The following comment was posted regarding “A
Leftist Wolf in a Libertarian Sheep’s Clothing,” my thoughts on Sheldon
Richman’s defense of the supreme court’s decision on gay marriage. I feel the comment and my response deserves
its own space.
The Question July 17,
2015 at 8:36 AM
BM,
I linked to this post on my site in
my own critique of Richman and have been in an exchange with Thomas Knapp of
C4SS over what Richman meant when he wrote it. Strangely, Knapp brought up
something you said here that I did not quote in my post and seemed determined
to make it the center of the argument. I refused to debate the merits of it there,
and even stranger is that while he was willing to discuss what you said there
he has yet to comment about it here.
You wrote that "Yet nowhere
have I read that Richman advocates for the property rights of bakers who refuse
service to gay couples, or of bartenders who refuse service to (insert your
favorite protected class here). In fact, he often writes what could easily be
interpreted as the opposite – and even calls it libertarian."
On my site Knapp posted this
link to one of Richman's articles, where he acknowledges the property
rights of such people while advocating for ways to deal with them without using
state violence, and I'm curious how you view it within the context of what you
said above.
bionic mosquito July
17, 2015 at 1:39 PM
How I would view it is that Richman
is either confused, or purposefully confusing. From
the link you provided:
While such behavior is repugnant,
the refusal to serve someone because of his or her race, ethnicity, or sexual
orientation is nevertheless an exercise of self-ownership and freedom of
nonassociation. It is both nonviolent and nonviolative of other people’s
rights. If we are truly to embrace freedom of association, logically we must
also embrace freedom of nonassociation.
From another
Richman post:
I continue to have trouble
believing that the libertarian philosophy is concerned only with the proper and
improper uses of force. According to this view, the philosophy sets out a
prohibition on the initiation of force and otherwise has nothing to say about
anything else.
Let’s get specific. Are there
distinctly libertarian grounds for disapproving of racist conduct that does not
involve the use of force?
So I’m puzzled by the pushback
whenever someone explicitly associates the libertarian philosophy with values
like tolerance and inclusion. We don’t care only about force and its improper
uses.
So, how are these two reconciled?
How can libertarianism include the freedom of non-association and at the same
time be associated with tolerance and inclusion. A philosophy cannot so
directly contradict itself without being considered bankrupt.
If you want to advocate tolerance
and inclusion, feel free; just don’t include it as a desire to expand the
meaning of libertarian philosophy – as Richman does.
I suspect that I write as much as
any libertarian about cultural and ethical topics. I try to never make these a
part of my statements about libertarian theory, property, and the NAP. Richman
does. He is wrong to do so, and he is helping to corrupt the message.
--------------------------------------------
End of comments. I
will add: I am sorry I did not see (or recall) this other Richman post – I could
have done much more with it that I have done in this brief reply to “The
Question.” For now, and absent further
information, I will just leave it be.
Does Richman reconcile these contradictory positions
elsewhere? Perhaps Thomas Knapp of C4SS
can post a comment at “The Question’s” blog and then “The Question” can let me
know.
I am one of those thin libertarians over-the-moon at the pithy excoriation of Richman in the prior BM post.
ReplyDeleteBut to BM's credit, here he admits a contrary position of potential substance. I will now argue for the Richman side as any beholden to truth over dogma must indulge.
"...he acknowledges the property rights of such people while advocating for ways to deal with them without using state violence"
Exactly. What if Richman holds property rights are inviolable, mandatory, and primary, yet other secondary considerations be admitted into libertarianism as preferable, as he opts define the label. Richman nearly says as much in the quoted comments, though admittedly we do need a definitive statement to be certain.
"How can libertarianism include the freedom of non-association and at the same time be associated with tolerance and inclusion. A philosophy cannot so directly contradict itself without being considered bankrupt."
Bullshit. You are being obtuse here. Answer: via priorities. Conceivably libertarianism could be defined as strict non-aggression first and foremost, other considerations like tolerance and inclusion subordinate. This arrangement does not contradict itself.
By this definition, the intolerant, exclusionary non-aggressor would be considered not evil in the way the state is, but also not a libertarian. Libertarianism might be defined not only in terms of right and wrong but also in terms of preferable behavior vs. not. There is an appeal to this broader definition as humans do need a life philosophy on how to live that includes guidance beyond non-aggression.
The use of vulgarity in your reply reflects poorly on your character, or perhaps this is your desire?
Delete“…libertarianism…as he opts define the label.”
I can call an elephant an apple – because, you know, this is how I opt to define the label. Yet, if my desire is to actually communicate, it would be helpful that words have meaning.
“There is an appeal to this broader definition as humans do need a life philosophy on how to live that includes guidance beyond non-aggression.”
You are suggesting that libertarian theory provide this guidance – doesn’t this kind of contradict your opening declaration (“I am one of those thin libertarians…”)?
What a can of worms you have opened. I would probably have to write about 100,000 words as to why this is impractical, unnecessary and certain to ensure that no one embraces the philosophy.
But then I already have:
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2015/05/bleeding-heart-thick-milquetoast-left.html
@ Anonymous
Delete"Bullshit. You are being obtuse here. Answer: via priorities. Conceivably libertarianism could be defined as strict non-aggression first and foremost, other considerations like tolerance and inclusion subordinate. This arrangement does not contradict itself."
Concepts such as tolerance and inclusion are entirely subjective and arbitrary. Tolerance and inclusion of what? Lifestyles that are accepted by the left which directly contradict what the right prefers? How about vice versa? Does this include tolerating the intolerant? The radical feminist tolerating the misogynist and the misogynist tolerating the radical feminist? Black people tolerating racists who hate black people. Does it include tolerance and inclusiveness of reprehensible political viewpoints or opinions such as Nazism or Stalinism (even if only expressed as an opinion)? Does it include tolerance of "rude" and impolite behavior? Tolerance of the filthy and smelly in one's business or home? Exactly where is the line, and who gets to draw it? Is Sheldon Richman an absolutist in "tolerance" and "inclusion" or does he draw his own arbitrary limits? Can of worms indeed.
"By this definition, the intolerant, exclusionary non-aggressor would be considered not evil in the way the state is, but also not a libertarian."
So basically, the very moment someone refuses to tolerate any people that fit in the above description, he ceases to be a libertarian? He must accept any and all people and their behaviors so long as these behaviors are non-violent, in order to be considered a libertarian? So pro-life people must be 'tolerant' and 'inclusive' toward people who regard even partial birth abortion something that ought to be a right; and pro-choice people must be 'tolerant' and 'inclusive' toward people who feel that even contraception is a form of abortion? This is certainly an excellent way of turning the philosophy of libertarianism into the inviable Utopia so many critics claim it to be.
Also, the arrangement *does* contradict itself. A belief in self-ownership, in freedom of speech, and in freedom of association and non-association are part of libertarianism. The arrangement that tolerance and inclusion can be secondary values inherent to libertarianism directly contradicts that, as such self-ownership and such freedoms would render one a non-libertarian when actually putting it into practice.
You say the word "bullshit". Indeed it is.
“The use of vulgarity in your reply reflects poorly on your character, or perhaps this is your desire?”
DeleteWhat’s wrong with bringing a little passion to the debate? As you yourself say, “Going through this exercise, I am reminded of how regularly I employ biting comments…On most other topics, I have tried to rid myself of these flaws…However, on this topic, I usually let it flow.” Nevertheless, I will refrain from any further colorful language as I see it’s disagreeable and distracting to you.
“I can call an elephant an apple – because, you know, this is how I opt to define the label. Yet, if my desire is to actually communicate, it would be helpful that words have meaning.”
Except the proper definition, the proper meaning, of the word “libertarian” is exactly the matter under discussion. Zoologists would rightly debate what should be the proper definition of “elephant” if different elephant-like species were vying to be included in the definition. Thin libertarianism proposes a significantly narrower definition than thick libertarianism or any other “ism.” This is fine, of course, but it is legitimate to challenge the merits of a narrower definition just as we challenge the merits of a broader definition.
“You are suggesting that libertarian theory provide this guidance – doesn’t this kind of contradict your opening declaration (‘I am one of those thin libertarians…’)?”
The truth-seeker chooses his beliefs by taking up contenting ideas in earnest. I am not a socialist only because when I earnestly attempt to make the case for socialism, all possible arguments I have tried plainly contradict themselves and/or the facts of reality. Vigorous competition of ideas is how better ideas get adopted in lieu of worse ideas. It’s how I graduated from minarchism into anarchism. I made the extra effort to take up a position against myself I “knew” to be wrong…only to discover it wasn’t. Unless I intend to label myself a thin libertarian out of sentiment, I am obligated to doggedly make every possible case for thick libertarianism to ensure every attempt fails. Otherwise, I’m no better than every other clod out there who clings to erroneous, unexamined views.
“What a can of worms you have opened. I would probably have to write about 100,000 words as to why this is impractical, unnecessary and certain to ensure that no one embraces the philosophy.”
Thanks for the links. I have some reading to do. You think and write well so I knew there is good stuff. I hope somewhere in there my suggested defense of thick-libertarianism is invalidated.
@deindividualist
DeleteAn excellent counterargument. I will mull over it. Thanks.
@deindividualist
DeleteI’ve mulled over your post for a day now and had the epiphany your argument contradicts itself. Thin libertarianism holds all matters beyond non-aggression are necessarily permitted matters of personal choice. IF thick libertarianism (IF, mind you) be defined as strict non-aggression, subordinately holding out particular personal choice values, then thick libertarianism is a subset of thin libertarianism. It is thus necessarily valid libertarianism by the tenets of thin libertarianism.
IF Richman concedes the strict subordination of his social concerns to non-aggression, then we must agree he is as bona-fide a libertarian as we are or as a non-aggressive Neo-Nazi is. Richman just is making and advocating personal choices to be tolerant or inclusive. Thin libertarianism explicitly allows this! This does not conflict with non-aggression!
You masterfully point out tolerance and inclusion are entirely subjectively assessed. But so are most personal values, including hard work, independent thought, good judgement. This doesn’t mean that these are not legitimate, useful, and assessable albeit in a subjective, relative way. Indeed our spiritual/cultural/familial institutions do exactly that.
I agree these values are derived values merely highly conducive for successful life on earth while non-aggression is fundamental and mandatory. On this basis, it makes sense to me that the narrower, pure non-aggressive requirement get a term of its own. Given the historical origins and use of the term, libertarianism is probably the right word (Non-Aggressivism does not roll off the tongue). But then I would grant the Richmans of the world their prefix as “left-libertarians” to indicate the supplemental addition of personal choice values like tolerance….so long as they definitively establish these as strictly subordinate values to non-aggression.
Although you failed in showing any contradiction with non-aggression in your critiques of tolerance and inclusion, you successfully demonstrate that inclusion is not a personal value that is harmonious with libertarianism. It is exactly the ability to include or exclude that enables people to pursue something that IS highly harmonious with libertarianism, and that is tolerance. Tolerance is perhaps the most non-aggression-friendly personal value to hold. The dictionary defines it as “willingness to accept feelings, habits, or beliefs that are different from your own.” “Accept” is a squishy word but perhaps the most relevant definition is “to endure without protest or reaction.”
You raise a point that spectacularly undermines your own argument against tolerance when you cite differences of opinion on abortion. Indeed, devout Non-Aggressives may disagree on the very definition of what constitutes aggression because they disagree on where human life begins. Even today we see this occur as different countries have different abortion laws yet U.S. residents tolerate other countries’ different standards and vice versa. Such tolerance facilitates peaceful coexistence with different rules on different lands. As long as people can freely include and exclude each other from their land (and thus presence and effective awareness), they are able to abide with the knowledge of each other’s existence somewhere else on this planet and let that go at that without launching crusades to change other people’s beliefs. In this way tolerance avoids any need for utopian changes in human behavior or values to achieve a state of non-aggression among men.
“IF Richman concedes the strict subordination of his social concerns to non-aggression, then we must agree he is as bona-fide a libertarian as we are…”
Delete“…so long as they definitively establish these as strictly subordinate values to non-aggression.”
Forgive me for interjecting…I personally have no disagreement (on a strict libertarian basis) with these views. Yet, please go back to the top – read Richman’s statements which are quite (seemingly) contradictory on this matter:
“I continue to have trouble believing that the libertarian philosophy is concerned only with the proper and improper uses of force.”
“So I’m puzzled by the pushback whenever someone explicitly associates the libertarian philosophy with values like tolerance and inclusion. We don’t care only about force and its improper uses.”
“Explicitly associates” is the term Richman uses. He is troubled with a “libertarian philosophy” (not a moral or cultural philosophy, a “libertarian philosophy”) that “is concerned only with the proper and improper uses of force.”
This, in the context of all of his writing about so-called modern-day leftist cultural issues (shorthand, for lack of a more descriptive term), answers the question regarding the “IF” in your post.
Elsewhere, I have cited Richman: “The world is a messy place, but I don’t believe in sacrificing people to The Cause.” The statement should be read in context to the question posed to Richman (I will not repeat here, for brevity). In searching “Richman” and “cause,” the “cause” he writes about is liberty. I conclude that Richman believes in the enforcement of (his preferred) positive rights to the detriment of the protection of your negative rights.
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2015/07/a-leftist-wolf-in-libertarian-sheeps.html
At best, Richman is contradictory (within two posts dated a few weeks apart); if he has somewhere reconciled this, I am not aware of it. Otherwise, he is far more leftist (in today’s definition of the term) than he is libertarian. He will not sacrifice his leftist views to the cause of liberty.
@ Anonymous,
DeleteYou say i contradict myself, but i'm afraid you have come to that conclusion because you have misinterpreted my points.
"Thick" libertarianism is indeed a subset of libertarianism. There is no contradiction there. But it is ONLY a subset when it comes to the NAP. The parts that make it "thick", are simply no part of libertarianism. Non-aggression would make the "thicks" libertarian. Their preference for "tolerance" and "inclusion" do not. Even communists who practice non aggression (and respect others' private property rights) are libertarians. But it is the non-aggression that would make them libertarians. Not their belief in shared property.
Of course i believe Richman is a bona fide libertarian if he believes in non-aggression. But it is THAT belief that makes him one; NOT his belief in tolerance and inclusion. You seem to be missing the point that it is Richman himself that claims that libertarianism (without prefix) ought to be about more than the NAP. By the logic of the arguments of Richman himself, it is the "thins" that would not be true libertarians if we don't embrace "tolerance" and "inclusion". And it is this that we are arguing against.
I’ve never said about any subjective values that they aren't useful. I am merely stating that these values are not part of the libertarian philosophy. It is really no different than a scientist who believes scientists ought to be friendly to others. That's cool, but he goes awry when he starts claiming, or advocating, that being friendly is actually “part” of science, or ought to be.
Our problem is that Richman, despite his "tolerance" and "inclusion" is actually, logically trying to exclude libertarians that do not practice the amount of tolerance and inclusion he wants to see. It is Richman that is the exclusionary one. It is the "thin" ones that offer a place for both the tolerant and the intolerant in our "thin" libertarian tent. Whereas left-libertarians want to redefine the term libertarianism so that one MUST be tolerant or inclusive in order to be a valid libertarian.
You don't have to grant the Richmans of the world their prefix of "left-libertarians". They already have it. It is Richman who wants to take his left-libertarianism, take the prefix off, and pass off his left-libertarianism as libertarianism-sans-prefix.
You say i "critique" tolerance and inclusion. I do no such thing. I am merely stating that these subjective values are *not part of libertarianism*. See my example about the friendly scientist. It's good to be friendly, but *it is not part of science*. It may also be good to be tolerant, but *it is not part of libertarianism.*
In this debate we use the word "tolerate" in the sense of non-violent disassociation (see the baker/lesbian couple example), so there is no claim to make that U.S. residents are "tolerating" other countries' different standards. Just because they are not launching missiles, it doesn't mean they are 'tolerating' those different standards.
Make no mistake, i personally do not tolerate many things, and would disassociate from many people who have certain cultural customs i find reprehensible. Just because i am not using violence against them, does not mean i tolerate them or want to include them.
So you see, there are no contradictions.
@deindividualist
Delete“You seem to be missing the point that it is Richman himself that claims that libertarianism (without prefix) ought to be about more than the NAP. By the logic of the arguments of Richman himself, it is the ‘thins’ that would not be true libertarians if we don't embrace ‘tolerance’ and ‘inclusion’.”
This is super clear, thanks. I acknowledge this possibility in my earlier post when I posit we might legitimately christen thin-libertarians as, say, non-aggressionists. Richman is arguing for a definition/re-definition of the term “libertarianism” to include tolerance. None of us here are sure, but IF he is not saying tolerance should be put on the same level as non-aggression, and is simply saying it ought to be bundled subordinately, then there is nothing wrong with his proposal.
My aforementioned libertarian Neo-Nazis could no longer call themselves libertarians. Which is not an entirely disagreeable notion. Who relishes the thought of sharing political affiliation with Neo-Nazis. They’d have to start calling themselves non-aggressive Neo-Nazis. The term libertarian would be reserved for those who also endorsed and pursued the personal value of tolerance.
“…he goes awry when he starts claiming, or advocating, that being friendly is actually ‘part’ of science, or ought to be. Our problem is that Richman, despite his ‘tolerance’ and ‘inclusion’ is actually, logically trying to exclude libertarians that do not practice the amount of tolerance and inclusion he wants to see.”
Friendly is not part of science and nor should it be associated with science because it has no bearing on the practice of science. When Richman says “I continue to have trouble believing that the libertarian philosophy is concerned only with the proper and improper uses of force,” maybe, and I’m speculating here, he is arguing other life values be bundled because with humans they facilitate life without aggression.
Imagine we were debating the proper boundaries of the definition of “Free-Lovetarianism,” a new philosophy for those who believe in promiscuity. Should Free-Lovetarians also bundle “disease diligence”, a personal value choice, in with their philosophy? One might argue, no. A practitioner could be neglectful of his status, STD-ridden, yet faithfully practice Free-Lovetarianism. Well, that’s technically correct. But real-world human psychology and incentive structures make that prospect a utopian notion. For Free-Lovetarianism to be viable and thrive among humans, its definition should be expanded to include subordinately but not unimportantly the valuing of safe sex.
Thus, maybe Richman’s notion of bundling value choices along with abstract philosophical principle is not such a wanton notion. If libertarianism is to be a political philosophy that people can rally behind as viable in the real world, perhaps they need to know they’re adopting a modicum of key enabling personal values along with their abstract philosophical principle. Thickist organization FEE says as much declaring, “Without character, a free society is not just unlikely…it’s impossible. It is on this matter that the fate of individual liberty has always depended. If you do not govern yourself, you will be governed.”
I think it is not that Richman needs to see X amount of tolerance for someone to be considered a valid libertarian. We briefly entertained that possibility and you properly blasted it out of the water. Instead, it’s that Richman wants to require libertarians to value tolerance over its absence, strive for more of it rather than less.
And I agree with your position on “inclusion” for exactly the reasons you state. You and I both agree proscribed inclusion or exclusion is _inimical_ to the practice of non-aggression. So Richman has no basis for attempting to bundle it. Tolerance on the other hand I believe is psychologically enabling for the practice of non-aggression, so I see a case for bundling it.
"So I’m puzzled by the pushback whenever someone explicitly associates the libertarian philosophy with values like tolerance and inclusion. We don’t care only about force and its improper uses."
ReplyDeleteActually this is two questions. Is libertarianism associated with tolerance? And is libertarianism associated with inclusion?
As to the first question, it is indeed - ASSUMING ONE USES THE CORRECT DEFINITION OF TOLERANCE! (That is, a definition with no connotation of approval.) In fact, one might say that NAP *is* tolerance. See this point:
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2009/tle523-20090614-08.html
As to the second question, the answer is no. Inclusion is "orthogonal" to libertarianism. A libertarian may be inclusive. Another libertarian may utilize shunning. Both are permitted, even though the latter might be thought of as the "nuclear option" of legitimate personal relations.
Paul, thank you for the thoughtful comment - and a reminder regarding the value of consistent definitions.
DeleteI also appreciate the Hayek quote offered in your post.
That's an outstanding essay. There are always going to be people and behaviors that other people cannot stand. Tell Mr. Richman that libertarianism really is all about nothing other than convincing people to apply the NAP to those people and those behaviors. Further, there are plenty of non-violent sanctions that might be effective with those people. That concept seems to cause confusion and hostility.
Deletehttp://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/05/libertarian-battles.html#comment-488156
I always thought that tolerance is a part of libertarianism but only if the definition of tolerance is non-aggression of those with whom one disagrees [or hates, even]. Using that definition, there is no contradiction [I think], but *only* using that definition is that true.
ReplyDeleteHello, gpond!
DeleteAs Paul pointed out, and you are also correct, there are (were) definitions of tolerance that could be considered in accord with the NAP. Taking Richman's overall context, I did not read his meaning this way.
Naturally, I agree. That leaves me so little room to say anything of substance in the comments section of your wonderful blog. This is why you hear from me so infrequently. Alls I can say is Hurrah. A tough position to be in.
DeleteYou are so consistent, even as I try to be, that little is left to me but shouting: Mega-Dittos. But I'm just not really a 'Mega-Dittos' kind of guy.
DeleteSeriously, your blog is fantastic. I found you as a commenter on that other site, and frankly I used to visit that other site just to see whether or not *you* had commented. I connected completely with your take on things. You were consistent as I am consistent. It was a real pleasure, and one I looked forward to.
And still do. My silence is approval. Sometimes I have to contrive things to say, just to be a part of it all. Good stuff.
gpond
DeleteI was recently thinking back on our early days at DB. What a learning experience for me in many ways.
Through your prompting (and occasional corrections), I have grown; I thank you for this.
Whether you have something to say or not, just post a "hello" once in a while. It is always nice to hear from you, and a nice reminder to me of my journey.
Richman is a "state libertarian" in the same way that modern communists describe the nomenklatura of the Soviet Union as "state capitalists". Richman is primarily concerned with advancing the goals of the state. It is no coincidence that Richman's advocacy exactly aligns with the subjects of state advocacy.
ReplyDeleteWhy does he do this? I have to assume that it is in order to weaken the libertarian movement by adding copious exceptions to the NAP, so libertarians will not object to state action. Whether Richman is consciously aware of this is irrelevant. He is smart enough to know the consequences of his advocacy.
If Richman were concerned with with tolerance he would be advocating tolerance for individuals and businesses that experience the psychological burden of unwanted, forced, interactions.
In principle the same argument for enforcing "tolerance" could be applied to "racist", "homophobic", or " fat-shaming" dating choices. We aren't there yet but the principle of the matter has been surrendered so it is a possibility. On the internet today you can see people complaining about "racist" dating choices, so there is definitely demand to force other people to date.
What is Richman's position on prostitutes? Should they be allowed to make "racist" or "homophobic" decisions on who they accept as a customer? Is such behavior "repugnant" as Richman describes a merchants decision?
The only solution is to disassociate from Richman. Because this is literally intolerable.
I hate circumcision, infant baptism and materialism.
ReplyDeleteShould I tolerate these practices, or agress others so that they don't commit these terrible crimes against young humans?
I think the NAP is a good idea. The golden rule is even a better idea. Sadly, other people do not like this ideas (perhaps only towards them), and they will try to agress my children. And they will say that if I teach my children different views on culture, religion or science, then I would be the criminal...
What do libertarians want? Uniformity, like the socialists and the right-wingers, or liberty?
Progressivism is for children who never grew up, Conservativism is for children who grew up too early, and Libertarianism is for well-rounded adults.
I like Richman, I like Bionic Mosquito.
I like Friedman, I like Block.
I like Tucker, I like Rockwell.
I like Caplan, I like Hoppe.
I like all libertarians and I disagree with all of them on something.
There is no need for drama. We need to fight boredom and set a good example. Boredom is dangerous, but not as bad as not setting a good example.
You are doing the same as Richman by conflating NAP violations with other matters.
Delete"I hate circumcision, infant baptism and materialism.
Should I tolerate these practices, or agress others so that they don't commit these terrible crimes against young humans?"
Only non consensual circumcisions violate the NAP. Infant baptism and materialism do not.
Please, Can you elaborate on why practicing infant baptism or teaching materialism does not violate the non-aggression principle?
DeletePerhaps the non-aggression principle applies only to aggressions to the body, not to the mind or the spirit?
Suppose Anthony tells a lie to Brian, with the intention of causing some non-material harm to Brian, and, perhaps, some benefit to the liar himself. Is this a violation of the NAP?
If I was advocating materialism to you does that make me aggressor against you? You have lost all credibility. You are even more confused than Richman.
DeleteI was baptised as a infant. A sprinkling of water on my head, less water than why my mother washed me. How is that an NAP violation? How on earth does that compare to circumcision?
If you want to talk about verbal NAP violations, I will offer up a potential one for you. Calling the actions of a non aggressive discriminator "repugnant" knowing that it offers the state moral cover for actions against this individual. For if it is repugnant, why shouldn't it be stopped?
Note that Richman has never called the actions of gay NAP violators "repugnant". Why? Aren't NAP violations worse by thousands of magnitudes?
Bionic Mosquito, its time to stop referring to these people as libertarians. If anything they are a more dangerous threat than even regular statists, not all of whom believe in positive rights.
"...its time to stop referring to these people as libertarians."
DeleteMatt, as I touched on in a comment in my "Left-libertarian" post, I am coming to this conclusion. Yet, I intend to continue to counter the fact that they dilute the meaning of "libertarian" because this is what they call themselves.
They are dangerous, I fully agree; and potentially worse than your run-of-the-mill statist.
I don't understand why the "thin libertarians" find this concept so hard to understand. To me, the NAP is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for being a libertarian. In other words, it's absolutely required, but it's not enough. So, if the NAP comes into conflict with another value, the NAP wins.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the NAP by itself does not guarantee the type of society that most libertarians would find appealing. For example, a particular minority could be completely shut out through restrictive covenants and access to capital without violations of the NAP. The reason most libertarians don't think that would be a problem in a society based on an legal system that strictly obeys the NAP is because they believe that the majority of the population does NOT hold such racist values. Alas, that has not always been the case. For example, it is completely disingenuous to claim that the roadblocks to blacks in the south were solely due to state laws. Even if it were, how did such laws come to be passed, unless they were supported by the majority?
There are two ways to address such a problem. One could approach it through social non-violent action and education, a la MLK. Or one could impose change violently a la the Civil Rights Act. The libertarian answer is the former of course. And "thick libertarians" would support such actions for social change, because tolerance is value that is dear to most libertarians.
Ed
DeleteWhy do you waste your time and mine? If you don't care to deal with my replies to your posts, why do you bother commenting at all?
Then again, your time is yours to waste, and my time is mine not to waste.
What replies are you talking about?
DeleteI'm a libertarian and I don't find the society that you envisage appealing at all.
DeleteEd
DeleteStart here and work backwards to the other thread:
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2015/07/a-leftist-wolf-in-libertarian-sheeps.html
Ed Ucation July 12, 2015 at 11:13 PM
Get through this to my satisfaction; until then, I will consider you a waste of my time on this topic.
I am free to do so in your libertarian world, am I not? I know I am in mine.
Ok, so there was one reply of yours to which I haven't responded. Has it ever occurred to you that I never saw your reply? After all, there is no alert mechanism to let me know a reply to a comment of mine has been posted. So I have posted a reply and hopefully you can now sleep peacefully.
DeleteThere is no reason to get all belligerent about this. If you are not interested in a discussion, that's totally cool. We can all go back to basking in our echo chambers.
"However, the NAP by itself does not guarantee the type of society that most libertarians would find appealing."
DeleteHow do you know what most libertarians will find as appealing? Far more important, how do you know that more people wouldn't find the NAP appealing if they weren't told daily by the left-libertarians that they had to support (among many other non-traditional behaviors) gay marriage?
You don't know. But by labeling these as libertarian, I do know that you will exclude many people from considering the political philosophy.
Thanks...for nothing.
@ bionic mosquito
DeleteThe gay marriage issue is a great example, That social struggle is largely over. Look at this data:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx
In 20 years, the public opinion went from 68% against to 60% for. And that number will slowly go up into the high 80% over the next 20 years, following the opinion trend on interracial marriage:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx
I guarantee you that associating libertarianism with being pro-gay marriage, and being so since at least the 1970s as demonstrated by the LP platform, will do more to spread libertarianism than being against gay marriage.
Who said anything about being against gay marriage?
DeleteHaven't you figured it out? If two gays want to marry, they may. If a baker wishes to not bake the cake for them, he need not. If the employer chooses not to offer benefits to the spouse, she need not.
Is that for or against gay marriage?
My tent has room for people for gay marriage and room for people against gay marriage. Richman's (and yours?) only has room for those for gay marriage.
Which of us is more "tolerant"? Which of us has a larger target market?
I'm curious. Is there a proper left-libertarian position on pre-marital gay sex? Or specific punishments for violation of the gay marriage vows? And are we to export these positions to backward foreign countries?
DeletePrivate drug testing is always an allowed private contractual proposition under AnCap. Should we be exporting that idea to backward foreign countries?
@ bionic mosquito
DeleteI am glad that you are not against gay marriage. But, wait! All of a sudden tolerance is a virtue? You don't get to disavow tolerance and then cling to it for moral high ground. Why are you lording over me with your supposedly larger tent? Why does that matter for libertarianism? I suppose it matters because other values are important. And this has always been my main issue with the thin libertarians. They claim that the NAP is the only thing that matters for libertarians, yet they continue to smuggle in all sorts of other values and package them into a libertarian viewpoint. If you press them, they say "oh, that's outside of libertarianism." Really? Then it seems that libertarianism in and of itself has very little to say, and we can all go home, because I see very few articles that are restricted to merely discussions of the NAP on most thin blogs.
Now, as for the baker, I fully support a baker's right to bake or not bake a cake for anyone. I mentioned this before. I agree with you that it is intolerant to demand bakers to bake for gay weddings. This is one of my main problems with progressives. They have merely shifted their intolerance toward THEIR out group. Please read this excellent article on this subject, if you find the time:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/
Regardless of our differences, I think you will enjoy it.
Peace.
BM,
ReplyDeleteI have written an analysis of Richman's other article within the context of your recent remarks if you're interested in reading it. (http://anarchistnotebook.com/2015/07/19/thick-libertarianism-redux/)
Here are a few samples of what I wrote in it:
"That business owners have the right to discriminate is not the central point of the article. While Richman acknowledges the freedom of disassociation for business owners, he is not advocating for their property rights.
Advocating means “to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly,” while acknowledging means “admit, confess agree in the idea of declaring something to be true.”
Clearly Richman is acknowledging the rights of “bigoted business owners” in that passage, not advocating for them. Instead, he is advocating voluntary, non-coercive solutions for dealing with these people, whose behavior does not conform to his standards of moral conduct or decency.
.....This is thick libertarianism thinking neatly summarized. What Richman is advocating conforms to the NAP, but what he is advocating also goes beyond libertarianism by attaching moral judgments to people's behavior and declaring what we as libertarians should do in response (that conforms to the NAP), rather than leaving it for us to decide for ourselves based on our own values.
.....Libertarianism is not a complete moral theory and does not claim to be one. One is free, and in fact encouraged, to believe things that go beyond the NAP. But they are not definitively libertarian beliefs, so when one professes certain beliefs, it is not within the context of being a libertarian."
Very good post, thank you for sharing it.
DeleteAs you (and regular readers here) likely know or can expect, I have my own list of behaviors that I consider "repugnant." If left-libertarians agree that my holding such views does not contradict libertarian theory while contradicting their views on the same matters, then by definition these cannot be a part of libertarian theory. They are part of a moral code we each hold outside of libertarian theory, not inside.
If they believe that I as a libertarian cannot hold these views, then they are leftists or cultural marxists or whatever is the phrase of the day.
The issue between thin and thick is one of universality of human rights. Does any human have a right to kill or injure another, except as a proportional response to initial aggression by the other? No, and this is universally so. The same for theft (including fraud) or damage of property. This is a universal human right, to be applied the same to all humans everywhere.
ReplyDeleteEverything else discussed under the heading of tolerance, etc. among thick libertarians, is based on moral codes that are anything but universal, as much as many people would like them to be. Moral codes at this level are entirely personal, not universal, though they may be held strongly by many within some segment or locality of human society (and the opposite held just as strongly by some other segment). Everything within the realm of morality that is not covered by the universal rights described by the NAP constitute the domain of human freedom, however repugnant such 'evil' choices may be to some. When it comes to the actions of individuals contrary to the universal rights described by the NAP, freedom is not an issue.
Nothing wrong with admitting of the right to discriminate simultaneous with revulsion atthose who do so.
ReplyDelete