In response to:

Did Freedom Win?

OldMexicanblog Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 11:36 AM
Re: johnm h, -- Libertarians get most economics right, but they treat social issues as if the accumulated "bank of nations and of ages" as Burke wrote, were irrelevant.-- That's a lie, john. What libertarians hold is not that social customs or culture are irrelevant, only that people should not be compelled by force or nake aggression to conform to such. You have the right to accept people that agree with your views or shun people you don't like, but you cannot force the latter to conform to YOUR views. -- Above all libertarianism is based individualism, but where did we get the notion that every individual matters? -- Oh? Don't YOU matter? Please, don't make these perfunctory contradictions.
nawlins72 Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 6:36 PM
"But libertarians expect everyone to be of the same mindset in order to live in harmony and peace. I still don't see an argument against this."

Deacon, there is no argument against this, because this is a strawman; a figment of someone's imagination that has no relation to libertarianism. Libertarians DO NOT assume the circumstances or even the consequences as what you propose. They merely argue that the only just actions are through voluntary agreement between individuals and that force is only justified in reaction against an aggressor.
MatthewlovesAyn Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 2:46 PM
Originalist: Thanks, I'll check it out.
But you can see where it's kinda crummy for me not to serve Old Mexican, can't you? I mean, the thought of not selling to someone because of melanin, at first, second and third glance SEEMS to be a place where civil rights would prevail in all cases, not just where the public sector is in place. As a Large L Libertarian, my thoughts dictate that even highways and schools should be private. If that were the case, and I owned said school, would I still be allowed to exclude Old Mexican based solely on my dislike of Mexicans? Being a Libertarian is not always as cut and dried as it my seem.
Origanalist Again Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 2:04 PM
IMO no business should be compelled by the state to do business with anybody.
Origanalist Again Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 2:02 PM
As a libertarian you probably subscribe to the non aggression principle.

Taking another life because it through no fault of it's own found itself in your body is aggression. That person didn't ask to be put there, indeed is only there because of you're actions.


There are plenty of libertarians who absolutely do not believe in abortion.


Presenting the pro-life case to libertarians, and the libertarian case to pro-lifers http://www.l4l.org/index.html
MatthewlovesAyn Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 1:30 PM
Old Mex: I am asking because In respect your opinion. If any of the other capitol L Libertarians wish to weigh in, feel free. I always seem to agree with you and Paulus, and mostly Michael Bowler, and Chris in Kalifornia, so if any of you wish to comment, I could use the help on those 2 issues.
MatthewlovesAyn Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 1:22 PM
OldMexican: I have a couple of moral dilemmas as a died in the wool libertarian. The most consequential is abortion. As a young man, having graduated high school the year Roe v. Wade happened, it seemed evident that a women had a right to dispose of her body as she saw fit. The realization that she is killing another person came to me much later. But, dang, it's still her body. Another is the private sector section of the Civil Rights Act. You know, the one that Rand Paul got in so much trouble over. What if I don't like old Mexicans? I am still, as a businessman, compelled to associate with them. Now as a businessman, I know it's stupid not to sell my wares to old Mexicans, but should I be compelled to sell said wares.
deaconAR Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 1:16 PM
But libertarians expect everyone to be of the same mindset in order to live in harmony and peace. I still don't see an argument against this.
deaconAR Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 1:14 PM
nawlins,
"how are libertarians any different than every other political philosophy?" What I am stating is that libertarians seem to think that the unadulterated implemenation of their political theory will make everything work as it is supposed to. This is just as incorrect as for liberals and conservatives. So when a candidate that has the best overall character/skill set is offered to be voted on, don't be a purist or be led by the nose. And this all started with my supposition that Libertarianism requires a monolithic social order and norms to function, but opposes these norms as imposing on individual freedoms. The laws against gay marriage (social norm) are opposed by libertarians, because it gets into one's bedroom.
nawlins72 Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 12:57 PM
Deacon, your arguments have devolved into absurdity. First you charge that libertarians are against social norms and now you define laws to equal social norms, which every individual rejects in some form or fashion. So by this contortion of logic, how are libertarians any different than every other political philosophy?
deaconAR Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 12:53 PM
nawlins,
"rail against some piece of legislation that this administration passes" Please keep in mind that the Executive Branch doesn't pass any laws, it is the "people's house" that passes the laws - even over the objection (i.e. veto) of the Executive. ;-)
deaconAR Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 12:48 PM
OldMex,
"Social norms =/= laws" First, not all laws reflect social issues. But to answer your questions: Countertop heights and licensing, no social norm, but a standardization and compentancy law. Blue Laws, yep social - "Thou shalt honor the Sabbath to keep it Holy." Jim Crow laws, though applied in an evil fashion, can be seen as ensuring the electorate is educated enough to understand the issues that candiates are running on (kind of like licensing, this understanding would have been nice this past election).
nawlins72 Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 12:45 PM
Deacon, then YOU are arguing against "social norms", every time you rail against some piece of legislation that this administration passes. You don't even see the pitfalls you create for your arguments.
OldMexicanblog Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 12:44 PM
Re: deaconAR,

-- "so Obamacare is a codified social norm?" Sadly, yes. --

Now, you're doing a reduction ad absurdum on your own argument!
nawlins72 Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 12:40 PM
"I do believe the US Constituion is the best thing man has developed to provide for governence, but paraphrasing one of the Founding Fathers "this Constitution is only suited for a religous and moral people - it will not work for any other."

Then you are arguing that it is logically flawed, seeing as you attach its efficacy to utopic circumstances.
deaconAR Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 12:39 PM
nawlins72,
"so Obamacare is a codified social norm?" Sadly, yes. Part of the problem in this post-post Christian era, is that social norms have been thrown to the wind - and everything under the sun that satisfies our "need" for instant gratification becomes a new "norm." We have sown the wind - we shall reap the whirlwind!
OldMexicanblog Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 12:36 PM
Re: deaconAR,
-- libertarians are against social norms - for LAWS are nothing more than codified social norms. --

Really? Like for instance the law that regulates countertop heights in restaurants? What social norm calls for that, deacon? Or are you talking about Blue Code laws? Were Jim Crow laws any more ethical because they were (presumably) derived from "social norms"? What about licensing laws? Give me a break.

Social norms =/= laws.
OldMexicanblog Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 12:33 PM
Re: deaconAR,

-- So using force in defense of your property is not using force? --

INITIATION OF FORCE, deacon. Don't equivocate. Not force in defense of your life or property, since it is clear someone else already INITIATED FORCE against YOU. If someone lives by the non-aggression principle, then he or she will never resort to force to take a life or property.
deaconAR Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 12:32 PM
nawlins72,
"Force in RESPONSE to aggression is justified." This ideal perfectly illustrates that in the end, libertarianism is no better suited to maintain social harmony - and hence a stable society - than any other man made political theory. And just to be clear, I do believe the US Constituion is the best thing man has developed to provide for governence, but paraphrasing one of the Founding Fathers "this Constitution is only suited for a religous and moral people - it will not work for any other."
nawlins72 Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 12:31 PM
Deacon, so Obamacare is a codified social norm?
OldMexicanblog Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 12:26 PM
Re: johnm h,
-- The evils of the 20th century were done in the name of people. --

So? Tyrants will make use of any excuse. That does not invalidate the concept of individualism.

-- It's individual freedom that matters, but freedom under the rule of law. --

That's a contradiction. Rule of Law only pertains to government. Government does not grant you freedom, freedom is something you're born with. What Rule of Law means is that government will not step beyond the boundaries of law to limit your freedom.
Origanalist Again Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 12:25 PM
It's easy to beat on something you don't understand.
deaconAR Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 12:24 PM
nawlins72

My "stay out" comment was exactly directed to your question of "Please show us where libertarians have argued against social norms." So you stating "the argument by libertarians is against the LAWS that impose restrictions on such activities" illustrates that libertarians are against social norms - for LAWS are nothing more than codified social norms.
nawlins72 Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 12:23 PM
"So using force in defense of your property is not using force? Libertarians choose to disregard that evil exists, and that if everyone was given the chance to live their life as they want to, then everything would be fine. I will say that the Libertarian ideal will work (in a sense) one day...want to guess what the day is called?"

Deacon, I don't know where you have read on libertarianism, but it is woefully inaccurate. Force in RESPONSE to aggression is justified. It is the initiation of force against others who are not depriving others of life, liberty or property that is immoral. And the 'libertarianism is utopian' has been beaten to death.
Origanalist Again Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 12:22 PM
"So using force in defense of your property is not using force?"

Of course it's using force. What are you talking about?

Who said you couldn't use force in defense of your property?
OldMexicanblog Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 12:22 PM
Re: johnm h,
-- Who is compelling anyone to do anything other than the Supreme court --

Oh, jeez. You answered your own question.

-- I matter to me, why to anyone else? --

Who cares about what anyone else thinks of you? You asked the question: "When did we get the notion that every individual matters?" Since always! Since we've been stepping on the earth, john. Every individual matters to himself or herself. Otherwise nobody of us would be alive today.

*I* matter, at least to me. *You* matter, at least to you. The moment I stop thinking that *I* matter, is the day I die.
nawlins72 Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 12:16 PM
"Stay out of the bedroom", "let adults recreate as they please", gay marriage, etc."

Deacon, if this is in reply to my question, then I must ask if you understand that the argument by libertarians is against the LAWS that impose restrictions on such activities.
deaconAR Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 12:16 PM
So using force in defense of your property is not using force? Libertarians choose to disregard that evil exists, and that if everyone was given the chance to live their life as they want to, then everything would be fine. I will say that the Libertarian ideal will work (in a sense) one day...want to guess what the day is called?
nawlins72 Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 12:12 PM
OM, libertarianism = libertine cause Gingrich said so, except when it = anarchy.
deaconAR Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 12:11 PM
"Stay out of the bedroom", "let adults recreate as they please", gay marriage, etc.
johnm h Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 12:10 PM
Who is compelling anyone to do anything other than the Supreme court who holds that states can't determine their own laws in an increasing number of areas. I've seen many who don't want the government to pay for abortion and that want to see Roe v Wade overturned, but that isn't imposing anything on anyone, indeed it removes compulsion.
I matter to me, why to anyone else? Utilitarianism, sums them, that isn't good enough. The evils of the 20th century were done in the name of people. It's individual freedom that matters, but freedom under the rule of law. Key among these are property rights, but we still have to agree on other laws and those have to be based on something and constitutionally that must be at the state and local level
johnm h Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 12:10 PM
Who is compelling anyone to do anything other than the Supreme court who holds that states can't determine their own laws in an increasing number of areas. I've seen many who don't want the government to pay for abortion and that want to see Roe v Wade overturned, but that isn't imposing anything on anyone, indeed it removes compulsion.
I matter to me, why to anyone else? Utilitarianism, sums them, that isn't good enough. The evils of the 20th century were done in the name of people. It's individual freedom that matters, but freedom under the rule of law. Key among these are property rights, but we still have to agree on other laws and those have to be based on something and constitutionally that must be at the state and local level
OldMexicanblog Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 12:08 PM
Re: deaconAR,
-- Libertarianism, as it is advocated in its essence, is a fallacy. It requires a monolithic social order and norms to function --

The ONLY norm required is the non-aggression principle, which people already practice during most of ther lives, unless you tell me that people around you act like animals as a matter of routine.

-- but opposes these norms as imposing on individual freedoms. --

You're indulging in creating a strawman argument. Libertarians do NOT shun norms and customs. It makes sense to follow the customs of the local population if one expects to trade and interact with them. What libertarians are against is the initiation of FORCE, of AGGRESSION, to get your way.
nawlins72 Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 12:04 PM
Please show us where libertarians have argued against social norms?
Origanalist Again Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 12:04 PM
Nobody is against using force in self-defense.
deaconAR Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 11:58 AM
OldMex,

"or shun people you don't like, but you cannot force the latter to conform to YOUR views." So you shun people because they want to take what you have, but you won't use force to make them conform to your views? Yeah...right.

Libertarianism, as it is advocated in its essence, is a fallacy. It requires a monolithic social order and norms to function, but opposes these norms as imposing on individual freedoms.
jmonaco Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 11:44 AM
OneForFreedom Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 11:42 AM
I like your anser better than mine. Do you read Ilana Mercer's "Barely a Blog" or Vox Day's "Vox Popoli" columns? Ilana talks alot about property rights being one of the foundations of Libertarianism - and of course, one of this country's founding principles...
Democrats won big last week. So government will continue to grow. Individual freedom will yield.

At least some people with records of supporting liberty were elected: Sen. Jeff Flake in Arizona and U.S. Reps. Justin Amash and Kerry Bentivolio in Michigan and Thomas Massie in Kentucky.

Also, Washington and Colorado voted to allow any adult to use marijuana. (But users beware. Your newfound freedom may be short-lived thanks to that extraordinary human being in the White House -- you know, the one who smoked pot when he was in school. Despite promising that he wouldn't, he has cracked down on pot...