Human Flourishing as the Basis for Thick Libertarianism

[wombatron]

(I agree with everything Cain has said up to here)

@liberty student

This, as we discuss it here, is not about individualism. It is entirely about collectivism. A universal set of VALUES. Not personal values. Not variety in values. A universal ethic about women, about race, about workplace interaction, about relationships. Where it comes into conflict with them, it does not recognize property lines, it does not recognize voluntary relationships.

I’ve been going back and forth with these folks for a good year, and yesterday/today, the pieces all fell into place.

The way I see it, the universal parts of ethics and politics make possible the unique specifics of each person’s flourishing. Human beings are similar enough that we can talk about a generalized human nature; otherwise, any attempt at a universal objective ethic would be an exercise in futility.

And, like I said before, any opposition to non-aggressive social evils must be non-aggressive itself. There should be no initiation of force against property or non-coercive relationships.

[nirgrahamUK]

@wombatron

And, like I said before, any opposition to non-aggressive social evils must be non-aggressive itself. There should be no initiation of force against property or non-coercive relationships.

does this imply that any opposition is neither on political nor moral grounds. it seems it must…

[wilderness]

@wombatron

And, like I said before, any opposition to non-aggressive social evils must be non-aggressive itself. There should be no initiation of force against property or non-coercive relationships.

If so, then what’s all the hype about left libertarianism? I understand Plauche’s social justice, I think, and I agree with that. I don’t think that makes me left or right. I think it means I can use my own judgement and shop when and where I want.

[wombatron]

@Nitroadict

One piece still doesn’t fit well with me, though. What becomes of the LL talk of pluralism? Wouldn’t a universal set of values sort of contradict it?

That’s a debate that we’ve been having pretty hard lately [:)]

The way I see it, pluralism is the proper position between relativism on one side, and absolutism on the other. If one were to go absolutely relativist, you would have to stop arguing against even aggression; who are you to criticize what other people do? And absolutism has the opposite error of attempting to universalize the particular. I think the general LL consensus is that pluralism is properly understood as having universal values that allow maximum personal autonomy.

[Stephen_Forde]

@liberty student

@Stephen Forde

Dude, I’m sorry, but this is rife with errors.

Only because you jump into the discussion here, when Wombatron and I have been discussing these topics on multiple platforms for some time. You’re assuming the context is exclusive to this thread.

@Stephen Forde

After all, you are claiming, implicitly, that everyone (universally) ought not to educate others on how to live their lives.

I will explain explicitly, that I am not. Again, you’re lacking context on a discussion that has been ongoing for weeks if not months.

@Stephen Forde

Except for Rothbard, Hoppe, and Kinsella, their critics notwithstanding.

Offtopic. I have limited time for this discussion. You should start a new thread.

@Stephen Forde

“Market outcomes” is not a singular determinant. It’s a range of possiblities. It doesn’t follow from fact that he prefers of some of these possibilities to others, that he doesn’t prefer market outcomes.

sigh, context again.

I started reading the other thread. Your right. I’m getting the context more now. What other thread besides “The Libertarian Revolution: The Proletariat Revolution?” have you been arguing in?

[nirgrahamUK]

you can click on someones name and see where they have been posting.

[liberty_student]

@wombatron

The way I see it, the universal parts of ethics and politics make possible the unique specifics of each person’s flourishing. Human beings are similar enough that we can talk about a generalized human nature; otherwise, any attempt at a universal objective ethic would be an exercise in futility.

I agree with the latter portion of your quote.

The key error is generalizing human nature. You are incapable of generalizing human nature outside the narrow experience and conception you have of existence. All Utopians do this. It is collectivization.

@wombatron

And, like I said before, any opposition to non-aggressive social evils must be non-aggressive itself. There should be no initiation of force against property or non-coercive relationships.

This is as pointless as a free market union trying to collectively bargain without privilege. And I don’t believe it for a second, because as you believe that racism leads to lynchings, I believe that collectivism leads to violence and tyranny.

[liberty_student]

@Stephen Forde

I started reading the other thread. Your right. I’m getting the context more now. What other thread besides “The Libertarian Revolution: The Proletariat Revolution?” have you been arguing in?

We’ve argued privately, on Google groups and maybe even discussed on Twitter as well. Wherever I see Wombatron, I pursue him!

[wilderness]

@wombatron

@Nitroadict

One piece still doesn’t fit well with me, though. What becomes of the LL talk of pluralism? Wouldn’t a universal set of values sort of contradict it?

That’s a debate that we’ve been having pretty hard lately

The way I see it, pluralism is the proper position between relativism on one side, and absolutism on the other. If one were to go absolutely relativist, you would have to stop arguing against even aggression; who are you to criticize what other people do? And absolutism has the opposite error of attempting to universalize the particular. I think the general LL consensus is that pluralism is properly understood as having universal values that allow maximum personal autonomy.

Help clear this up for me. Is pluralism to be a law?

If not, then all this talk is about social norms and how a society ought to live together, but without the law to enforce such “universal values”. And I’m excluding natural law of human nature (natural rights) from “universal values” to distinguish the curiosity in my question.

[wombatron]

@nirgrahamUK

@wombatron

And, like I said before, any opposition to non-aggressive social evils must be non-aggressive itself. There should be no initiation of force against property or non-coercive relationships.

does this imply that any opposition is neither on political nor moral grounds. it seems it must…

I would say that it is on both moral and political grounds. But I am probably using a different definition of “political” than you are…

[wombatron]

@wilderness

Help clear this up for me. Is pluralism to be a law?

If not, then all this talk is about social norms and how a society ought to live together, but without the law to enforce such “universal values”. And I’m excluding natural law of human nature (natural rights) from “universal values” to distinguish the curiosity in my question.

No, it isn’t law, in the sense of being backed by force.

[wilderness]

@wombatron

@wilderness

Help clear this up for me. Is pluralism to be a law?

If not, then all this talk is about social norms and how a society ought to live together, but without the law to enforce such “universal values”. And I’m excluding natural law of human nature (natural rights) from “universal values” to distinguish the curiosity in my question.

No, it isn’t law, in the sense of being backed by force.

Ok.[:)]

In the society you are advocating would there be any law since I left out natural rights in my questioning previously? And I don’t want to turn this into a discussion on natural rights for that comes up often enough in other threads, but I’m trying to get a sense of your defining.

[wombatron]

@liberty student

I agree with the latter portion of your quote.

The key error is generalizing human nature. You are incapable of generalizing human nature outside the narrow experience and conception you have of existence. All Utopians do this. It is collectivization.

And I think you are making the opposite error; the Vichy mistake, if you will [:)]

I do think that it is possible to talk about a generalized human nature, by reflecting on what it means to be human.

@liberty student

This is as pointless as a free market union trying to collectively bargain without privilege. And I don’t believe it for a second, because as you believe that racism leads to lynchings, I believe that collectivism leads to violence and tyranny.

I don’t see it as collectivism; I see it as a properly grounded individualism, opposed to collectivism on one side and amoral individualism on the other.

[wombatron]

@wilderness

Ok.

In the society you are advocating would there be any law since I left out natural rights in my questioning previously? And I don’t want to turn this into a discussion on natural rights for that comes up often enough in other threads, but I’m trying to get a sense of your defining.

Yes, I do think there is a natural right to life, liberty, and property. And force should be used in defense of those. So yes, there would be law.

[Lilburne]

wombatron,

For the sake of knowing where you’re coming from, I’d really like to get your take on what I wrote below, because I really think you, Brainpolice, and others are needlessly and harmfully trying to divide the anarchist-libertarian movement. It’s one thing to call out libertarian bigots. It’s another thing entirely to denounce libertarians for not being strident enough against bigotry for your preference.

wombatron,

Thank you for this primer on thick libertarianism. It’s just the kind of summation I’ve been wanting to read.

As can be seen from my recent run-in with Giles, I abhor bigotry. So I’m definitely with you in supporting non-aggressive means of combatting bigotry.

However, I think thick libertarians (is that really the moniker you want?) err in placing that worthy stance within the concept of libertarianism. Certainly the ideals of anti-bigotry resonate with libertarianism, but that does not make it part of libertarianism. You wrote:

That’s what “thin libertarianism” is all about; if it isn’t aggression, it isn’t a concern for libertarian politics.

The bit after the semi-colon seems to be a tautology. Politics is all about the polis, or state. The state is the state by virtue of its aggression. Libertarianism is a doctrine about politics-- about the state (namely that it shouldn’t exist). So by definition, aggression is the sole concern for libertarian politics. If aggression isn’t involved, the state isn’t involved. If the state isn’t involved, then it’s not a matter of politics. Anti-bigotry is an important issue. But it’s a social issue: not a political one.

I am glad you don’t advocate aggression in response to bigotry. But by wrongly classifying bigotry as a political issue, you place it in an ambiguous position between vice and crime. This position could very easily tempt future thick libertarians into nudging it fully into the crime column.

I will readily call out bigotry for the disgusting thing that it is. But I do so as a libertarian who also happens to be a decent non-bigoted person, not as some new kind of libertarian.

[wilderness]

@wombatron

I do think that it is possible to talk about a generalized human nature, by reflecting on what it means to be human.

Aside from natural rights law that I inquired in another post…

I completely agree. Human biology is a science for one. Humans have one head, but there are oddities (a body with two heads), doesn’t make them ethically more or less human but their biology, can’t think of the scientific term, isn’t “normal”.

[wilderness]

@wombatron

@wilderness

Ok.

In the society you are advocating would there be any law since I left out natural rights in my questioning previously? And I don’t want to turn this into a discussion on natural rights for that comes up often enough in other threads, but I’m trying to get a sense of your defining.

Yes, I do think there is a natural right to life, liberty, and property. And force should be used in defense of those. So yes, there would be law.

Then I think we are on the same page.

Not quite sure why pluralism can’t be explored. If I eat healthy food, then the greater probably I’ll be healthy. A step further - if somebody wants to honor buddha they can, but if somebody doesn’t want to and decides to honor Christ instead, then they can - and - if a third person wants to honor Buddha and Christ then ok so be it. That’s their liberty - to pursue happiness.

[wombatron]

@Lilburne

wombatron,

For the sake of knowing where you’re coming from, I’d really like to get your take on what I wrote below, because I really think you, Brainpolice, and others are needlessly and harmfully trying to divide the anarchist-libertarian movement. It’s one thing to call out libertarian bigots. It’s another thing entirely to denounce libertarians for not being strident enough against bigotry for your preference.

wombatron,

Thank you for this primer on thick libertarianism. It’s just the kind of summation I’ve been wanting to read.

As can be seen from my recent run-in with Giles, I abhor bigotry. So I’m definitely with you in supporting non-aggressive means of combatting bigotry.

However, I think thick libertarians (is that really the moniker you want?) err in placing that worthy stance within the concept of libertarianism. Certainly the ideals of anti-bigotry resonate with libertarianism, but that does not make it part of libertarianism. You wrote:

That’s what “thin libertarianism” is all about; if it isn’t aggression, it isn’t a concern for libertarian politics.

The bit after the semi-colon seems to be a tautology. Politics is all about the polis, or state. The state is the state by virtue of its aggression. Libertarianism is a doctrine about politics-- about the state (namely that it shouldn’t exist). So by definition, aggression is the sole concern for libertarian politics. If aggression isn’t involved, the state isn’t involved. If the state isn’t involved, then it’s not a matter of politics. Anti-bigotry is an important issue. But it’s a social issue: not a political one.

I am glad you don’t advocate aggression in response to bigotry. But by wrongly classifying bigotry as a political issue, you place it in an ambiguous position between vice and crime. This position could very easily tempt future thick libertarians into nudging it fully into the crime column.

I will readily call out bigotry for the disgusting thing that it is. But I do so as a libertarian who also happens to be a decent non-bigoted person, not as some new kind of libertarian.

I think the main problem we have is a difference in defintions. What I mean by politics is “the joint pursuit of eudaimonia by equals”'; basically, social ethics. I see the traditional libertarian definition of “politics” as lying within that. It is a point of confusion, but the main reason I stick with that definition is to stay on the same page as other Aristotelian thinkers.

And I see your point about vice and crime, but I don’t think that this is a problem unique to thick libertarianism. It could happen to any society, at any point when the proper grounding for principles is ignored or forgotten.

I also don’t see a strict dichotomy between vice and crime; crimes are a species of vice. This may also make a difference in our perspectives.

[liberty_student]

@wombatron

And I think you are making the opposite error; the Vichy mistake, if you will

I do think that it is possible to talk about a generalized human nature, by reflecting on what it means to be human.

As I pointed out, you’re an anti-racist who I don’t believe understands what racism is. Certainly I don’t think you’re in touch with the racism I have dealt with.

That is because you’re limited by the scope of your experience. We all are. Constructing a universal ethic, based on generalizations about human nature that you cannot possibly have experienced or been exposed to in its entirety (if that is even possible) seems really, really insincere (or naive) to me.

“Vichy mistake” is a low blow. But I probably deserve it. [;)] Nonetheless, I disagree. This is an epistemological problem. The foundation of your ethic is a claim to understand what you cannot know.

@wombatron

I don’t see it as collectivism; I see it as a properly grounded individualism, opposed to collectivism on one side and amoral individualism on the other.

Why do you see collectivism and amoral individualism as the same? Are you talking about ethical nihilism? Do you see thin libertarianism as ethical nihilism, and do you consider all variances on your ethics as amoral?

[wombatron]

@liberty student

As I pointed out, you’re an anti-racist who I don’t believe understands what racism is. Certainly I don’t think you’re in touch with the racism I have dealt with.

My comments were just meant to be an example of possible manifestations, not what I think all racism is. I don’t have much experience on the receiving side of racism, but I have seen a fair share; I live in a rather bigoted corner of the US.

@liberty student

That is because you’re limited by the scope of your experience. We all are. Constructing a universal ethic, based on generalizations about human nature that you cannot possibly have experienced or been exposed to in its entirety (if that is even possible) seems really, really insincere (or naive) to me.

“Vichy mistake” is a low blow. But I probably deserve it. Nonetheless, I disagree. This is an epistemological problem. The foundation of your ethic is a claim to understand what you cannot know.

And thus do we descend into the depths of epistemology…

@liberty student

Why do you see collectivism and amoral individualism as the same? Are you talking about ethical nihilism? Do you see thin libertarianism as ethical nihilism, and do you consider all variances on your ethics as amoral?

I don’t see them as the same, I see them as both being wrong. Its a Randian trichotomy, like subjective/objective/intrinsic or altruism/selfishness/selfishness-without-a-self. And I do see thin libertarianism as being more towards ethical nihilism; not fully so, but on a continuum between a properly grounded individualism and amoralism/ethical nihilism.