The core libertarian test of any human behavior is whether it forces itself upon any unwilling party. So, it would be a core libertarian position that doing anything by yourself in private on your own property — or privately between or among universally consenting sentient beings — should not be invaded to prevent it by any outside party.
Somewhere in here then comes questions pure materialists might regard as mere matters of taste or personal preferences but which those with a philosophy embracing any sort of metaphysics — a sense that existence itself is biased — might regard as nature.
A pure libertarian might be absolutely value-free when it comes to a question of whether nature is at all to be preferred over invention or artifice; many libertarians, it appears to me, actually have a strong disregard for the natural and prefer the invented; a disdain for the mainstream and a preference for the offbeat. I think this is true of most real intellectuals of any stripe.
But how far is anyone willing to take this? I actually think most libertarians — most intellectuals — are more conventional than they believe themselves to be.
So let’s find out. Here’s a quiz for libertarians.
1. Would you be comfortable living in a society where cannibalism was practiced? I exclude the eating of murder victims by their murderers from this question. But it would include the eating of murder victims by third parties when their families sold the bodies to restaurants, children and teens killed in automobile accidents, suicides, prisoners executed for murder, and — soon available on eBay — celebrities who die from overdoses of drugs.
2. How would you get along in a society in which undergarments commonly substituted for bathrooms, so that it would be a common occurrence to be sitting in a restaurant or movie theater — or walking through a shopping mall — within a few feet of someone freely and unabashedly defecating or urinating under their clothing?
3. Professor Arnold van Huis of Holland’s Wageningen University has written a white paper for the United Nations in which he suggests replacing the Western diet’s reliance on red meat for protein with insects. How would you feel if his suggestion were commonly adopted and KFC served Kentucky Fried Cockroach? Let’s up the ante. What if restaurants had bullshit burgers on the menu?
4. Combat to the death was popular in ancient times; the custom of dueling made it to the 19th century in America and later elsewhere. The Romans explored just about every variety of this, including combat between gladiators, human bouts with wild animals, and even filling an arena with water and staging ship battles. Would you have any problem with this as popular sports — and new variations, such as two skydivers fighting over one parachute — if all athletes were volunteers?
5. For much of human history human childhood ended at the onset of puberty. Could you live in a society where 11-year-old girls and 13-year-old boys could marry, work, smoke (including tobacco, marijuana, and opium), drink, consent to sex, gamble, and engage in prostitution in which they got to keep the earnings?
6. Do you believe people have the right to decorate, accessorize, or configure their bodies in any way they desire? Suppose tattooing and piercing were one-upped by “amping” — the deliberate amputation of body parts — or blinding — people deliberately deciding to remove their eyeballs?
7. Here’s a question about practices which are already not uncommon throughout Europe and Asia: public offerings of nudity and sex? Do you have a problem with X-rated sex-fetish movies on broadcast television; billboards with both male and female full-frontal nudity; nude beaches; topless women on sidewalks; couples having sex in public parks; red-light districts with prostitutes offering their sexual services to the street; clubs with orgies and human-animal sex shows?
8. A federal judge has just overturned California’s Proposition 8, which had restricted marriage to a man and a woman. Do you accept that any form of marriage should now be legal, that California county clerks should now issue marriage licenses for unions including any number of men and/or women within a single marriage — and that these marriages should be able to have as many children — naturally, through surrogates, or through adoptions — as they desire?
9. Should any form of peaceful protest be allowed, not only burning of American flags, but including the defacement of religious icons — crucifixes, portraits of the Prophet Mohammad, Jewish Torahs?
10. Fox News commentator/comedian Greg Gutfeld, has proposed the opening of a gay nightclub adjacent to the “Ground Zero Mosque.” I’ve already watched a documentary about a pro-life center operating across the street from an abortion clinic. Do you believe White Supremacists should be able to open offices next to NAACP centers, and that Neo-Nazis should be able to operate offices next to Jewish Synagogues?
If government is the only thing that stops us from doing crazy stuff, what stops the government from doing crazy stuff? Oh, wait…
I'd want to distinguish between what I'd be "comfortable" or have no "problem" with and what I think shouldn't be prohibited. Some of the things on this list I'd be fine with and some I'd want to combat (via peaceful means), but in cases I wouldn't favour legal restriction. (The age of consent thing is probably the only one where I see a case for legal intervention.)
I think it's dangerous for us to frame the issue in a way that elides the "what I'd be comfortable with" / "what I think shouldn't be forcibly prohibited" distinction. Running those two together is what statists do; why help them?
Brad,
If libertarians ask nothing but whether an act is libertarian — in the same way a Muslim might ask whether an act is within Sharia law, or a Christian might ask whether it violates the Ten Commandments — such that there isn't even a common basis to ask these questions, then how is libertarianism not just another insular cult, with no wider relevance to outsiders?
Neil
@Neil — Actually, I was attempting to convey quite the opposite — that libertarians are often not, as often caricatured, solely concerned with libertarianism to the exclusion of all other concerns. I was explaining that there is a selection bias implicit in the way you phrased things.
I'll attempt to explain further by means of an analogy…
I couldn't say anything about the theological opinions of the set of people "electrical engineers" because membership in the profession of electrical engineers tells me nothing about the theological opinions they hold. That does not mean all electrical engineers are atheists. Rather, some electrical engineers are atheists, some are Methodists, some are Jewish and some worship Odin the All-Father.
2. defacation in one's pants is actually a "menace to society."
i am not wearing pants
I'm probably okay personally with just about all of the above, though I wouldn't make any of them a litmus test for membership in an anti-state movement. Nor would I make any of them a priority so far as anti-state activism goes. I suppose there's someone, somewhere who considers me to be a racist, fascist, and homophobe for saying that. Oh well.
re: “Running those two together is what statists do; why help them?”
That’s an excellent question. I wonder how Neil might respond.
I’m with Roderick Long, asking about what I’m personally comfortable with, and what I think should be prohibited (by whatever means that entails) are two drastically different things. I’m not personally comfortable with homosexual acts, i.e. I wouldn’t personally engage in them because I’m not a homosexual. But do I think that being gay should be any different then being straight when it comes to marriage, consenting sex, etc? Not at all – what consenting adults do is their business.
For me, like for Professor Long, most of this list the answer is “whether I’m comfortable or not, if people are consenting of their own free will, that’s fine”. I’ll also agree that the age of consent thing is a bit sticky, since at what age people are able to make consenting decisions re: sex, drugs, and rock & roll is still up for grabs (kidding about the rock & roll) – and I don’t know that I have an answer to how the age of consent would be figured out.
I’s also like to point out that some of this list is sort of a red herring – because the idea that in any free society alternatives wouldn’t exist, is pretty ridiculous. Would I live in a society with Kentucky Fried Crickets? Sure, because I guarantee you there would be a Bob’s Steakhouse around the corner. Would I live in a society where people freely defecated in their undergarments? Sure, because there would be enough people who DIDN’T want to participate that there would still be public restrooms.
Free society is not a homogenous whole, so the likelihood is that for every single thing in society that you DON’T like, there’d be a viable alternative for it. Only in Statist societies do you find the kind of enforced compliance that would mean no more red meat, only bugs, or no more bathrooms, only adult diapers.
Neil mentioned to me in email that he intended the piece as a conversation starter — so I suppose we must assume that there’s some sort of dialectical point he’s trying to make by asking questions which he ought to know are red herrings.
Brad Spangler was going to ask me to sum up my argument in the initial article so it could be considered an Op-Ed piece. I’d rather do that within the discussion.
I was careful what I chose as my examples. Everything on my list qualifies as behavior that libertarians would argue must be protected under libertarian codes of justice, because every single one of them is non-coercive behavior on private property or in the commons by persons who are considered adults under many legal codes. None of this violates property rights. None of this behavior is more invasive than, for example, smoking cigarettes in a restaurant, wearing strong perfume, emitting an unpleasant body odor, engaging in a practice which has only a small following.
Anarchist filmmaker Luis Buñuel posed similar situations in his 1974 movie The Phantom of Liberty. His belief was that all customs were arbitrary, and that it would make just as much sense for people to hide in a closet while they eat and sit on toilets around a table.
None of my questions are politically impossible, nor — in my view — more improbable than the change within my lifetime of homosexual behavior shifting from legally prohibited to not only legal but a fashionable cause célèbre among the hoi palloi.
The first questions to my tolerance test published in other venues immediately focus in on people using undergarments as bathrooms. People appear to find this more impossible than that cannibalism could become socially acceptable.
Really?
Check out the website http://www.wetset.net/. This is a website for men and women who make a sport out of wetting and soiling their pants in public — and as often as not the point is that they get a thrill out of getting caught.
There are people who believe they have the right to be anorexic — the movement is called “Pro-Ana.”
Michael Vick went to prison for fighting dogs in the United States — if he had moved south several hundred miles he would have been in the clear. Libertarians would ask only: were the dogs his property?
I no longer believe there is anything so outrageous that it can’t become the basis for someone deciding their personal choices need to be protected and that denying them public expression of it makes them an oppressed class.
So here’s the “Op-Ed” summary that Brad Spangler asked me for:
The whole point of the “tolerance test” is not about what we personally find objectionable. It’s about whether you think there are any questions that need to be asked beyond the libertarian one: “Is the behavior invasive, fraudulent, or coercive?”
Once we eliminate from consideration unlibertarian acts, the test asks whether you believe there is any basis other than esthetic preference for deciding what personal behavior should not be socially acceptable in public settings?
Neil
re: “Libertarians would ask only…”
Libertarians as a set would ask only that, because that set is bounded by definition as adherents of libertarianism. But someone’s libertarianism doesn’t preclude them from having other concerns. It’s just that those concerns would tend to vary, so most such concerns outside the bounds of libertarianism would not happen to also, coincidentally, be held by all libertarians without exception. That is, you’re filtering out other concerns by setting the scope of the set of people under consideration to “libertarians”.
Brad,
You’re avoiding the question.
Once we eliminate from consideration unlibertarian acts, the test asks whether you believe there is any basis other than esthetic preference for deciding what personal behavior should not be socially acceptable in public settings.
Surely one doesn’t have to have a specialist’s arcane knowledge to answer that question.
Neil
All right Mr. Schulan I'll bite although I'm largely in agreement with Brad and Mr. Long and Chris I'll try to add in my two cents.
Most of these things I'd consider nothing I'd really like to see or have in a free society, I think all of these are preferential and libertarianism by itself has nothing to say about it unless you add other criteria to what a free society should contain besides just what libertarians may consider.
Luckily I do and like Mr. Long said what I wouldn't consider as needed or unwanted I'd peacefully oppose or freely associate out of or what have you or like another poster said there'd be viable alternatives to it anyways.
Who in this discussion is willing to admit that the reason we don't practice cannibalism is that our current culture, though nominally secular, is riding in the wake of Judaic and Christian taboos against doing so? And, further, once Judaic and Christian traditions have been strongly propagandized enough against as the basis for social preferencing, there is nothing to prevent its return?
Keith, if pluralism is a sin, then I'll be damned.
JNS, well there's this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_(disease)
But yes, I will admit that the opposing cannibalism is cultural. But so is opposing violence of any kind. All ethics/norms are cultural, I don't see the problem here.
@Neil — I think that if I wanted to avoid the question at all costs I simply would have not commented at all. Rather, I took your quoted remark as (presumably unintentionally) supporting an inaccurate caricature of libertarians and I wanted to get that matter clarified first before participating in the main discussion.
Now, it’s true that I didn’t answer your question. Partly, that’s because I’m not sure how you would define “esthetic preference”. It’s also partly because I expect this conversation might draw a number of responses I could conceivably find persuasive or better informed than the first thing that pops into my own head. Is there something wrong with being willing to listen first?
Brad Spangler asked, “Is there something wrong with being willing to listen first?”
No, Brad, but you may be the first libertarian ever to do it!
I would be okay with legally allowing all of these things in some contexts and disallowing them in other contexts. As I’ve mentioned before, the actions of individuals have unwanted effects on the rest of the community. If a community wants to ban gladiator battles, I wouldn’t be opposed, I might even be supportive. It’s up to those who want to keep the ban to pay for enforcement, but if you want to fight in/watch such a death match, go where it’s accepted. I think it’s a mistake to think of libertarianism in terms of “what the hell, do whatever you like!” Actions aren’t isolatable.
Also, very much in agreement with Rod Long.
Better be careful, Chris. You’re starting to sound like one of us heretical anarcho-pluralist/pan-secessionist/national-anarchist types. That can make you a lot of enemies.
So, um… does the author believe there is any basis other than esthetic preference for deciding what personal behavior should not be socially acceptable in public settings? And if so, what?
Your answer aside, Neil, this would not change libertarianism *as a legal philosophy*. Libertarianism is not political libertinism after all…
skunk1980:
Obviously there are utilitarian grounds to make such decisions, but I am not a utilitarian.
There are religious dogmas but I am not a subscriber to any religion.
I do think there are metaphysical grounds but I am not prepared to offer them as arguments.
Neil
Neil
Of course we anarchists don’t have to enjoy or be comfortable with what others are rightly free to do. We don’t have to be “tolerant,” we only can’t rightly commit aggression. Is this debatable?
However, on question 8… What’s all this about county clerks issuing licenses. What licenses?
Miscellaneous comments:
"Anarchist filmmaker Luis Buñuel posed similar situations in his 1974 movie The Phantom of Liberty. His belief was that all customs were arbitrary, and that it would make just as much sense for people to hide in a closet while they eat and sit on toilets around a table."
In one of Heinlein's books, set (I think) on Venus, the aliens treat eating more or less as we treat sex–something that must be done in private. That's by memory but, I think, accurate.
"Once we eliminate from consideration unlibertarian acts, the test asks whether you believe there is any basis other than esthetic preference for deciding what personal behavior should not be socially acceptable in public settings?"
You put this in terms of "socially acceptable," which isn't the same thing as "legally permitted." To take one example not on your list, I would prefer that torturing animals for fun not be socially acceptable–that is to say, I would prefer to live in a society in which someone who engaged in that activity was thought worse of by most other people, making the activity costly.
I find it hard to imagine someone who was only a libertarian–who had no opinion about what ought to be other than the absence of coercion. How would such a person decide how to act? There are, after all, lots of different things I might do that don't coerce anyone.
I'm also curious as to why anyone would think that one subset of normative beliefs–libertarianism–had a basis other than aesthetic preference, and all other normative beliefs didn't.
"in the same way a Muslim might ask whether an act is within Sharia law,"…
Describing Sharia as "law" is a bit misleading, since it includes both rules about what is or is not permitted and about rules about what one ought to do (but isn't required to do) and what one ought not to do (but is permitted to do). So it's really a combination of what we would think of as law and what we might think of as morality.
You put your questions in terms of putatively bad activities that should or should not be socially acceptable. Suppose we look at it from the other direction. Are there actions not required by libertarianism that ought to be "socially approved of?" Is my preference for people who are kind, and honest, and productive, and think clearly, merely an aesthetic preference, while my disapproval of coercion is something more? Would you feel comfortable in a society where it was perfectly acceptable to walk past someone who had been injured in a traffic accident, or a blind man about to walk into traffic, or a small child obviously lost, without any effort to help–as comfortable as you would in a society where almost everyone thought worse of someone who acted in that way than of someone who tried to help others in need of help when doing so was reasonably easy?
"Who in this discussion is willing to admit that the reason we don’t practice cannibalism is that our current culture, though nominally secular, is riding in the wake of Judaic and Christian taboos against doing so? "
I'm not, since it isn't true. Have you read _The Man-Eating Myth_ by Arens? The author argues that non-emergency cannibalism is entirely, or at least almost entirely, mythical. I think he overstates his case a little, but it's clear that the taboo against cannibalism is much wider than "Judaic and Christian." And I think there is at least one obvious reason for the taboo that has nothing to do with religion–see Chapter 15 of my Law's Order, webbed at:
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Laws_Order_draft/la…
Me. Although I cannot speak to the pedigree of the taboos. They may or may not be judeo-christian. Hell, they may be in fact "human nature", whatever that is.
But like others in this conversation, I'm not opposed to things being socially unacceptable. In some ways, perfect freedom is totally impossible and what we really often mean by freedom is the ability to better define the context in which one lives. Indeed, creative acts such as art are often better realized by their ability to emerge within and in spite of constraints.
Also, many of the "deviant" behaviors you list are not ones that members of any past society that had to struggle for survival would really spend time worrying about in the slightest. It's difficult for me to consider people who want to soil themselves, for instance, or engage in cannibalism as expressing genuine desires for freedom and not merely social pathologies brought about by the ennui of modernity. Most libertarians I know would consider a swipe at our idea of progress below the belt, but there it is. I know it's heresy and I can fetch my own rope, thank you.
This discussion is getting really excellent! Thank you!
I suspect the real test of libertarian tolerance would not so much be whether libertarians would accept things like consensual gladiatorial contests, but rather whether libertarians would accept forms of voluntary association, private institutions, are proprietarian communities organized internally on illiberal principles or practicing exclusivity on illiberal grounds. For instance, a "whites only" restaurant, a private school with a "no homosexuals" policy, or a private neighborhood requiring some kind of religious observance. Based on past experience, I'd suspect many of the people reading this would find such things far more horrifying than the prospect of 11 year old prostitutes, dog fighting contests, or a restaurant selling human flesh as a delicacy.
Chris,
When you say "laws of a similar stripe" I assume you mean laws issued by the state, and not rules created by private institutions (the Catholic Church), voluntary associations (The He-Man Woman Haters Club), private businesses (Joe's Bar and Grill), or proprietarian communities (Galt's Gulch, a Hare Krishna commune, or one of Patri Friedman's seasteads).
I very much oppose state laws requiring the compulsory integration of non-state institutions, associations, or property. That doesn't mean such institutions cannot require integration on their own. For instance, if a private business wants to have an affirmative action program, or if a private school wants to have PC speech codes, or if a private neighborhood wants to have quotas for representation of minorities, feminists, homosexuals, etc. on its administrative board, all of these are perfectly acceptable within a libertarian legal framework.
Although I mostly ignore Keith Preston, I do have to wonder if he's attempting to assert that the prospect of a new state arising based on racial oppression is just as fanciful as independent child prostitutes forming a new ruling class.
Here's the problem, though.
Neil is making the same error as the statists make. (To be fair, it's an error too many libertarians make.) He conflates "socially acceptable" with "legally permissible".
A claim that a certain behavior is socially unacceptable is simply a statement that it is permissible (indeed, praiseworthy) to speak out against that behavior, and to refuse to associate with anyone who publicly and flagrantly engages in that behavior. Cutting in line, for example, is socially unacceptable. There is, as far as I'm aware, no law against it anywhere, and yet because all but a tiny and despised minority of persons abhor it, it generally doesn't happen. Indeed, there are probably numerous places where premeditated murder is more common than line-cutting.
Whereas a claim that a certain behavior ought to be legally forbidden is a statement that it is, in extreme circumstances, justifiable to _kill_ someone for doing it. (The law is force. Always, everywhere, and only.)
Social norms work. And it's a good thing, too, because I no more want to live in a world where line-cutting is common than I want to live in a world where line-cutting involves risking an encounter with the judicial system and its armed enforcers.
Indeed, one of my major objections to the state is that it _interferes_ with social norms. In addition to dictating what rules we may or may not observe in our own lives, our own businesses, and our own communities, the proliferation of law destroys general respect for social norms. As more and more subjects that properly belong to the realm of social norm are hijacked by the realm of coercive law, more and more people adopt the attitude that anything that _can't_ get you chased down by a cop and shot like a rabid dog in the street, must necessarily be A-OK. And civil society crumbles a little more each day.
This is a discussion about libertarianism, and libertarianism is a _political_ philosophy. It is about the relationship between the individual and the state. It is _not_ about anything else, including the question of what social norms are desirable or undesirable.
Brad,
You know perfectly well that the problem left-anarchists and left-libertarians would have with the kinds of arrangements I described is not simply the prospect of "private, voluntary racism" developing into "state racism." They simply consider such things to be an intolerable moral abomination regardless of their private, voluntary, or even marginal nature, just as social conservatives (and most other people) consider child prostitution to be a moral abomination, irrespective of its legal, political, or cultural context.
You also seem to be making a consequential argument in this instance, which would seem to be in conflict with your usual "natural rights though the heavens may fall" approach.
Very well said, Matt.
Keith, actually I'm speaking within the context of anarchy/radical decentralization. If locale X is allowed to enforce segregation, isn't it consistent that locale Y be allowed to enforce integration? I would not likely support either, but I think it's within the scope of anarchy to permit.
@Keith — If one sees both as moral abominations, what's wrong with an additional comparison of the relative potential dangers associated with each when allocating scarce oppositional resources?
I have no problem with being defined as “conventional”. If it makes me unpopular among other libertarians…well, I’m a libertarian. I’m used to being unpopular.
There are, I think, two items on that list that _wouldn’t_ make me profoundly uncomfortable. But I do not accept discomfort as an excuse for coercion.
I doubt cannibalism or selling cockroaches would catch on, with or without state prohibition of them, for example. And as long as people pretending to be married don’t use the coercive powers of the state to punish those who don’t concur that they’re married, I don’t really care what they do in their bedrooms.
Being a libertarian isn’t about shocking the mundanes. It’s about strangling the state. The fact that after the state drops back to a minimal role, some people will outrageously shock the mundanes is a side effect, not the goal.
The only one I have a problem with is the "substituting undergarments for bathrooms." There are practical reasons why this is unlikely to happen anyway (most people don't like to wallow in their own filth), but also there are reasons why this isn't necessarily compatible with a free libertarian society. For example, if I pee in my pants and then go sit in a restaurant, it is likely that I will dampen the seat–not my property!–and that other guests will have to smell my urine–these are actually my waste particles invading their noses. The same goes for poop as well, obviously.
Perhaps there is a sign on the door of the restaurant that says "defecate freely within", which would nullify the other guests' complaint, but then again I don't think such a restaurant would stay in business long.
re: "If all you’re asking is whether there’s any content to morality over and above respecting rights…"
I could be wrong, but I suspect Neil is asking if all supposed morality apart from the NAP actually most properly falls under aesthetics rather than ethics. That's why I was wondering about how he defines an aesthetic preference.
What reasons could there be for regarding all non-rights-related moral issues as merely aesthetic that weren't equally good reasons for regarding rights themselves as merely aesthetic?
@Roderick — I don't claim to know. Neil just seems to act as if he does.
Keith, I suspect I know the answer, but to make sure: would you oppose laws of a similar stripe that forced integration?
I guess the main problem I have with the question is that liberty creates a trial and error process for preferences, out of which norms can arise — but there are so many preferences from so many people acting on so much information that simple humility stops me from making a blanket statement that all such preferences and resulting norms would assuredly be “esthetic” in nature only.
I simply don’t know that because I’m being asked to categorize unknown things in the future.
Even after the fact, such categorization — the WHY of the preferences people have — is frequently grounds for open-ended speculation. Sometimes connections can be made between preferences and specific aspects of reality; sometimes not. See also: evolutionary psychology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology
So not at all? I kid, I kid.
Long answer: http://mises.org/media.aspx?ID=90&action=category
Shorter answer: is that supposed to be a tougher question than "Where does the concept of rights come from?" If yes, why? Or if not, then why treat them differently as you seem to?
Okay, I wasn’t sure what you were asking so I missed your point. Yes, within the context of radical decentralization, a sovereign locality could just as easily enforce integration as segregation and would be just as legitimate in doing so. Like you, I don’t support either. I prefer to leave such judgments to private associations, institutions, and property owners who formulate their own policies. For instance, I’d uphold a restaurant owner’s legal right to have a “whites only” policy, but I would oppose a county or municipal ordinance requiring him to do so. I would uphold a private university’s right to have PC speech codes, but oppose a comparable ordinance requiring it. But then I would uphold the right of localities to make such ordinances, for the most part.
Of course, this gets us into a lot of other complicated questions. What about when a locality is part of a wider body with a constitutional compact of its own? For instance, Lysander Spooner, if I remember correctly, supported the right of secession by states, but also believed that if states wanted to remain in the union they were bound by the constitution. He regarded slavery as unconstitutional, meaning slave states had to leave if they wanted to keep their slaves. He upheld their right to do so, but also endorsed insurrections by slaves and forming anti-slavery guerrillas armies to be based in the non-slave states.
What about a student strike against PC speech codes at a private university? What about sit-ins in a racially segregated restaurant? Are sit-ins a form of voluntary private action or a simple matter of trespassing? There’s a long, long list of questions like this we could get into. What about when church people picket against strip clubs and strip club employees and patrons picket against the church in return? I came across a case like that recently. Are the church people and strip club people exercising their free speech rights or are they crossing the line into harassment of one another?
Roderick Long,
Nice try. Good one. I leave you to Max Stirner to explain why all, these "wheels in the head" about objective value and "proper" anything are just as much religious values as anything that's accompanied by a church organ.
Me, I believe existence has its own meanings, designs, and purpose so I don't have any problem with any of that.
But I still think you're drinking Diet God.
Neil
If all you’re asking is whether there’s any content to morality over and above respecting rights, then the answer is yes, of course. It would be odd to think that there are really stringent standards about the morality of using force, but no standards about the morality of anything else.
Indeed, I’d go further and say that libertarianism itself gives us reason to care about values other than rights (though it forbids us to pursue them by means of force).
And of course I say “merely aesthetic” as though I thought that aesthetic preferences were mere maters of subjective taste. But of course I think aesthetics is just as objective as ethics ….
Ethics? Did someone in this discussion bring up ethics?
Where does the concept of ethics come from? Right and wrong? Moral codes?
I’ve got one order of libertarianism. Want God with that?
Or maybe God Light: Ayn Rand.
P.S. – A better link: http://praxeology.net/Mises-philosophy-seminar.htm
Correction: Neil just seems to act as if HE THINKS he does.
"This is a discussion about libertarianism, and libertarianism is a _political_ philosophy. It is about the relationship between the individual and the state. It is _not_ about anything else, including the question of what social norms are desirable or undesirable."
That is the best answer to this so far, in my opinion. There really is a conflation of political philosophy with social dynamics here. Could you have a libertarian society where people voluntarily sold themselves into slavery? Or a libertarian society which SOCIALLY preferred one class over another (e.g. you were socially ostracized if you were from the 'working class', though there was never any legal constraint put on you)? How about a libertarian society that had a social preference for ritual suicide of every third-born child?
The answer I would give is yes, all of these are conceivably libertarian societies, assuming that any legal/state frameworks were absent, so that these were social pressures only and not legal constraints/dictates.
One of the primary critiques of pure libertarian philosophy that many traditional anarchists have is that it is too narrowly focused on issues of person/state interaction – precisely BECAUSE they don't see libertarianism as being capable of addressing issues of social concern.
I personally happen to see this as a strength of libertarianism, since I think that social concerns mostly SHOULD be separated from person/state interactions and can be dealt with via other philosophical discussions, but regardless of whether you agree or disagree that this is a problem, I think it's a valid point: libertarianism as a philosophy isn't really set-up to deal with sociological concerns outside of the window of the NAP and person/state interaction.
Downdurnst,
Exactly! I regard anarchism as merely a branch of political theory that rejects the state as a parasite on society. This differs from the classical liberal view of the state as a neutral umpire, the Rousseauan/democratist view of the state as an expression of some mythical "general will," the Marxist view of the state as a mere instrument of socio-economic class power, or the various right-wing views of the state as ordained by God, or as an organic outgrowth of the culture, nature, or race.
Libertarianism is just the application of anarchism to legal theory. My point of contention with left-anarchists and left-libertarians is their insistence on synthesizing anarchism/libertarianism with leftist cultural univeralism. Most present day left-anarchists adhere to what I consider to be a revisionist version of anarchism, where anarchism is not a struggle against the state but against the "hierarchy" of "white male heterosexual Christian supremacy" or something to that effect. They regard the state as merely an outgrowth of cultural or social privilege for leftist demon groups (which is a totally ahistorical view of the state), and their ideas are rooted more in Marxist economics and neo-Marxist social theory than in anarchism.
The left-libertarians who participate in this forum are much more consistently anti-state, but I think their "thick libertarian" approach of synthesizing libertarianism with hard-core cultural leftism is contradictory, tunnel-visioned, and somewhat anachronistic. I would consider cultural conservatism (and cultural centrism also, which is more my approach) to be just as compatible with anti-statism as cultural leftism. I think a libertarian society would have both culturally leftist and culturally traditionalist or conservative strands, and libertarianism provides a political and legal framework for them to co-exist or, in extreme cases where co-existence is not possible, anarchist decentralization provides the solution of simple territorial separation.
[…] A Libertarian Tolerance Test […]
"But in the end, that’s a discussion that has nothing to do with libertarianism. The only reason that it becomes an issue NOW is because the State gets INVOLVED in these social issues, so as libertarians/anarchists, we then end up involved ourselves."
I wouldn't agree that that's the ONLY reason it's an issue. After all, if people who think like you do (and I don't necessarily mean specifically you) are only in favor of liberty as long as you're pretty sure that liberty means that people who think the way I do will quickly be stamped entirely out of existence, then I have to say that we can't possibly mean the same thing by "liberty".
Now, as long as you're not out to send men with guns to my house to blast me into the hereafter for actually believing in (for example) the definition of marriage that's prevailed for thousands of years, rather than the one that was invented in the last 10 years by political activists, then I see no reason we can't live peaceably as neighbors in anarchist paradise.
But there's a fair number of self-described "anarchists" and "left-libertarians" who are convinced that anarchist paradise is impossible as long as people like me get to live in it. To which all I can say is this: How, without something answering to the functional description of a state (even if not the name) do you propose to get rid of us?
"After all, if people who think like you do (and I don’t necessarily mean specifically you) are only in favor of liberty as long as you’re pretty sure that liberty means that people who think the way I do will quickly be stamped entirely out of existence, then I have to say that we can’t possibly mean the same thing by “liberty”."
I didn't at all mean to imply that 'my version' of liberty would somehow need to supersede yours – or that liberty means only one thing; that's precisely why I get so pissed off that people associate Glenn Beck with libertarianism. His version of being a libertarian means you are a white, christian, conservative, racist libertarian from my viewpoint.
"Now, as long as you’re not out to send men with guns to my house to blast me into the hereafter for actually believing in (for example) the definition of marriage that’s prevailed for thousands of years, rather than the one that was invented in the last 10 years by political activists, then I see no reason we can’t live peaceably as neighbors in anarchist paradise."
This sort of is what I was getting at: I may completely disagree with you about marriage – I may even start a non-violent social movement to ostracize your viewpoint – or I may become a standup comedian and constantly ridicule your viewpoint – whatever – I don't see any problems there, because at no time would I be using armed violence to 'do something' about your viewpoint. In the end, other than making sure I adhere to the NAP, your views and my views on marriage are irrelevant to libertarian discussion. Where they BECOME relevant are when a Statist entity or any other violent coercive try to ENFORCE a particular viewpoint.
A good friend of mine who is Catholic, and relatively conservative, made a great point about gay marriage to me: "if gays want to marry, why is that anyone's business? Why do any religious people care? The only time I, as a Catholic, would care is if gays wanted the government to force the CHURCH to marry gays." That's spot on in my opinion – this is a social issue, where people can argue, disagree, whatever – it's not a political issue (i.e. a libertarian issue) until the State makes a law regarding it.
Hope that's clearer!
"I don’t, personally, think that conservative social values would survive in an anarchist society for very long – I think that simple sociological pressure of ‘new ideas’ will always eventually kill off ‘traditional values’."
I tend to think the actual sociological evidence shows that minus a state trying to impose uniform values on everyone, there would be a proliferation of a greater number of value systems as well as a greater tendency towards extremes. The best analogy is to consider what the separation of church and state in America has produced. Did everyone become an atheist? No, America is the most religious of any industrialized nation, and the number and variety of religions is rather vast. There are extreme fundamentalist sects, and there are ultra-liberal sects, and there are organized unbeliever sects. Separating the state from culture entirely would probably have a similar effect. Are you familiar with Bill Bishop's book "The Big Sort"? Some of his research and analysis would seem to support this conclusion.
"I happen to think that the issues raised about hierarchy, racism, sexism, classism, etc are all vitally important ones…"
In some instances, yes. But I would counter that movements oriented towards attacking these things have also become aligned with the state in many situations in modern societies, and have sometimes, indeed frequently, served as a pretense for expanding the state or formed a basis for a new kind of authoritarianism. I would see issues like that to be much more pressing, say, in Saudi Arabia. If I had been old enough to do so in the 1960s, I would have participated in all the "liberation" movements that came out of that time. But the primary focus of most left-anarchists and some libertarians on these things today seems somewhat archaic or one-dimensional. It would seem to me there are a lot of more immediate or pressing issues to focus our attention on at present rather than the usual laundry list of left-wing social issues. Case in point: http://c4ss.org/content/3568#comment-5652
I understand your point about Church & State and where things have gone – but consider that in recent years, the number of people in the U.S. that identify a belief in God(s) or that regularly attend any service in any religion has drastically declined. I also would counter that equating the amount of 'religiosity' in the U.S. with conservative social beliefs is fallacious, since by no means does faith in any particular religion equal conservative values socially. I'd argue that religious diversity is an OUTGROWTH of 'progressive' social movement, not an indicator of conservative values.
But again, I'd argue that these have nothing to do with libertarianism.
As for your point about those social movements moving along with the State, I think that's irrelevant – that's attacking the messenger for their political associations, and thus discounting the message. I completely agree that any movement that aligns itself with the State to achieve it's goals is suspect at best, destructive at worst – but I didn't mention any movements, I only mentioned that the ISSUES of hierarchy, sexism, etc were vital – and those issues can (and very often are) addressed in ways that neither align themselves with the State, or violate the NAP.
“@Keith — If one sees both as moral abominations, what’s wrong with an additional comparison of the relative potential dangers associated with each when allocating scarce oppositional resources?”
Nothing, I suppose. But nowadays, a restaurant with a “whites only” sign out front would be as much an anachronistic eccentricity as much as an indication of imminent genocide.
downdurnst,
A survey which conflates identifying a belief in God with attendance of church services is biased toward the atheist perspective that God has no actual existence other than as a fictitious creation of religion. I would tend then not to regard its results as too bluntly misleading to be regarded as accurate.
I think if you included in this survey Americans who regard themselves as spiritual or have a belief in a higher power the results would be quite different.
JNS –
I wasn't conflating belief in God with attending Church – I was saying that recent surveys have shown that a) belief in God has declined, and b) attendance of places of worship have declined. Two separate declines. My intent was not to conflate the two either, it was simply to show a decline in the role of religion in society. However, I consider that to be mostly irrelevant (I was simply pointing that out in response to Keith).
My more relevant point to his post was that religious diversity was a sign of movement in a more 'progressive' (in the sense that progressive is the polar to the word 'conservative', not in the 'progressive' that identifies lefty statists) direction, not a sign of conservative social values.
re: "Well done! You’ve identified exactly the issue my tolerance test was designed to smoke out."
In other words, Neil is willing to put the worst distortions of what market anarchists want front and center if he perceives others as insufficiently bourgeois. Thanks, Neil.
"the number of people in the U.S. that identify a belief in God(s) or that regularly attend any service in any religion has drastically declined."
Yes, I'm aware of that.
"I also would counter that equating the amount of ‘religiosity’ in the U.S. with conservative social beliefs is fallacious, since by no means does faith in any particular religion equal conservative values socially."
Agreed. See the Japanese and Chinese.
"I’d argue that religious diversity is an OUTGROWTH of ‘progressive’ social movement, not an indicator of conservative values."
Religious diversity could be attributed in part to the "progressive" achievement of separating church and state, but as we know separating church and state does not mean that all religions will be "progressive" or "liberal." Likewise, separating culture and state does not mean that all cultural norms, institutions, or associations will be "progressive" or "liberal."
"As for your point about those social movements moving along with the State, I think that’s irrelevant – that’s attacking the messenger for their political associations, and thus discounting the message."
But is also shows that any social movement can be corrupted or coopted by the state, or become authoritarian in its own right, even if its underlying premises are ostensibly "progressive."
"I only mentioned that the ISSUES of hierarchy, sexism, etc were vital – and those issues can (and very often are) addressed in ways that neither align themselves with the State, or violate the NAP."
Well, sure. Of course, there's also the question of how to define "hierarchy" or "sexism" in the first place. I'd argue there are natural and artificial hierarchies, as well as voluntary and coercive ones. Some hierarchies are legitimate in my estimation, others are not. With issues like "sexism" or "racism," while these things obviously have a real existence, I'd argue that the trend for some time has been to define these things in an ever more open-ended and imprecise way, thereby diluting the content of their definition to a degree that makes claims of this type increasingly dubious. There's also the wider question of strategic considerations and resource allocation that Spangler raised earlier.
"Religious diversity could be attributed in part to the “progressive” achievement of separating church and state, but as we know separating church and state does not mean that all religions will be “progressive” or “liberal.” Likewise, separating culture and state does not mean that all cultural norms, institutions, or associations will be “progressive” or “liberal.”"
I don't think that all cultural norms will be 'liberal' – but I DO think that tradition tends to be ground under the heel of history at some point or another as society changes – so when I am identifying cultural 'conservatives' I'm identifying people who wish to cling to tradition, people who have the argument that 'the old ways are the best', people who seem to see progress as a scourge. Granted, I'm being very broad here, but I'm doing so only for the point of illustrating the larger picture: being 'progressive' can be dangerous, since often GOOD ideas are discarded for the sake of NEW ideas. However, being 'conservative' can be just as dangerous to a societies health, as 'this is how we've always done it' becomes a euphamism for stymieing society, for maintaining a status quo. So perhaps from that standpoint you WOULD call me more socially centrist.
As for the argument that any social movement can be co-opted by the State – sure, no question, but it seemed that you were specifically dissociating with ISSUES because their movements had been co-opted. If you disagree with the importance of, or even the definition of, these issues, I have no problem with that – but I think it's disingenuous when people (not saying you did this deliberately) in the ancap (or even in the Right Statist camps) conflate the ISSUES with the groups that are behind those issues. Am I concerned with environmental issues? Yes. Do I support Greenpeace or the ELF? Hell no. Am I concerned with issues that minorities face? Yes. Do I support the NAACP? No.
As for strategy considerations and resource allocation – I'd argue that as long as we are all working towards ending the State, then there's no harm in any 'extra' resources being used for other projects that individuals or groups deem important. It's like Google's 80/20 rule – you spend 80% of your time on company stuff, and 20% on personal projects – the advantage being that those personal projects often develop into full blown Google projects (gmail, Google cal, etc).
Well, like I said, downdurst, I don't know you, so I wasn't talking about you in particular. Just about people who say many of the same things and align with the same crowd.
"if gays wanted government to force the Church to marry them" isn't as far-fetched as it sounds, given what's going on up in Canada.
The situation of gays in a stateless society is precisely the same as the situation of gays right now in, say, Texas. They can have sex with who they want to, move in with who they want to, merge finances with who they want to, leave their property to who they want to when they die, designate whoever they want to as their proxy and representative while they're alive, call themselves "married" if they feel like it, and if they want to have a big ceremony in a church, they can find churches that'll do the deed. And if anyone attempts to dispute them _with force_, they're allowed to be as well-armed as necessary to repel such a criminal.
Opposing "same-sex marriage" is about making sure that the rest of us retain that last right as well. Which, in places where the state hands out a marriage license to two people of the same sex, we don't. Because in those places, the criminal employing force to dispute our opinion is the state itself.
You're free to think that my opinion is crazy. Like I've said before, I'm a libertarian…I'm used to people thinking I'm crazy, and accustomed to living at peace with them anyway.
But "it'll be anarchist paradise…but of course we'll still be able to sue the Knights of Columbus for discrimination if they refuse to host lesbian wedding receptions in their hall" won't fly.
(And yes, "you" does not equal "you, 'downdurst', personally". I do not assume that you personally believe these things, and in light of the last few posts would actually bet that you don't. But even if you don't personally suffer from the contradiction, the contradiction is nevertheless loose in the anarchist meme-stream, and it concentrates near the bank with which you self-identify. I assume that exploring such contradictions is the point of this thread.)
Brad Spangler,
Only someone steeped in Marxism gives a flying fuck whether or not someone or something is or is not "bourgeouis."
That is a clear Marxist class-theory trope which individualists — anarchist or not — deny has any meaning in any sort of analysis.
And that you use it to smear me reflect badly back on you and tends to call into question whether you are an individualist or a collectivist class theorist in your base premises and analysis.
Here we get to the core problem with "left libertarianism." Samuel Edward Konkin III started the Movement of the Libertarian Left as a way to teach individualist premises to anti-state collectivists. Instead, it has been used as a means of many stripes of anarchist collectivists to attempt to infiltrate Marxist, Bakuninist, and even Tuckerist collectivism into the libertarian movement.
One of the reasons I decided to join the BoD of the Center for a Stateless Society was to bring orthodox Konkinism back into play. SEK3 was always an orthodox individualist and Austrian economist.
His legacy is worth defending.
Neil
Neil
Matt –
"Opposing “same-sex marriage” is about making sure that the rest of us retain that last right as well. Which, in places where the state hands out a marriage license to two people of the same sex, we don’t. Because in those places, the criminal employing force to dispute our opinion is the state itself."
I'm not sure I entirely understand your reasoning here, I'll admit. What 'last right' are you trying to retain by opposing same-sex marriage? The right to have a legally protected opinion about what marriage is? Who is disputing heterosexual rights to marry? WHERE in the debate over same-sex marriage have you seen that? I'd be honestly curious, and no, I would never support that.
Should 'X' organization be allowed to say 'we don't want to participate in a gay marriage ceremony?' Of course, and I've met very few proponents of same-sex marriage that would argue otherwise. But should people of the same-sex be denied the same legal right as those of opposite sex? No, and for all the same reasons.
Ideally the State shouldn't be involved in marriage period. If two people want to call themselves 'married', striaght, gay, bi, tri, or quad sexual, why is that the State's business? But in the interim, I think it's perfectly valid for gay couples to say that they have the right to obtain a marriage license from the State in the same way that heterosexual couples do. The unfortunate reality is that we all have to work with the State until it's gone – in the same way that the slavewas dependent upon the largess of the plantation owner. Given that as the case, there's nothing wrong in arguing that at the very least we should be treated the same way by the State when it comes to who's allowed to get a license for something. So in the same way that blacks aren't barred from a fishing license, gays shouldn't be barred from a marriage license.
I'd take issue with the notion that libertarianism is just a matter of politics or law. Libertarian law is the application of specific principles to the law of a given context (say anarchy or minarchy). To argue that those principles become meaningless beyond the reach of those laws, doesn't make much sense. So I guess I'd agree with KP about the characteristics of anarchy, but that all ethical ideology, including libertarianism, are necessarily thick. Where I might differ from other thick left-libertarians is that I think thickness can protect cultural values from leftism as justified by libertarian principles. My own tendencies tend left or center-left (or moderate depending on the locale), but I don't deny the traditionalists their opportunity to defend what's important to them.
Correction: I meant BoA instead of BoD in the previous message.
re: "tends to call into question whether you are an individualist or a collectivist class theorist in your base premises and analysis."
Right, because not bowing to the cultural totems you personally erect means someone has to also be flawed in terms of actual theory… somewhere… if you could only find it…
The "last right" refers to the previous paragraph in my comment, and its list of certain rights that homosexuals have, vis a vis their personal relationships, even in socially conservative places like Texas. Specifically, it refers to the right to defend oneself against anyone who tries to bring force into the argument. I listed a bunch of items, and that was simply the last item on the list. Sorry about the confusion.
For a gay person in Texas who wants to call himself "married", a person bringing force to the dispute would be called a "criminal", and if he didn't desist at once in his threat or use of force, the gay person in question would be regarded by the law and the society as eminently justified in shooting him dead. As it should.
For a Catholic organization in Canada (and coming soon to Massachussetts, DC, and California!) that doesn't want to call the gay person "married", the person bringing force into the dispute would be called a "police officer" or "judge", and even in the extremely unlikely event that the Catholics put into that situation were allowed by their political overlords to be armed at all, the law would still take the side of the aggressor, as would every person on the "libertarian" left I've ever encountered. (The position of the rest of the left is predictable…state worshippers will generally side with the state. Duh.)
AH, ok, but I think that you are blurring the lines here a bit. I'm not arguing that gays should have 'special' rights to marry that heterosexuals don't. I'm arguing that they should have the same right to marry that heterosexuals do.
As to the idea that a Catholic org must 'legally' recognize a gay person as married, I agree, that's stupid, but again that's a dispute regarding a special right, not a dispute with the general right of gays to obtain the same license that heteros have. So to say you are opposed to 'same-sex marriage' is incorrect; you are opposed to granting one group rights that they other group doesn't. Correct?
Then in that regard, we are on the same page.
I am opposed to the end of freedom of conscience and freedom of association. But that battle's been lost since 11 years before I was born, so I'm just working in the real world.
A marriage license is not like other licenses, though. A license to hunt, or fish, or drive, or practice a trade, or whatever, confers upon its posessor the privilege of participating in an activity which, without the license, he would be prohibited from doing by law. Like any good minarchist-leaning-anarchist, I abhor all of the underlying restrictions, and will actively support the removal of as many as can be effectively done away with, at any and every opportunity. And while the underlying restrictions remain, I'm wholeheartedly in favor of absolute nondiscrimination in the issuance of those licenses, on any subjective basis whatsoever. Gay, straight, black, white, purple, Christian, atheist, Mormon, worshipper of the flying spaghetti monster or Cthulu, citizen or noncitizen…whatever. Open access. I'm for it.
But what activity associated with the word "marriage" do you actually need a marriage license for, in the sense that drivers need a license to drive, fishermen need a license to fish, hunters need a license to hunt, etc? What behavior is permitted by the state in people who posess a marriage license, but prohibited in those who do not?
I will concede two points, for the record. "Married" people have a larger income tax exemption from the federal government (and presumably most states that have their own income tax, although I haven't done the research on that) than "single" people do. This is also unjust, and until we can get rid of the income tax, I'd support a system which makes the exemption the same for everybody. And Social Security survivor benefits, likewise. Until we can kill Social Security, a person should be able to designate whoever they choose as the recipient of their survivor benefits when they die, just like they already can with privately-run insurance and investment plans.
But the survivor benefit from Social Security is tiny, and the difference between "single" and "married" exemptions on the federal income tax is not much bigger, so I don't think they can really explain the tremendous effort thrown behind the attempt to redefine what "marriage" means.
What else do heterosexual couples with a marriage certificate from the state have, which homosexual couples seeking a marriage certificate from the state currently lack?
Besides, of course, the right to enforce their definition against nonconsenting third parties at the point of a gun. Which you concede they ought not have the right to do, and I contend is the only viable explanation for the ferocity of their campaign.
Brad Spangler,
"Bourgeois" is your Marxist-derived cultural totem. Not mine.
You're attacking your own heresy.
Neil
Keith Preston,
Well done! You’ve identified exactly the issue my tolerance test was designed to smoke out.
Neil
Keith,
I think we are largely on the same page, though from different sides of the coin. I don’t, personally, think that conservative social values would survive in an anarchist society for very long – I think that simple sociological pressure of ‘new ideas’ will always eventually kill off ‘traditional values’. So in other words, though I hate the label, you could say I’m coming from a more ‘left’ side of things.
But in the end, that’s a discussion that has nothing to do with libertarianism. The only reason that it becomes an issue NOW is because the State gets INVOLVED in these social issues, so as libertarians/anarchists, we then end up involved ourselves.
It’s sort of like if you have a roommate who is heavily involved in drugs, yet you yourself are clean. Even though you have no direct interest or involvement in their drug-use, the unfortunate aspect of having a roommate on drugs is that you end up having to interact with people in that world, whether you want to or not.
In that sense, our involvement with the State “pulls us down” into judging issues that aren’t purely libertarian ones from a libertarian standpoint, because the State has dragged them into the ring with it.
I happen to think that the issues raised about hierarchy, racism, sexism, classism, etc are all vitally important ones – from that standpoint I completely agree with traditional anarchists – I just don’t think that they are issues that are strictly speaking anarchic in nature.
The only time I, as a Catholic, would care is if gays wanted the government to force the CHURCH to marry gays
From a practical perspective, who cares even then? It's pretty arrogant of an (anti-gay) church to assume that gays are chomping at the bit to be married at that particular site. Seeing as there are plenty of liberal churches or non-religious institutions that could offer marriage services, the probability of a gay couple seeking out a bigoted church is of the same order of magnitude as their opting to spend their honeymoon in a war zone.
AH, ok, but I think that you are blurring the lines here a bit. I’m not arguing that gays should have ’special’ rights to marry that heterosexuals don’t.
It's not a special right; there's no circumstance in which the state would force a private organization to recognize a same-sex marriage in which it wouldn't also force the organization to recognize a heterosexual marriage. For that matter, there aren't many circumstances in which the state would force a private organization to recognize a marriage, period.
"It’s pretty arrogant of an (anti-gay) church to assume that gays are chomping at the bit to be married at that particular site. Seeing as there are plenty of liberal churches or non-religious institutions that could offer marriage services, the probability of a gay couple seeking out a bigoted church is of the same order of magnitude as their opting to spend their honeymoon in a war zone."
Canada.
Until Canada preceded us down this road, it was still reasonable to believe that the battle was about freedom for homosexuals. In light of the evidence, it is no longer reasonable to believe that. It's about giving a politically-cohesive minority access to the coercive power of the state to use as a club to beat their philosophical opponents with.
Stirner is fun to read, but he undermines his case in every line; he claims to recognise no authority or standard beyond his own will, but all his arguments implicitly presuppose the authority of reason.
And I think a personal god is just Diet Logic.
Dr.Long, I was wondering if you're familiar with Roy Clouser's <a href="//undpress.nd.edu/book/P01009" rel="nofollow">The Myth of Religious Neutrality. He shows that the idea of a Creator outside the structure of reality is not unintelligible, but that indeed both theists and atheists alike have an idea of the independent reality that underlies everything else, upon which everything else depends.
Baus, that sounds in line with my own thoughts on the subject though I'm more sympathetic to the deist/pantheist/panentheist way of thinking — atheism just bothers me. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
No, I haven't read Clouser; I'll give it a look.
I read a comment by Roderick earlier that it is important to distinguish between "being comfortable" and "favoring legal restriction on". I completely agree.
All of these things should be legal, with the exception of #2, because undergarments do not suppress smells or prevent stuff from leaking out. So if they are on someone else's property, that's like bio-vandalism. However, if a person is on his own property, he can go for it, but in the case that his actions result in health issues for their kids/uninformed others, he will have to pay for it.
#6 is insulting. How can he ask IF people have the right to do anything to their bodies? I own my body and I can do whatever.
Proper link for Clouser's book is here:
http://undpress.nd.edu/book/P01009