[Daktoria]

Recently, I asked the following two questions on libertarian forums.

"How does a libertarian society deal with sensitive people on the issue of pragmatism?"

"How does a libertarian society deal with the refusal to obtain a quorum?"

The answers I got were... rather gut-wrenching and confusing to say the least.

The first question was answered with, "As long as there's an option to move one's self, there's no coercion taking place."

The second question was answered with, "That's how voting rights work. Quorum is secondary to an actual vote."

Now I'm used to hearing these responses from utilitarian libertarians, but what really irked me was hearing them from deontological libertarians as well. The argument being made was I was suggesting a positive duty of care such that autonomy was being violated, but at no time was the question of initial membership in a group even considered.

This was deeply disturbing, and I can't say I can honestly sympathize with libertarians if this is the predominant attitude. It especially came to the forefront when considering privatizing education despite tolerance of not monitoring for negligent parents.

Boundaries are how we define personhood, but it doesn't seem even libertarians are really committed to preserving them because they're more concerned with preserving human action before preserving the motive to act.

Furthermore, when asking libertarians how a libertarian society would be preserved from corrupt leadership, the very incomplete answer of, "Constant vigilance" was provided. At no point was there a concern made over how children taught good manners would suffer compared to children not taught good manners. It was almost as if libertarians couldn't care less about being overthrown by hierarchic collectivism, and were simply willing to let it flood out everything they achieved.

[CounterChaos]

Boundaries are how we define personhood

So, now that you have 'seen the light' so to speak - can I interest you in the combination of Jeffersonian Liberalism and Utopian Socialism? - Which basically means:

Agrarian (small scale local coop - applied with current technology)
Apprenticeships (local cobbler is better than Nike factory)
Congressional, Judicial and Military representation only (w/no ruling class, no President or Senate.)
Local Cooperatives (for barter and digital trade)
Digital Economy (goodbye paper)
Cradle to grave benefits (preventative medicine - prevents)
Universal Education (No more silver-spoons or Ivy League losers running the show)
Universal Housing (modular and designed for local climatic conditions - choice of many designs)
Universal Transportation (Standardized - how many different models do we need? Electric and bodies built with renewable resources ie. fiber)
Standardized Products (The best of everything technology offers - built into one)
Artistic Expression (small town shops will thrive)
Home delivery of basic necessities. (I sure miss the milkman - why not have everything delivered to our door? It saves energy)
All critical industries owned by the people. (need I say more?)

etc..etc.

Small is Beautiful...............

[Daktoria]

Small isn't beautiful forever, Chaos. This is the problem I had with Burkean conservatism before. It leads to Red Toryism over the long run.

Jeffersonian Democracy is reliable, but the socialist variant keeps people oppressed. It demands that intelligent people become enslaved to the mighty and charismatic as if they don't really care about how it is to be intelligent.

The only alternative to domination is becoming a social outcast in utopian socialism, and neither of those respect who people are, only respecting what people are.

The other thing about utopian socialism is it doesn't explain how population growth is going to be controlled which is vital. Utopian socialism can be overwhelmed very easily from population density.

The only way capital intensity can grow to accommodate it is if intelligent people invent for it, but intelligent people become depressed when private property is lost.

[Kman]

Bye.

[Rei Murasame]

So you've just realised that libertarianism has the startling ability to be used to preserve almost any cultural practice that presently exists, that you could possibly name.

This was mentioned in 2010 in this very sub-forum:

Basically the reason that the Libertarians will never move on this argument, is because they actually believe that social forces cannot be against freedom [of people to fulfil their desires]. They are concerned only with private property, in a direct way.

What this means to them, for example, is that a woman in who cannot hold a job by government law because she has central heterochromia is unfree. But on the other hand, if that same woman is shunned by everyone, unable to integrate with society in any way, and is denied a job because it is socially customary to treat women with funny coloured eyes that way, then she is 'completely free'.

See, systematically refusing to allow certain people to exist in society is acceptable under Libertarianism, so long as no one actually makes the 'mistake' of writing that rule down.

You might decide to be upset by the fact that some of your people's lives are stunted or ruined by arbitrary yet systemic social exclusion, or by having the development of their interests and talents constantly discouraged and their aspirations and confidence constantly undermined. Libertarians and other disciples of John Locke will tell you that none of your feelings have anything to do with a desire for Liberty, and that rather, you are only seeking to bind others to your own will. This is because to them, [coercion is about] being threatened with involuntary confinement in a small room, while these [issues are about] being threatened with involuntary confinement in a small life.

The reason that this weirdness persists, and will continue to persist, is because the word coercion has been [re?]defined by methodological individualists to pertain only to private property. The word "Liberty" has by extension been seized by these dogmatic individualists.

Generally I tend to avoid using the word where I can, because it's basically rendered useless by their definition which is now everywhere.

If anything, that word "Liberty", as defined by methodological individualists, is socially and politically one of the greatest frauds that has been foisted upon us, because it can in fact only be used to promote social stasis, it will always be the final rallying cry of people who simply don't want to have any regard for what's happening to other people around them, but either can't or won't supply an explanation in terms of utility.

And so quite ironically, it is the opponents of liberty that actually end up empowering subaltern groups for their own special purposes when brought under pressure by those groups to move toward inclusiveness.

And it is the defenders of liberty who are actually most capable of holding onto all of their narrow privileges by asserting that no one should be able to make any demands of them for anything.

How to sing from Libertarian hymn-sheet:

• Do sing: "My my, isn't the ability to enjoy untrammelled use of resources and private property just the most awesome thing ever, now that I'm on top? No one should ask me for anything, and there should be no structures through which they could do so!"
  
  
• Don't sing: "So, we are actually just short-sighted selfish disloyal traitors, aren't we?"

[Daktoria]

Just because I'm renouncing libertarianism doesn't mean I'm renouncing deontology.

Because of deontology, I can see how you lie very emphatically in your argument there, so I'm still not talking with you.

In fact, what you said there is almost word for word what the utilitarian libertarians I'm mostly arguing with have said as well.

[Rei Murasame]

Just to make sure this is not lost on you:

"This is because to them, coercion is about being threatened with involuntary confinement in a small room, while these issues are about being threatened with involuntary confinement in a small life."

As soon as you start to actually become concerned about the latter, it is then that libertarians no longer want to hear you, because they don't view the latter as being 'coercive', and they think that they should not force any changes to 'non coercive' situations, ever.

At any rate, if you've dropped libertarianism now, then what are you left with? Only Kantian ethics?

[Daktoria]

That's exactly what you're lying about. You don't get it. You haven't addressed liberty at all in that context.

Utilitarians are concerned about living in a small room (metaphysics)

Deontologists are concerned about living a small life (ontology).

[meazza]

Seems to me you dropped logic a long time ago.

[Smertios]

Dak, I'm really confused to what exactly you are right now... :/

Because seriously, from your post, you don't seem like you are dropping libertarianism because you disagree with the ideology, but because you disagree with individual opinions of some libertarians :/

[Rei Murasame]

What I'd like to know is how he's decided that tackling the problem of 'small life' can be taken on by deontologists, rather than that being something which is only able to be tackled by a social movement.

[Potemkin]

Dak, I'm really confused to what exactly you are right now... :/

Because seriously, from your post, you don't seem like you are dropping libertarianism because you disagree with the ideology, but because you disagree with individual opinions of some libertarians :/

Daktoria, it seems to me, is not interested in objective truth but only in his own personal feelings. He is one of those 'beautiful souls' who is too good for this world. The nasty libertarians hurt his feelings, so he's not going to play with them any more.

[Daktoria]

Dak, I'm really confused to what exactly you are right now... :/

Because seriously, from your post, you don't seem like you are dropping libertarianism because you disagree with the ideology, but because you disagree with individual opinions of some libertarians :/

No, this has been happening for some time now with libertarians in general.

Many libertarians have been emulating the same characteristics of social awkwardness that I experience when dealing with ordinary people. They withdraw and take advantage of the opportunity to build social hierarchy by saying they're less weird and more practical than me instead of being philosophically cooperative.

I'm going to go back and reread Man, Economy, and State and Human Action to see if I've missed anything. A lot of utilitarian libertarianism doesn't seem immune to communitarian influence because of this. It also seems to fail to recognize the real psychological motives behind taxation among the naive as if everyone who wants economic equality actually understands what they're really advocating. In this sense, utilitarian libertarians alienate a lot of potential allies.

Probably the best libertarian I could appreciate is Hoppe because he engages the problems of groupthink so thoroughly. You could sympathize with that. After that, I'd probably say de Molinari because he actually deals with the landownership issue in discerning between market anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. He also convinced me that the real essence of market anarchy is how it's either that or total anarchy. Everything else is a facade.

Regardless, libertarians seem very adamant against recognizing the need for social values to preserve property rights and contracts. I've actually explained this thoroughly in the past couple threads I've made in this section about the avant-garde and essentialism. Especially among utilitarian libertarians, it's mostly treated as a "noble lie" concept while everyone who doesn't have compatible happiness isn't given a fuck about even if they understand the concept. That's very despicable, and it leads to fascism through pragmatism.

I've actually had some conversations where libertarians will even fully embrace cultural imperialism, and as utilitarians, they really don't sound any different from Marxists advocating historical materialism. This especially happens when you throw game theory in. They'll accept that natural resources incline competitions towards nash equilibrium, and there's nothing to be done about perpetual defection except fight and realize the destiny nature has in store for you.

[Smertios]

Okay, but that still doesn't answer the question: "what are you now, if not a libertarian?" :/

[CounterChaos]

Jeffersonian Democracy is reliable, but the socialist variant keeps people oppressed. It demands that intelligent people become enslaved to the mighty and charismatic as if they don't really care about how it is to be intelligent.

Intelligence is of no greater asset to a society than that of a cobbler Dak. We have reached a point of technological saturation. All we have done for years now is redesign our current technology to meet corporate sales needs. How many different models of cell phones do we need? Why not just offer one 'with all the bells and whistles'?

The other thing about utopian socialism is it doesn't explain how population growth is going to be controlled which is vital. Utopian socialism can be overwhelmed very easily from population density.

This makes no sense Dak? People are not so stupid that they can't realize that controlling population may be vital for survival of our species. A limit on the number of children conceived perhaps? Seems that China has already thought that through have they not? You give people the facts as to "why" something needs to be done - they will understand and follow the rules for the greater good. It is when you lie to them or use propaganda - that they revolt.

The only way capital intensity can grow to accommodate it is if intelligent people invent for it, but intelligent people become depressed when private property is lost.

We already have a technological base to build upon - to improve - to spur further innovation. So far has our technological advancement reached, that our best and brightest only have the chaotic realms left to temper their need to feed their intellectual needs.

Barbarian Philosophy 101

Lesson 1.

An intellect needs to feed; once it has mastered our natural world, all that is left to temper the intellect is chaos.

[SecretSquirrel]

That's the problem with most "Libertarians" and "Deontologists," Dak. Most of them aren't actually libertarian or deontological. Most people who claim at principles don't actually fully consider their ramifications even in theory, let alone actually live by them rigorously.

I'm glad you are starting to reject some of these labels. You have too many in your mind.

By the way, your concerns about children serve to illustrate one of my central theses (of my over arching philosophy) that a huge, if not dominant, portion of the moral and philosophical quandaries faced by human beings stems from the act of reproduction.

Of course most people, even those who claim to believe in universal rights and self-determination, cannot escape the hard-wired biological response of overwhelming disgust and immediate skepticism against the lightest questioning of pro-natalism.

[Daktoria]

Thanks Squirrel.

I'm not really sure why you're claiming deontology is detrimental though. It's the utilitarians who don't care about rigorous parenting and are willing to give parents leeway in their duty of care of, "Enough (parental pain and suffering) is enough (childish pleasure and happiness), the kid has to learn from experience on his own."

Deontology, in contrast, demands that parents imbue a priori understanding into their children. If they don't, they can't identify as people nevermind as adults.

You might want to read this essay where Kant actually directly addresses the issue of maturity.

Reproduction is only half of the issue in all honesty. You also have to deal with jurisdiction. Whoever lets people reproduce on his land is allowing more people to be summoned, so there's a duty of care between the landowner and newborns such that the landowner ensures that present reproducers are actually adults and not children themselves. It wouldn't make sense to let children breed more children. By definition, they're not mature.

I... don't believe this is going to be reconciled until after we're dead though. Emotionally judgmental people constantly defect in the prisoner dilemmas they live within real life, and until convenient natural resources are completely depleted, their defection is never going to end. Emotionally judgmental people only cooperate for one reason and one reason only - physical necessity. It's no different from what you said about pro-natalism.

Anyway, I have some rereading to do. I promised some guys yesterday on another forum I'd make a thread about what deontology is really about, not just the typical natural rights summary you can read about on wiki.

[SecretSquirrel]

I don't think I said anything against deontological ethics... I certainly did not mean to. I merely said that the so-called "deontological libertarians" you found yourself disgusted with were almost certainly not deontologists. They were probably some variation of rule-utilitarians in practice.

[Daktoria]

Squirrel, I'm not sure if there's really any such thing as a rule utilitarian anymore. Every rule a utilitarian subscribes to depends upon actually getting lucky and establishing a history to call back on. The act utilitarian is just still seeking to find that luck and history.

[CounterChaos]

Every rule a utilitarian subscribes to depends upon actually getting lucky and establishing a history to call back on. The act utilitarian is just still seeking to find that luck and history.

There is no history to relate to, as our world history is riddled with more misery than good. We have to create our own happiness - you have to make it happen.

There is no moral precept that does not have something inconvenient about it.
~Diderot~