There’s no issue with that. I hope you realize that the Great Plains is more or less the most Catholic friendly I know save for culturally Catholic countries (The population is about 20%-30% Catholic here…). There may not be any explicit Catholic neighborhoods, but the Catholic communities here are quite obvious and open (even to non-Catholics).
I posted a really long-toothed thread which pointed out that what you feel is conservative may not be conservative elsewhere. A prime example of this fact is the social acceptance/integration of male homosexuality in Thailand. Are they conservative? Is social conservatism relative?
Well I think that there are some old Irish and Italian neighborhoods on the east coast that got the Midwest beat on that, tbh. Though I must say that despite the presence of Protestants here in the midwest, there is indeed a strong Catholic presence.
I think that what I wrote is an accurate rendering of your position. To be even more accurate : you said you “like” beer. Now, if you regularly drink beer, you’re a drug user and possibly a drug addict. So be warned, all your ranting and ‘theories’ fully apply to you.
I am fairly cetain that in Toledo Ohio Catholics are the majority, there is even a very stong Eastern Orthodox community there, When I left the state I was suprised to see how much of a minority Catholocism actually is (I was also shocked as to how few Germans/ Irish there are in proportion to the normal populations, in toledo that is probably close to 75% of the pop.)
Midwest != Greatplains. Ohio is in the Midwest, not the Greatplains.
The Greatplains contains the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas (technically), Missouri, Iowa, and Minnesota. So, what I stated is accurate for the Greatplains.
I’m willing to “formally” debate on the following points:
Manorialism is a possible form of organization in a stateless society, but not the only one. There is no reason to believe (so far) that it will even be the dominant form.
There is no reason believe that every natural elite “owner” of manorial type arrangements will be a cultural conservative and force his tenants to be culturally conservative or move out… though it is probable that some will.
Not everyone who is irreligious, does drugs moderately, has blue hair, has tattoos, is not exactly what Giles wants them to be etc., has high time preferences and will die off naturally or at best become marginalized outcasts in a stateless society.
It is not “self evident,” that “conservatives live longer.”
I know you’re hoping to debate someone who absolutely disagrees with manorialism; and I think they should debate you and am in fact surprised by their refusal to do so; but if you want to debate about my 4 points I’m up for it.
One of the defining characteristics about classical liberalism and libertarianism is that they are philosophies of cultural tolerance.I think we ought not to forget this.
While I myself am a “cultural conservative”, and personally do not take to drug, alcohol or various other kinds of substance abuse and other high time preference activities, I find it hard to believe, as Giles seems to claim, that the culture will entirely die out. It is true that the individuals who practice such lifestyles most likely do have higher time preferences and therefore will be less likely to obtain wealth in an anarchocapitalist society. However this won’t necessarily mean they will cease to exist or be completely marginalized. It means that they might make up a larger part of the labor force, both skilled and unskilled, and are unlikely to ever form any strong family based natural aristocracies, as their values don’t emphasize family strength.
The way I see it, there is also no reason to believe the church would become any more relevant than it is now. In fact, while today we need religious reasons to see the “evils” of alcohol, drugs etc. It is my belief that these things will become “evil” for economic reasons, as their maliciousness will become naked before god and not guised under the safety net of welfare, public healthcare and education. If anything, the incentive of entry into heaven the church provides will be replaced by the incentive to behave or suffer of cold hard reality.
Furthermore, parents will be forced into taking more responsibility for their children, and those who made what they consider the wrong choices in their lives, will make sure their children don’t suffer a similar fate. That is not to say that all children will then never come close co cultural leftism again and the whole social movement will die out entirely. People from even the most respected families will make poor choices, fall into the wrong crowd and pursue alternative lifestyles.
My belief here is that the amount of “cultural rightism” and “cultural leftism” will reach some sort of equilibrium.
I also believe that the amount of cultural leftism will be significantly diminished (but not entirely marginalized or destroyed) and I believe this for these reasons.
There are stronger economic incentives for lower time preference lifestyles
Aside from help from charities that will most likely try and lower your time preference, teach you the ways of the conservative etc. Every poor decision such as getting addicted to crack, will lead to misery or demise.
Even leftist parents will be more likely to keep their children away from such lifestyles
Strong family legacies will provide positive role-models
I haven’t been around here that long, I just based it on what others seem to be claiming. Haven’t seen any evidence to support it or not support it - sorry if its not the truth.
No need to apologise, I can imagine it would appear to be the case that my basement is full of imprisoned drug users and other leftists from the impression Juan and BP give.
In the long run both will be wiped out by cultural libertarianism. Just like the pathetic delusions of ancient religions are now forgotten, the delusions of westerners will be forgotten too, ‘thank god’.
Well, given that revealed religion is delusion it’s quite likely that the evils you see are delusions as well.
ps : It’s funny that Giles rants against drugs given that he’s a drug user.
Even if you can prove that small quantaties of beer are bad for you (which they aren’t) all you’ve shown is that I possess some degree of time preference. Anymore profound insights?
What do you see cultural libertarianism being? I find it hard to believe that things such as religions, abstaining from drugs, not taking too kindly on homosexuality et al can die out any more so than the opposite can.
I’m not saying they are some sort of objective evil, I just don’t think they lead to a happy or fulfilled life as much as other recreational activities such as sports. I’m saying that this effect will become more obvious in a society where economically haphazard lifestyles aren’t subsidized
Personally, I’d like to answer that question. I think more or less a culturally libertarian society wouldn’t look too different from today’s societies save for three obvious features.
More common respect for person and property or in a catchphrase: Manners will be ‘king.’
Stigmas surrounding sexual and ethnic minorities will die out as hedonistic practices will return to normal levels (temperance becomes the norm whereas hedonism in all forms declines…).
Religions and philosophies will flourish in diversity (with no single monopoly on the population’s education, even deep seated beliefs in institutions like the Roman Catholic Church will be challenged, and it too will change radically to align itself in such a world…).
Personally, I think ‘culturally libertarianism’ is nonsense. This seems to imply that one has no preferences, or is culturally ‘neutral’. Ladyattis most certainly has socially liberal preferences. Rothbard was Mr Libertarian, but had mostly socially conservative values. In fact I can remember reading an essay where Rothbard rejected the notion that libertarianism is anything other than an economic ideology.
The opposite of cultural conservatism, cultural conservatism being the belief that an arbitrary set of traditions represent the true, god-ordained natural order and proper human behavior.
As I already mentioned, in the long run, all revealed religions indeed die off.
Whether individuals take drugs or not is frankly irrelevant and it’s not a cultural matter anyway.
I’m not sure what "taking too kindly on homosexuality " means. I’d point out, for instance, that human males seem to find female homosexuality rather ‘interesting’. Maybe that’s because of state’s subsidy of ‘cultural marxism’ ?
It seems that people who prefer drugs instead of sports think just the opposite.
However I do believe that there will be far more tolerance, far less hedonism, far less social leftism and possibly slightly less religion in an economically Libertarian society, than there is today. There is no way to say these predictions are right but they are, I believe, likely.