I converted Long’s paper to PDF (link).
If there are “positive obligations”, are there “negative obligations”?
An unenforceable duty to contribute to charity, for example, does not contradict the NAP.
Take the example of strategic thickness and racism: thicklibs argue that libertarians should oppose racism, even if it doesn’t violate any rights, because a racist society is unlikely to stay libertarian; without a widespread respect for individual personhood, people in a racist society are more likely to do things that do actually violate rights.
For more on this see Charles Johnson’s “Libertarianism through Thick and Thin”.
gives Sage a brownie
This debate probably won’t go well.
Can you answer my question? ^^
Is a society that allows racism or, more accurately, one that legally enforces rights of free association, a racist society?
I guess if we’re rolling up the cannons here is Block’s Plumb-Line Libertarianism: A Critique of Hoppe.
We do understand that Sage is arguing about non-legal social justice, correct?
I mean I teach my son to love others. I don’t teach him to hate other people of color. Essentially that’s what I think Sage is saying. If a community decides upon this spontaneously, then such a community exists too.
I understand now, thank you. I believe this is conflating political philosophy, with personal ethics. Whether someone opposes racism, or not, whether they should contribute to charity or not - is a personal affair. More or less, those who make arguments for or against are in the general ethicist sphere, no longer political philosophy. The whole ‘thick’ / ‘thin’ divide seems to me to be due to the ignorance of this fact.
Libertarianism is neither left, nor right. Imo, it’s just the authors beliefs in what will happen when people are given the freedom to act, some think the masses will move towards “conservatism”, the others.. whatever you want to call it. But both sides are trying to capture or make use of the label.
Both should have nothing to do with Libertarianism and essentially don’t.
WTF is that supposed to mean? =)
It is just so incoherent having an “unenforceable claim”, or whatever this is about. I had totally forgotten about this thick/thin silliness when I devised my “ethical-aesthetical vs. moral-legal divide” thing.
I’m married outside of my race. My wife likes a bit of theory but isn’t as serious as me. I remember our talk one day about how this sort of thing is kind of a “leap of faith”.
Plauche used that word in an article of his. It has to do with the example I gave. I could pull it out. Maybe the term is older than Plauche and he was only using it in accord with a concept that was around all the way back to Greece as far as I know. I’ll check into it, quote it, and link it in this thread when I get time which won’t be til tomorrow.
Right. Now say some community members move in. They talk at church, the community shin-dig, or at the orange stand. They share their disgust with people of other color. It’s all innocent cause nobody’s property has been violated. Yet some community members find it outrageous. So next time somebody sees them at the community cookout they walk up to them and during a civil discussion bring up the race factor. It’s turns out they do hate colored people. The other community finds discontent in that and probes them further. Asks them why? And challenges them to not share that kind of talk around here. Maybe enough people go up to them in time and share their mind with them. They don’t like how they think of colored people, ie. red, yellow, pink, doesn’t matter. It’s not good. They don’t like it. They don’t want their kids around that kind of talk. The community pulls back from them. They don’t even socially ostracize them. They’re still invited to community cookouts, etc… But these newcomers can feel the heat. People are more withdrawn when they are around them.
Done. Community spoke. It’s not a violation of rights, but it’s a spontaneous effort to deter through disassociation.
right. it’s a personal ethic. not a political philosophy.
For as long as I’ve been here I’ve never gotten into that thin/thick divide. It’s arbitrary and therefore in my eyes it is only a subtle divide and conquer. I’m not saying by anybody intentionally but it is an unintended consequence that for now doesn’t cause any pain or anything but in the long run, who knows, arbitrary anything can come back and bite anybody in the butt.
Yes. I think the point trying to be made is that a racist libertarian society, won’t stay libertarian for very long. Although, I’m sure another thick libertarian could make the case that a libertarian society would collapse if it was built alongside “multi-cultural values” or what have you as well.
Right, so this is the thinlib position. On the other hand, thicklib argues that because of the different types of thickness, opposing racism, for example, is not merely a personal affair, but is connected to justice.
Do you happen to think that the moral-legal is objective, but that the ethical-aesthetical is subjective?
This is just a basic misunderstanding of what libertarianism is. Man’s inherent zoological differences are not so vast such that civilization built on division of labor must segregate participation. link
My question was, “Is it acceptable to exclude people from my upscale restaurant who wear shorts and tank tops?”
I’ll answer this after you answer my questions. My distinction is drawn along other lines anyhow.
edit: Here is my post from over 6 months ago that BP never responded to:
It doesn’t just come down to issues of race, its a much narrower view of what is required to create and maintain a free society, necessary cultural and societal issued along with the NAP.
Acceptable how? (I’d probably say “sure” to any reason though.)
I think the “thicklib” label works in more ways than one. [;)]
The “left thicklibs” & “right thicklibs” can argue amongst each-other all you want - you’re both wrong. Throw out all the “isms” you want too, ageism, sexism, multiculturalism..
Now why is it more than a personal affair? And what kind of “justice” are you talking about? Surely not the natural law → natural rights → natural justice kind.
Please try and do better than the “racist libertarian society” argument. For starters, libertarians see two classes only (the rulers vs. the ruled), and I see that postulate (racist libertarian society) much like the "let’s say someone has a monopoly on a resource [as a starting point]". And we’re also to contend that this society of ‘libertarians’ has fallen for polylogism? lol.
I believe the market will sort it out. If an individual discriminates against someone due to their race, that’s their right - it is their property and they can do what they want with it. I’d consider them a fool who obviously has issues - but so what? Go start protesting and a campaign of ostracism. (Hehe).
To extend the use of "justice’ beyond rights and libertarianism - makes it meaningless imo.
Could you provide an example of “justice” being obtained then, outside of “rights” / the NAP ? Cheers.
Or is this only really about trying to frame / cloak real libertarianism - in the garments, words and rhetoric of the chosen “wing” - that the speaker / author / presenter intends and wants to address? Sure seems like it to me.
Why? It seems decisive to me.
This is the moralist fallacy: conflating rights with what is right. Just because people have the right (i.e. a legitimately enforceable claim) to discriminate on the basis of race does not entail that it is morally permissible for them to exercise that right.
Haha, I guess I have a higher standard? i.e something more than a mere fantastical assertion.
No, it’s not a fallacy at all. Your fallacy is conflating political philosophy, with personal ethics. There is nothing universal about the latter, it is individual. How you can then somehow inject the concept of “justice” is beyond me.
Substituting in one ism for another, in what should make things clearer…
Seriously? lol. And what is morally permissible? What’s the standard here? The theory of justice?
Questions you didn’t address:
- Now why is it more than a personal affair? And what kind of “justice” are you talking about? Surely not the natural law → natural rights → natural justice kind.
- And we’re also to contend that this society of ‘libertarians’ has fallen for polylogism?
- Could you provide an example of “justice” being obtained then, outside of “rights” / the NAP ?
And what are those issues exactly? Seems to me to be pretty irrelevant. If you’re assuming a libertarian society - then ah…
"Previously, it had been easy to dismiss as unrealistic Jean Raspail’s anti-immigration novel The Camp of the Saints, in which virtually the entire population of India decides to move, in small boats, into France, and the French, infected by liberal ideology, cannot summon the will to prevent economic and cultural national destruction. As cultural and welfare-state problems have inten- sified, it became impossible to dismiss Raspail’s concerns any longer.
However, on rethinking immigration on the basis of the anarcho- capitalist model, it became clear to me that a totally privatized country would not have “open borders” at all. If every piece of land in a country were owned by some person, group, or corporation, this would mean that no immigrant could enter there unless invited to enter and allowed to rent, or purchase, property. A totally privatized country would be as “closed” as the particular inhabitants and property owners desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not gen- uinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors.
Under total privatization, many local conflicts and “externality” problems-not merely the immigration problem-would be neatly settled. With every locale and neighborhood owned by private firms, corporations, or contractual communities, true diversity would reign, in accordance with the preferences of each community. Some neighborhoods would be ethnically or economically diverse, while others would be ethnically or economically homogeneous. Some localities would permit pornography or prostitution or drugs or abortions, others would prohibit any or all of them. The prohibitions would not be state imposed, but would simply be requirements for residence or use of some person’s or community’s land area. While statists who have the itch to impose their values on everyone else would be disappointed, every group or interest would at least have the satisfaction of living in neighborhoods of people who share its values and preferences. While neighborhood ownership would not provide Utopia or a panacea for all conflicts, it would at least provide a “second-best” solution that most people might be willing to live with." - Nations by Consent, MNR
Very good. Given the model you’ve presented its workability requires a near uniform respect for private property. Something that not even libertarians agree on. So obviously everyone realizes that there are certain parameters and institutions necessary for a free society. A thick(er) libertarian would argue that even with an initial near-uniform respect for property, some communities, acting in accordance with their preferences, wouldn’t continue being libertarian for very long. I believe Roderick Long gave the example of Nazi Libertarians, while conceivably possible, doesn’t seem likely to respect others liberties for very long. Same for racists, etc… And then there is the conservative counter-argument…
“Respect” - individuals can “disrespect it”, then they meet Mr/s. property owners PDA… More importantly, yeah a libertarian society (your base assumption before you go play the fantastical “race card”) - so your “argument” is kaput.
Not very convincing / sound at all. Seriously - are there no arguments better than, what really amounts too - “in the future libertarian society, my assumption is that if they don’t have this [my] cultural outlook / perspective, they won’t stay libertarian for long?” lmao..! [:D]
But even if you think that is the case, great - condemn it, ostracize these people, campaign against them - whatever, just don’t label yourself as being a libertarian whilst you’re doing it - because it has nothing to do with libertarianism.
LOL!
You are just assuming that there will be (effective) PDA’s, if a culture doesn’t respect private property, it doesn’t matter.
Are you even reading me? I’m not making any argument, I’m pointing out the (one of) thick libertarian argument, why you continue to defend thin libertarianism from me is quite baffling. However, your point of “not very convincing/unsound” is completely hollow, as you’ve presented NOTHING to refute anything. If you want a better understanding of it read Chris Sciabarra, Gary North, or even Rand.
That makes no sense, it’s libertarianism incorporated into a broader (“thick”) commitment. You are either a libertarian or you’re not, the label doesn’t just turn off (assuming your aren’t violating the NAP, of course).