I don’t think Sage is conflating political and personal. Sage is pointing out his personal ethics when it comes to cultural norms. He’s not saying arrest the racist. But the issue is social. More than one person finds racism something to not have in society. Undoubtedly all of us in this discussion do not want it.
There’s more in the dissertation. Social justice isn’t such a far-fetched idea. I think it is good to name the real act of virtue between individuals. It can be called ethical conduct. But the social justice distinction is the same as my example I gave in a previous post of mine in this thread on a racist family moving into a community and how the community deals with it.
Social justice is an instance of virtue. To be virtuous I could pull out a whole list of virtuous actions. Kindness for one. A society full of hate will be inclined to be a society that degenerates into violence.
Come again? *"*It is true that there can be no absolute guarantee that a purely market society would not fall prey to organized criminality."- MNR
Yes.. and yet how is that relevant? Hark back to the anarcho-capitalist / libertarian society “model”, and what is the problem? The racists can go live in their own onclave if they so choose, some communities would be diverse, others homogeneous - your “issue” or “problem” is null.
Yes. I seem to be wasting my time though.
That’s appears to be the problem.
Yeah and I’ve eluded to it’s massive holes. What other arguments are there? You’ve said there are more, what are they?
It makes no sense, if you have no understanding on the differences between political philosophy and personal ethics - nor what Libertarianism - really is.
It’s about a diverse community maintaining their diversity and not allowing a current resident to spontaneously develop a racist attitude. There doesn’t need to be whole contracts drawn up and rules posted in each community on how that community will behave. They can spontaneous choose to live a certain way and out of that certain norms will arise, etc…
My impression is that it’s an attempt to ‘universalize’ what is ethical / unethical within the individual sphere.
I know.
It’s not universal. If an individual has yellow fever. He discriminates against another women, due to race. Is this unethical / immoral? What about the other isms?
Yeah, I’m not a fan of the term as I think it breeds confusion.
I probably need to re-read particular parts of Nicomachean Ethics, lol.
There isn’t a model, try some Friedman. And the model provided still requires a near uniform culture (in the realm of property) for it to be sustainable. 3) You haven’t responded to the claim that some cultures won’t remain libertarian at all The “problem” isn’t null - you simply ignored it.
I think you mean “no, I’m not reading you”
No, you haven’t. You even pointed out why certain values are necessary for a free society.
Who denied there are differences? How does that mean one cannot incorporate the two together? Can you not be, say, a Mormon Libertarian? Catholic Libertarian? Buddhist Libertarian?
Yeah, obviously - and that’s where ostracism, rational exchange and discussion, open communication come into play. I don’t think there is a lot we disagree on at all, about the above & earlier… it’s just the point, to me at least - remains: that Libertarianism is a political philosophy. The “thick” libertarians are wrong in trying to extend it over into the personal ethics / “social justice” sphere.
How? It’s not an appeal to coercion. So it’s only appeal is via choice. I see nothing wrong with that. I see this basically how I raise my son. I teach him what I think is ethically right. And sometimes being a virtuous individual might mean being outnumbered. It doesn’t mean that people are necessarily aggressive against one another. It’s how they raise their childs and how individuals within the society are being supportive in their virtuous ambitions or lack thereof.
No it’s not universal. It’s based on the preferences that individuals maintain in their relations. It’s a form of social justice that isn’t political justice.
Or it’s a new term. Maybe it is confusing. But after I read the definition I gave above, plus, any other points Plauche made in that article. I wasn’t confused.
yes. this would be something found in there. And I’ve actually thought about re-reading that someday too as I now know a lot more and will be able to under that particular work in-depth more than I did before.
Well. There might be a difference in definition as I said in my previous post. For some reason Plauche felt the need to be creative and come up with this term. I mean, I’m sure he’s heard of ‘ethical conduct’, but for some reason he felt the need to not use that word. Or maybe Plauche was getting too creative. I don’t know. But I wouldn’t jump the gun, personally, unless I knew more about the reasons to devise a new name.
I understand that. I don’t necessarily disagree with that either (on libertarianism being a political philosophy). But the individuals that are trying to live such a political philosophy are not always engaged in political relations. Sometimes I’m simply shootin’ the shit with another person at the cafe and what comes up in the conversation might have to do with how they are being treated by X-person. What Sage brought up is simply another talking point to beef-up those that are libertarian inclined, to also be able to engage in topics of discussion that are real in this world.
what? It’s wrong to discuss this kind of stuff? Surely you didn’t mean that.
Call it what you like, if you decide for some reason to make liberty the only political value without any real arguments in favour of such a position, it’s to your detriment. Likewise, if you decide to ignore the important arguments put forth by Angurse, you’ll be worse off. There’s been a lot of work done that shows the importance of informal institutions, culture, for the feasibility of various sorts of formal institutions. If these informal institutions are lacking the feasibility or even desirability of the formal institutions would be undermined.
I would say it is most accurate to call libertarianism a legal philosophy or system of punishment. There is also “Libertarianism” in the sense of politics and the various disparate movements.
The logical conclusion of libertarianism in practice is anarchy. The cultural values of the people in a hypothetical free society are a whole separate matter. There is a proper scope of the law that can be defined, then we can speculate on what sort of extra-juridical institutions would spring up, given whatever set of cultural norms.
I don’t think that was necessarily on point. You write that as if Conza doesn’t already know that. He does as my back and forth with him shows. He was, as he pointed out to me, trying to make sure that the clear lines of distinction between political and personal ethics are maintained. He’s effort was philosophically valiant.
Its more connected than that though. Its not just mere speculation about what would spring up, as fun as that may be, its what aspects - besides the political - are necessary to keep said society free. The proper law can only exist as far as it is accepted, and various aspects of life will ultimately play a factor, will they not?
I am kind of busy. Is there something I missed that you feel is important? Adding personal values to the equation ruins the whole thing. How was Aristotle’s definition of politics, something like “affairs of the town” (city-state, whatever)? Separate this into what applies to libertarianism as a properly delimited legal philosophy and what doesn’t.
The appeal to popular sentiment, such as “racism is bad”, can be expressed without culling all the skinheads. This requires our thymological category of understanding. I judge the majority of folk in my society to value multi-culturalism and I value such a concept as well (if I understand what it really entails). I would expect no opposition from the neighbors in my area to a provision of a homeowner association agreement banning the display of swastikas. We now have binding law without having to artificially import personal values into a legal philosophy that should apply to all people equally.
Are we talking about “non-enforceable obligations” again? The term doesn’t even make sense.
OK, “various aspects of life will ultimately play a factor”. Yes, I think it is good that we have advanced beyond the myth of divine rule. Next to fall is democracy. But what about acceptance? Racism can be “rooted out” effectively by how the economics of racism and anti-racism plays out. What is the point of this?
I think Angurse and myself are making similar points here, so let me have a try. Property rights don’t exist in a vacuum, no matter how well property rights are monitored and enforced there will always be incentives for individuals to break these property rights. Unless, of course, they believe in them. This is the point I’m trying to make, unless there is a culture that meets certain necessary requirements, the formal institutions will break down.
Let me give you an example, there are no positive pecuniary returns to voting, unless individuals felt some obligation to vote, or some positive return from voting (in the form of expressing their preferences), democracy would quite simply breakdown. Now, I can’t tell you what it would be replaced with, but it most certainly wouldn’t work if there wasn’t some trace of a democratic ethic.
I (and Hayekian more eloquently) have explained the points multiple times now. Lets try this a different way, Have you ever read Democracy: The God that Failed? If not read it, in it Hoppe goes into detail about why libertarianism needs conservative values, its a good demonstration of thick libertarianism. (Lets ignore whether you agree with his proposals. Other authors like Sciabarra and even Rand (for Objectivism) go even further.
OK. Well, I will read through the thread again. If I am missing something please quote it. A lot of what I am seeing is very vague and seems like politician-speak. Who decides what is racist, sexist, ageist, speciesist, handednist? Who pays for the psycho-killer that constantly attacks the jailer without a state’s prison institution, itself funded by criminal behaviour?
Sure, a polycentric legal order or a democratic republic both rely on the acceptance of the people. What I am saying is that you can “combat racism” without making libertarianism into something it isn’t. Libertarian legal theory doesn’t arrive at a maximum punishment with forward-looking, “societal incentives” in mind. The task is reconstructing an involuntary exchange, a historic event, as best as possible and seeing what actions might be taken to best make the victim whole again.
There are of course the practical considerations of two or more opposed claimants, as well as the arbitrator(s) to keep in mind. Will people continue to hire me if I try to enforce a trespassing penalty on someone fleeing a mudslide? The same methodology of Austrian economics applies to the legal aspect of praxeology. This is Gedankenexperiment (“thought experiment”) and allows us to consider “ideal cases” with regards to law. Read this PDF, at least pages 13-14 regarding the “premium for scaring” and the heuristic device of the revolver with 1,000 chambers.
An “ideal case” for the aspect of the “threat premium” would be one where a robber loaded 3 of 6 chambers of his revolver and raised it to someone’s head. That every case won’t be so cut and dry doesn’t preclude us from considering the situation. The fact that WE are not the two claimants in a dispute or an arbitrator in a real, live case does preclude us from injecting our own personal values as to whether we think one ought to choose to act to pursue a hypothetically maximum allowable punishment.
What requirements? Any society can be seen along a continuum from one of purely voluntary interaction, the contractual society, to one of choice-always-secondary to the whim of a ruling elite, the hegemonial society. Every political ideology conforms to this model, regardless of the meaningful content attached to either pole.
Nobody is disagreeing with this sentiment though, thick libertarians aren’t contending that libertarian legal theory need be extended at all. The idea is that for a libertarian society to remain libertarian it will require more than just legal theory (and a market) as they will break down if the people don’t respect said institutions (i.e. culture).
Yes, the point is that a culture of respect for voluntary interaction has to be maintained, and that a legal system isn’t enough to do so. As to what said culture consists of is a different story though.
Then you understand what thick libertarianism is. Look, Block even makes the exception of crime, if, say, libertine lifestyles ultimately lead to drug use - then crime - for a libertarian society to last such cultures obviously should be shunned.
Well, I’ve presented arguments to the contrary (again, see the Johnson piece). Maybe my arguments don’t work. But once they’re on the table, it’s dialectically incumbent on you to actually address them, instead of simply claiming over and over that I’m wrong.
Do you happen to think that political philosophy is objective, while personal ethics is subjective?
On the virtue ethics perspective, what is morally permissible is determined by the theory of morality, of which justice is a subcategory. Moreover, with the unity of virtue, one cannot specify the content of any one virtue independently of the content of all the other virtues (see Long’s example of courage and prudence here).
First, yes, I mean natural law justice, i.e. the virtue concerned with rights. Second, I never claimed that racism requires polylogism. (Do you think Justin Barrett is a polylogist?) Third, my position is more subtle than that. I’m not arguing that thickness considerations are a matter of justice itself; rather, they’re connected to justice. See the Johnson piece linked above. Long’s “Culture and Liberty” might also be helpful.
I disagree. Sure, for a given set of cultural attitudes, market competition will do the best job in minimizing racism. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t work to change cultural attitudes to minimize it even more.
See, for example, Boettke et. al on “Institutional Stickiness” and Claudia Williamson’s paper “Informal Institutions Rule.” They argue persuasively that informal institutions like culture are the decisive factor in the feasibility of formal institutions. As Burke put it, “Manners are of more importance than laws”.
Chris Sciabarra also makes the same point with his tri-level analysis in examining social problems in terms of the personal, cultural, and structural.