A continuation of our dialogue, from this post, the comment thread beginning at Unhappy Conservative (2.0) June 29, 2017 at 1:42 PM
The entire dialogue is worth reading; I would like to offer my further replies via this new post.
When they went to shop for groceries or gas or to buy property…
Amazon delivery, whether by UPS or drone, would overcome any such issue – these guys don’t want to spend their time shopping; they have a lifetime supply of little blue pills and they intend to use them. But I don’t want to digress too much on this minor issue.
Which One of Us Lives in Utopia?
If he or you ARE ON YOUR OWN PROPERTY and there is no aggression, what right do you have to interfere? Your morality is not enforceable on others in a free society and leads to tyranny.
Than, we are still not communicating. I agree with you. I am not talking about “right,” I am not talking about libertarian theory; I understand the theory perfectly well. I also understand you perfectly well, please try and understand me.
How will normal human beings act in the scenario I describe? Not “how will utopian libertarians act?” Now, you and I will agree that if the neighbors show up with baseball bats and beat the libertines, it is a violation of the NAP. But they will do it – please don’t tell me that you believe otherwise. Do you really believe that the two dozen fathers in the neighborhood, each with 2.7 children, will tell their wives “don’t complain, dear, we believe in the non-aggression principle?”
Do you think the fathers will sit quietly in their living rooms while their children stand out front to sell lemonade and popcorn to those who want to watch the show?
So, carry this further: after they get their beating handed to them, what action will be called for? The sex orgy community will call for someone to do something about this. “They violated my rights.” And you would agree that the neighbors violated their rights. And someone will gladly take up the request to do something about it – maybe even you. Eventually, that someone will become a government.
I am suggesting one simple thing: is there a better chance that we see a libertarian world if all of the neighbors held to a common culture? I use the example of sex orgies on the front lawn, but could use many others. Because if they held to a common culture on this issue, no one would have to call for someone to do something about it.
I am suggesting that libertarians recognize that humans are human and will react as humans would.
You and I agree, Liberty and Utopia are not synonymous. You are asking that the compromise be made by expecting human nature to peacefully accept any and all libertine and / or culture destroying behaviors. I am asking that the compromise be made by libertarians accepting the requirement for some form of common cultural norms.
In other words: your non-utopia compromise still requires humans to not be human; my non-utopia compromise understands that humans will be human.
Which one of us is living in utopia?
I touched on this briefly, when I mentioned CCR's.
You and those who agree with your belief systems, whatever they are, buy up property and attach covenants, conditions or restrictions to that property, BEFORE, you resell it to others.
There are so many problems with this. First of all, that property was not mine to sell. Joe got a new job and had to move; he was looking for the highest price. I have no right to tell Joe what to do. Even if I and my neighbors decided to buy it first and then resell it, the ultimate buyer never said anything about his sexual proclivities before he bought the house. How would we know? Why should we suspect anything?
Now, you might suggest “well, the covenant should have been there from the beginning.”
But this gets to my point. This community has been in existence for hundreds of years. In their wildest dreams, no one in all of that time believed anyone would even think of committing such actions on the front lawn. It would be like having a covenant restricting the sale of the property to Klingons or tigers. Why would anyone even think of doing this? Such a possibility would never cross their mind.
Jesus Christ, Libertarian?
If you felt my libertarian answer to your thoughtful question was insufficient, I refer you to a greater power, the originator of the Non Aggression Principle, who has spread the message over the centuries to mankind.
If you are introducing the Bible, you are advocating for things outside of the non-aggression principle. That is an entirely different discussion, although consistent with my point…not yours. But I will offer some thoughts on your chosen verse.
The Bible teaches the non-aggression principle; it also teaches so much more – your own verse even offers this.
1 Peter 3:11: HE MUST TURN AWAY FROM EVIL AND DO GOOD; HE MUST SEEK PEACE AND PURSUE IT.
Who says I must do good? The NAP places no requirement on me to do “good,” certainly not as “good” is defined in the Bible. Are you speaking as a libertarian or something else?
Who says I must turn away from evil, evil as the Bible describes it? The NAP allows for me to commit many of the evils that the Bible speaks against. Are you speaking as a libertarian or something else?
In any case, let’s look at the verse in context:
8 Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble. 9 Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult. On the contrary, repay evil with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. 10 For,
“Whoever would love life
and see good days
must keep their tongue from evil
and their lips from deceitful speech.
11 They must turn from evil and do good;
they must seek peace and pursue it.
12 For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous
and his ears are attentive to their prayer,
but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.”
Peter is citing Psalm 34.
Peter is writing to the Christian community; he opens this passage with advice: “all of you be like minded.” What does this suggest? It suggests that they should hold to a common culture, a common set of beliefs, a moral code.
Now, before you say “he is advocating for the NAP….”
What is this like-mindedness that Peter is suggesting? They should “be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble.” None of this is required under the NAP. But he advises this because he believes that a compromise by all believers on such issues will allow the greater mission to survive and thrive.
A common culture; a culture that extends beyond requirements of the NAP. Peter knows that this is the only way for the community to survive and thrive.
And this is my point.