You asked why do we need such laws. We don’t, and they don’t exist. If you want to marry a guy go ahead!
I think you are missing my point. I wasn’t asking if we needed the laws from MY perspective. I already know that we don’t. I was asking those people who want to make it or keep it law why they want it a law. My own answer to that was because they can’t get people to voluntarily participate with their beliefs so they need it imposed coercively.
You pressupose moral subjectivity; that’s why you don’t ‘get it’.
Or instead, a lot of religious libertarians would say that gay marriage is objectively wrong, but as the state is a greater evil than individual vices, they would opt for individual freedom.
But no one is imposing anything on you. You just cannot impose your marriage on others now.
Living in NH, I hang out with a couple dozen market anarchists twice a week and periodically meet others that are visiting from other towns or just in state for a few days checking things out, and I would guess that between 80- 90% of them are atheists.
MrSchnapps… All I’m saying is that imposing laws for beliefs you may have that others do not have is wrong, this was just a single example of many. Please, don’t dwell on this one example and try to understand the main point I’m trying to make.
scineram, the whole idea of imposing anything is what I am against. I guess I chose a poor example and you also are dwelling on it.
Forget the whole gay marriage example. Let me be very clear about the main point I’m trying to make. Using laws to try and impose your beliefs or will on others because you couldn’t garner people’s support voluntarily is wrong. Of all places, I didn’t think Mises.org would be a place where I would get so much resistance trying to make this point,
But that is bullshit. You want private defence agencies to impose libertarian law on an anarchocapitalist society. Do you think leftist will just voluntarily get in the line? If so that is utopian.
Freeradicals,
That is what I was trying to get you to understand, since you mentioned earlier that you coudln’t seem to grasp the concept. Your quote presupposes moral subjectivity, while people who usually support the state can either be moral subjectivists, or moral objectivists. The moral subjectivists want what is good for them, i.e. power and wealth, and the moral objectivists want what is good (outside themselves) in general.
So if what is objectively good is (insert stance on X issue here) then they feel like they have a duty to force people to comply to an objective moral standard which everyone is accountable to, including the legislators as well.
Religious libertarians/anarchists usually take the stance that the state is a far greater evil than any vice imaginable that could be chosen on an individual level. This is why they opt for individual freedom, not because they believe that humans are perfect, but because they choose the far lesser evil of the two.
MrShnapps, I apologize, I think there might have been a miscommunication. What I stated before were rhetorical questions. I wasn’t trying to start an argument about the differences between moral subjectiveness and moral objectiveness. I do see the state as the worst possible vice which is the case I was trying to make. I need to remember to be more clear on forums (I am used to having more in-person discussions so I forgot that some meaning is lost in plain text)
“But that is bullshit. You want private defence agencies to impose libertarian law on an anarchocapitalist society. Do you think leftist will just voluntarily get in the line? If so that is utopian.”
I wouldn’t want a private defense agency to impose it because I wouldn’t need it to. A society that would call itself anarcho-capitalist would all voluntarily follow this code, at least a Rothbardian one. If a group of people go form a community somewhere and develop a different law system they are fine to do so and nothing will be imposed on them unless they come and violate the rights of the ancap community. I.e. they go and pillage a grocery market there stealing all its food, in that case the shop owners would be legitimately allowed to go after and treat those people as if they were following the libertarian law system they have in place locally.
Did you mean to say “e.g.”?
Argh! I normally don’t get those mixed up.
Thanks.
Hmm, interesting. NH, you say? Meetings a few times a week, you say? Thats it, I’m moving! CT is very different.
Interesting observations though. It raises more questions. I will ponder them a while and see what I come up with.
Cheers,
So my next questions is;
Do you think Libertarians and Ancaps would see more success if we focused on introducing people to ethics and NAP, rather than trying to explain the ethical virtues of an anarchist/minarchist society, to someone lacking the philosophical foundation to accept this reasoning?
(this question kind of answeres itself, huh?)
MrSchnaps
There is much wisdom in that . It makes my head hurt and I will spend the rest of the day pondering it.
Thanks for the brain food!