyone who disagrees with them is either just ignorant or really stupid, even if they express it differently.[/quote]

Very interesting post Spartiates. I agree with you in many ways, although with myself it is a reason to intensely dislike the Left even more–in my view I think it is the mark of an intellectual coward to seek to redefine the playing field to bias the game for you, so to speak. I don’t argue that it is highly effective as a means to marketing and conveying your position, or as a means to success in ideological battles. However, I have far more respect for someone who says “you’re wrong. This is why I think you are wrong, and this is why I think what I do” rather than someone who plays with the lexicon to avoid the problem altogether, or change the game to favor them.

I favor facts and I favor rational discourse, and while I will never try to make the case that the American Right is somehow being more rational in their media rhetoric than the Left (they don’t, and they aren’t. They are almost as shrill as the left although personally speakingI give the edge to the liberals) I favor an opponent who is direct enough to tell me where they stand and why. This way I can test their position myself and perhaps see my way to changing my own position after consideration.

just my two cents.

172

So riddle me this Thunderbolt: what is your proposed alternative? If allowing someone the right to not be enslaved by a social institution leads to the nanny state then how do you propose to put more teeth in these social instutions WITHOUT the state helping coerce things? Doesn’t the freedom of religion, as stated in our constitution, imply the libertarian position you are now railing against i.e. ‘take it or leave it’ moral relativism? I am genuinely curious here.

Follow up question, you claim libertarians make the gaff of loving liberty too much/above all else, but what is your ultimate aim then for society? You mention only allowing as much liberty as fit some desired outcome or at least to avoid the “bad” of too much liberty. So what then is your end? Order? Safety? Power? What, if not freedom, should be the ultimate goal of society? God?

Oh and yes, how dull and boring I know (if only we were as exciting and cutting edge as yourself!) but sadly, much as I do love our great constitution is it not obvious that libertarians were right even about our own country on this score? The government willfully ignores it or interprets it away to extract whatever power they want from the document. Republicans and democrats alike have grown our government to proportions no one could have conceived of at the founding. The constitution as a limiting function on our government has failed in a number of key ways precisely because the nature of government is to grow and grow and never relinquish power.

173

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
then how do you propose to put more teeth in these social instutions WITHOUT the state helping coerce things? [/quote]

You weaken social institutions by acting as if morality is relative. Acting like it is none of your business also removes barriers.

It is very clear how social institutions work without the use of force. If many of your friends hate the idea (and people who do it) of having drunk one night stands then you are much less likely to go out and have drunk one night stands because you know they will judge you because of it. OTOH if you act like it is none of your business there is no dissuading influence.

The good thing about social institutions is they only require a decent percentage of the population to support them to work well.

174

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
then how do you propose to put more teeth in these social instutions WITHOUT the state helping coerce things? [/quote]

You weaken social institutions by acting as if morality is relative. Acting like it is none of your business also removes barriers.

It is very clear how social institutions work without the use of force. If many of your friends hate the idea (and people who do it) of having drunk one night stands then you are much less likely to go out and have drunk one night stands because you know they will judge you because of it. OTOH if you act like it is none of your business there is no dissuading influence.

The good thing about social institutions is they only require a decent percentage of the population to support them to work well.
[/quote]

Under a libertarian framework, you can vehemently disapprove of someone’s behavior and still preach tolerance of others differences. These are not mutually exclusive principles. To give you a real life example, I advocate drug legalization, but I am avidly against drug use and openly scorn it. The only moral doctrine libertarianism implies is non-aggression towards others. Allowing others to worship (or not) or act as they see fit regardless of what others think does not mean you have to believe in moral relativism. This is silly and again misunderstanding the doctrine plain and simple.

Our current religious freedoms in this country are, barring a few quibbles here and there, just what libertarians would advocate for any social institution. America is the most religious country in the world BECAUSE of our separation of church and state and free choice not in spite of it. The free market in religion allows people to make the choice that fits them best. Sure you have a million different protestant denominations (moral relativism at work?), but it is hard to make a case that social institutions have declined in this country as a result of preaching the freedom to choose your own way morally. Unless you think having so many different religious groups is a decay of moral absolutism in and of itself.

175

I just read Atlas Shrugged on my vacation. The idea works in the world she describes, but society is not as polarized as superheroes and useless retards like in the book. I do agree on some of her theories, including the atheism :wink: The book is long winded, and could probably have been shortened to half.

I am in the process of moving apartments, so might write more later.

176

[quote]espenl wrote:
I just read Atlas Shrugged on my vacation. The idea works in the world she describes, but society is not as polarized as superheroes and useless retards like in the book. I do agree on some of her theories, including the atheism :wink: The book is long winded, and could probably have been shortened to half.

I am in the process of moving apartments, so might write more later.[/quote]

I just read a book on Distributism by G.K. Chesterton. It is much more radical and at the very same time not radical as it doesn’t go against our natural inclinations.

However, you will disagree with Chesterton’s love of all things Catholic and like his short writing style. I figure the latter is that he’s not a prideful old bat who loves to read her own words.

177

Thanks for the tip, I might read it sometime. I agree 100% on your last sentence. Good night :slight_smile:

178

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
So riddle me this Thunderbolt: what is your proposed alternative? If allowing someone the right to not be enslaved by a social institution leads to the nanny state then how do you propose to put more teeth in these social instutions WITHOUT the state helping coerce things? Doesn’t the freedom of religion, as stated in our constitution, imply the libertarian position you are now railing against i.e. ‘take it or leave it’ moral relativism? I am genuinely curious here.

Follow up question, you claim libertarians make the gaff of loving liberty too much/above all else, but what is your ultimate aim then for society? You mention only allowing as much liberty as fit some desired outcome or at least to avoid the “bad” of too much liberty. So what then is your end? Order? Safety? Power? What, if not freedom, should be the ultimate goal of society? God?

Oh and yes, how dull and boring I know (if only we were as exciting and cutting edge as yourself!) but sadly, much as I do love our great constitution is it not obvious that libertarians were right even about our own country on this score? The government willfully ignores it or interprets it away to extract whatever power they want from the document. Republicans and democrats alike have grown our government to proportions no one could have conceived of at the founding. The constitution as a limiting function on our government has failed in a number of key ways precisely because the nature of government is to grow and grow and never relinquish power. [/quote]

A secret about Thunder is that he fancies himself as a member of the ruling elite one day when he is all growed up. He hate freedom because it means he has no future.

179

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
So riddle me this Thunderbolt: what is your proposed alternative? If allowing someone the right to not be enslaved by a social institution leads to the nanny state then how do you propose to put more teeth in these social instutions WITHOUT the state helping coerce things? Doesn’t the freedom of religion, as stated in our constitution, imply the libertarian position you are now railing against i.e. ‘take it or leave it’ moral relativism? I am genuinely curious here.

Follow up question, you claim libertarians make the gaff of loving liberty too much/above all else, but what is your ultimate aim then for society? You mention only allowing as much liberty as fit some desired outcome or at least to avoid the “bad” of too much liberty. So what then is your end? Order? Safety? Power? What, if not freedom, should be the ultimate goal of society? God?

Oh and yes, how dull and boring I know (if only we were as exciting and cutting edge as yourself!) but sadly, much as I do love our great constitution is it not obvious that libertarians were right even about our own country on this score? The government willfully ignores it or interprets it away to extract whatever power they want from the document. Republicans and democrats alike have grown our government to proportions no one could have conceived of at the founding. The constitution as a limiting function on our government has failed in a number of key ways precisely because the nature of government is to grow and grow and never relinquish power. [/quote]

A secret about Thunder is that he fancies himself as a member of the ruling elite one day when he is all growed up. He hate freedom because it means he has no future.[/quote]

I guess a final question I have is simply that if a doctrine/institution is so compelling and good, why would it lose long term in an open market? Sure people could claim alternative codes are like drugs in that it is an obvious net negative, but addictive and tempting nonetheless. But I would rejoin, that even for the Amish with Rumspringa most choose to get baptized and stick with the strict lifestyle as opposed to the ‘wild and crazy’ modern lifestyle. A good institution will almost always endure if it is worth saving.

180

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
I guess a final question I have is simply that if a doctrine/institution is so compelling and good, why would it lose long term in an open market?[/quote]

Even the open market lost in itself. Being the people have rejected pure self-governance without the existence of a welfare state.