The second American civil war...

[atek3]

I don't want to control anyone. But I do want to retain the right to set community standards, which BTW, we have now (they're called laws). So, if someone wishes to smoke crack cocaine, I say fine, just do it in some other state. Same with homosexuality.

Laugh, snort, guffaw
"I don't want to control anyone, but I do want to to retain the ability of my friends and I to tell people what they can and cannot do behind closed doors."

If I didn't accurately restate what you just said, let me know. And if what you said isn't control you can shoot me dead.

atek3

 

[Travis McGee]

How did this Civil War 2 thread become a
"How many libertarians can dance on the head of a pin" thread?

 

[rock jock]

Are rights defined as existing on a piece of paper, or do they exist regardless of their official recognition?

I might ask you the same thing. Just because someone believes they have a certain right doesn't make it so. Shocking? Why so? you are contending tha same with me. I don't think that a person has an inherent right to deviant sexual behavior. You don't think that I have a right a participate in the setting of comminuty standards. So what is your point? As I said before, your beliefs dictate your definition of rights.

What is ironic about this discussion is that I have no desire to tell you how your community can live, yet you do not hesitate to tell me how my community must live. Talk about tyranny.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Rock Jock:

Assume for 2 minutes that we can agree on what "rights" are real "rights," as opposed to those that are simply excuses for deviant behavior according to your community.

Are you ready?

<BLAM>

OK, your ideas on "rights" and mine are now totally in sync. You think it's a right, and I do too. You don't and I hate it as much as you do.

Now, are those rights granted by government, or by God (or birth, or creation, or whatever)?

 

[rock jock]

"I don't want to control anyone, but I do want to to retain the ability of my friends and I to tell people what they can and cannot do behind closed doors."

That is a new standard for twisting someone's words. Listen, I could care less if someone wants to move another state can have relations with 100 sheep and 2 Democrats a day. So no, I don't want to control them. They are perfectly free to do what they want elsewhere. Funny thing though, Derek, Tam, and you want to force my community to accept what you would gladly embrace. Sad.

 

[Kaylee]

I must be dense. Somehow I just don't understand how "stay out of my gun closet, medicine cabinet, and my bedroom" translates to wanting to control others, but "let me tell you what belongs in your gun closet, medicine cabinet, and bedroom (at least if you're my neighbor)" isn't controlling others?

why am I all of a sudden feeling like a southern abolitionist c. 1853?

 

[rock jock]

Now, are those rights granted by government, or by God

Derek, that is an unanswerable question. IMO, rights fall into 3 categories:

1. rights that are granted by your creator
2. rights that are recognized by your governing authority
3. rights that you personally believe you possess

So, I might believe I have the right to keep and bear arms because God grants me the right to self-defence. My neighbor might believe that we have that right because of the 2A. My other neighbor may be an atheist and therefore believe that their RKBA derives from their very existence. IOW, each of us has a different basis for what we believe is a "right". I'll give you another example. Lots of folks in other countries feel they have a right to beat their wives. Some believe they have that right because, in their opinion, women are mentally weaker and must be kept in line; others because their god grants it to them; still others because their govt. recognizes it as legal. We would probably agree that this is not a right at all, but to those folks it is, and they would defend it just as vehemently as you and I would defend our RKBA. Point is, in order for us to have the same starting point w/ regard to the origin of our rights, we would have to agree that there is an objective right and wrong, good and bad, whatever, and probably agree (mostly at least) on our religious beliefs and finally, on what constitutes the necessary elements of a workable society. That is simply not going to happen. So, as a result, we (meaning corporately the citizens of the US) agree on a set of universal rights that will be enjoyed by all. After that, we split into our own communities and set our own standards based on our own definition of rights. And that is exactly the way our FF envisioned the US. Look at the nasty disputes that took place early in the formation of this republic w/ regard to the extent of laws and rights, the proper role of religion, and so forth. But they worked these things out on the local level, the way is was designed to be. You, however, want to subvert this process by establishing a set of "extra-Constitutional" rights universally applied to everyone. In doing so, the basis for these rights transfers from local control to the federal govt and you have much the same system we have now, with in-fighting and a country poised to start a Civil War.

 

[atek3]

Rockjock, if homosexuality, drug use, or whatever, offends you so bad that you refuse to live in a community with "Those kinds of people", read Democracy:The God that Failed by Hans Hermann Hoppe . He's a conservative anarchist . He believes private communities SHOULD set standards, the understanding is that every resident of those private communities is an explicit signatory of a "contract" makes certain things okay and certain things worthy of expulsion. No ones 'rights' (your definition or mine) are being violated in such a circumstance because membership of said community is voluntary, you moved here with an explicit understanding of the rules (the contract you signed). And assuming a libertarian society, the right of Contract would be inviolate, unlike our modern society, which forces private associations to accept people without "discrimination. Meaning, if your private community agreed, "no sodomites and crack addicts", none could live in your community or else they'd get the boot. Another private community might make a rule, "only gay crackheads are allowed", that community also would be allowed to form (however it would probably have a lifespan of about 30 days ) . What I'm trying to say is, you CAN have community standards, as long as those "community standards" are formed with a Consensus of participants.
So, suppose you had a community, call it "squaresville", population 50. Those 50 residents if they were so inclined, could make a rule saying, "no marijuana is allowed within the city limits", if they got unanimous consent. No one's rights have been violated because the signatories are all consenting adults. Now people that want to smoke marijuana can see a sign on the city limits that says, "Squaresville- No pot allowed or 30 days in jail", setting foot within squaresville is a binding contract, and the penalty for breaking said contract is 30 days in jail. Pothead wants to avoid jail, he stays out of town. Suppose a town member signs the contract, gets cancer, wants to smoke pot, well he signed a contract, if he wants to smoke pot he has to get out of YOUR town.
Do you see where I'm headed, within a libertarian framework, communities can set standards, you can have your "conservative town" and I can have my "wacked out crazy libertarian town" and we can get along just fine.

atek3

 

[Derek Zeanah]

I think our disagreement is basic: I want to be left alone by government, as much as possible, and am willing to leave everyone else alone as well. You want to use government to build the sort of community that you want to live in, excluding those who don't agree with your laws.

Maybe a better was to state this is that I believe the ninth amendment is as important (if not more) than the rest of the bill or rights; you don't.

I don't know that we'll agree. We might agree on the gun rights issue, but you probably see me as an anarchist, while I see you as a statist. Each of us thinks the other's opinions will make the world a worse place.

So there we are. Yet another reason that starting a revolution is stupid -- you and I woulnd't agree afterward, and might even initiate violence against each other. Though to be honest, I think your stated goals and values are very much in line with current society, especially in urban areas.

 

[rock jock]

Do you see where I'm headed, within a libertarian framework, communities can set standards, you can have your "conservative town" and I can have my "wacked out crazy libertarian town" and we can get along just fine.

That is exactly the opposite of what Derek has been arguing. As for me, I could definitely go for that type of system. If the LP evers adopts that as a platform, I'll switch parties in a hearbeat.

 

[Glock Glockler]

Derek,

I have an idea, instead of having some type of civil war to see whose policy will be instituted on a national level, why don't we have something of a compromise and decide drug policy on a state and local level? You and I would like to see drugs legalized because we think we'd be better off for it and Rock Jock would like to see them illegal in his state, ok, why don't we see who's right and test it out in our respective states and let the chips fall where they may?

We already have a nice testing ground as far as RKBA is concerned with some states having draconian gun control laws and others with virtually no laws. To a certain extent it's good to have these examples of what not to do. One size fits all on a national level denies us this ability to do so on a proximate level.

 

[rock jock]

I want to be left alone by government, as much as possible, and am willing to leave everyone else alone as well. You want to use government to build the sort of community that you want to live in, excluding those who don't agree with your laws.

Though to be honest, I think your stated goals and values are very much in line with current society, especially in urban areas.

Well, I've got some unfortunate news for you. No society has ever existed in anarchy for long w/o the formation of tyranny worse than the govt. it replaced. You want to be left alone? I suggest you move to the deep isolation of Alaska. You want to live around others? You're going to have to play by some rules, period. Those rules will restrict some of your behavior. Call it control, tyranny, whatever. The key is to find a community with rules that are not so over-reaching that you cannot abide by them. So, you call me a statist because I recognize the reality of govt. That's fine. I would call you extremely naive to think that your utopia could exist at all.

 

[Thumper]

Uh oh...you said the "A" word. Careful, some here view the concept of anarchy with an almost religious fervor.

Segue to Tamara's next post...

 

[Derek Zeanah]

That is exactly the opposite of what Derek has been arguing. As for me, I could definitely go for that type of system. If the LP evers adopts that as a platform, I'll switch parties in a hearbeat.

I'd be absolutely cool with this if I get to set the standards for wherever I live. Odds are, though, that the majority are going to be closer to rock jock than to me, and I'll be worse off in my own neighborhood.

Well, I've got some unfortunate news for you. No society has ever existed in anarchy for long w/o the formation of tyranny worse than the govt. it replaced. You want to be left alone? I suggest you move to the deep isolation of Alaska.

I'm looking for something a lot closer to what we had in this country 100 years ago, thanks. I wouldn't call it "anarchy," but I would say we're closer to the dreaded T word now than at any time prior in our history.

You want to live around others? You're going to have to play by some rules, period. Those rules will restrict some of your behavior. Call it control, tyranny, whatever.

Some government is a necessity. No problems with that.

So, you call me a statist because I recognize the reality of govt. That's fine. I would call you extremely naive to think that your utopia could exist at all.

I'd call you a statist because you think it's OK to legalize morality. You can call me naive to believe that this country was freer in the past -- my neighbor does because he's pretty left of me -- but I still see living in a country closer to our pre-NFA, pre-drug war, pre-income tax past as a good thing.

It's OK that we don't agree. Really. I know I'm holding a minority position here.

 

[Chris Rhines]

Yahoo! The relativism is flying 'round thick and fierce!!!

Okay, first off: 'Communities' have no right to set standards of behaivor. Communities have no rights at all. None. Nada. The individuals who live in the community have rights, but their rights are exactly the same irregardless of what social system they happen to live under.

A person who wants to place limits on another's enjoyment of his rights wants to control others. That includes placing limits on where they can enjoy their rights. Example:

Listen, I could care less if someone wants to move another state can have relations with 100 sheep and 2 Democrats a day. So no, I don't want to control them.

In this quote, rock jock claims that he does not want to control other people. But, in the prior sentence, he states that a hypothetical person who wishes to engage in, ah, unusual sex practices should be forced to 'move to another state.' That is an advocacy of controling others, and no amoung of equivication will change it.

- Chris

 

[Don Galt]

Ok, lets put it in another context, without changing the meaning.

It seems to me that according to Rock Jock, if a black woman and a white man, or a white woman and a black man, want to get married, they have to do so with the consent of the community. (Everyone in the community? or just the majority? which is legal?)

That if the majority of the community thinks interratial marriage is disgusting, that community has the right to abolish it legally.

This is Rock Jocks opinion... if you don't like it you can go live in another community.

Ok, this is something Libertarians could accept if the "community" consists of only privately owned land and that everyone moving there knew these community standards existed before signing a lease some of the land. Once someone owns their own land inside the community, they inherit the rights to do whatever they want on their own land (at least in terms of who they marry... lets keep this simple)

Libertarians don't think discrimination is a moral crime. They don't like it, they think its stupid, they think its bad for capitalism, but they recognize the fact that discrimination is merely an excercise of the right of free association.

You know what else is an excercise of the right of free association? Marriage.

So, if two guys get married about a mile from you, they have NOT violated your rights, RockJock. They are not forcing you to accept their marriage. You can refuse to recognize it, refuse to do business with them if you want (in a libertarian society), or sit in your bedroom and read the bible all day obsessing over them. Or you can move a hundred miles away so you don't have to be near them--- whatever you want to avoid having to "Accept" them. All of these are exercising your right of free association to not associate with them.

That is your right, but that is the extent of your rights.

You cannot FORCE them to not get married. To do that, you are not "withholding your acceptance" -- something you can do by not associating with them. At the point that you pass a law preventing them from getting married, you are in the moral equivilent situation of showing up on their property, putting a gun to one of their heads and demanding that you will kidnap or kill them if they do not do what you say. Morally, you are imposing your will on them-- you are controlling them, and you are in violation of their human rights.

All laws are inherently backed up with violence. Any immoral laws is an act of violence against everyone it impacts. When you pass a law, you are in the moral position of showing up with a gun and forcing people to comply to your wishes. Thus the only moral laws are ones that respond to an initiation of force. You initiating force-- whether doing it yourself, or doing it thru a "law" is irrelevant-- is immoral.

No consent or "acceptance" is required from you for them to get married. Your problems with the thought of them getting married is your problem, not theirs.

You have it twisted around in your head to the point that you think if someone chooses not to practice your religion, they have somehow violated your rights! ITs absurd, and you really should be able to see the absurdity.

So what gives? Where did you get the right to impose religion on other people? How can you say a black man marrying a white woman is a violation of your rights?

You aren't even involved!

 

[tiberius]

There is nothing wrong or anti-liberitine about establishing reasonable community standards as long as these standards are resonable and not arbitary or violations of fundamental rights (speech, association, arms, etc.). However, IMHO, the enclosed walls of ones home form a "community" of its own with the full creator endowed power to set it's own standards.

 

[BigG]

Uh, having relations with 2 Democrats a day, falls under unusual sexual practices? Hmm...

 

[Moparmike]

Tiberius, who sets the standard for reason? That is the lynch pin of the whole arguement.

Like DonGalt said, if you have a peice of property that you want to start your own little commune on with its rules and regulations written by the Religious Right, then that is within your power in a libertarian world. However, if someone isnt on your commune's property, there isnt a damned thing you can do about their penchant for sheep or the same sex or guns or cheese or logic or South Park.

I too wonder with Kaylee what is so hard about understanding the phrase "Leave me the Hell alone!"

 

[tiberius]

Mopar,

I think you misunderstand me. Communities must have rights to establish acceptable public behavior. The key word is public. Some STATISTS in this thread are advocating control of private behavior, and I am completely against this. There is no need to be absurd here, it is possible to discuss and decide what is and what is not acceptable public behavior, even if its acceptability changes with the times and mores.

In regards to regulating public behavior, however, the standard cannot be that only those things which actually harm others can be restricted. There are things that should be completely off limits to restrictions because they are inalienable rights (again like speech, association, wearing of arms, etc) but other things are often restricted because it makes the community a better place for most.

For example: Public sex harms no one in any way. The most harm that anyone could claim is that it makes them uncomfortable. I do not believe that I am being a hypocrite to my libertarian beliefs to support an ordinance against it. Do you?

What goes on behind closed doors, however, is no one else's business. * I was only setting up the individual household as an independent community to point out the silliness of the STATISTS here.


* Usual disclaimers regarding protecting others i.e fist/face reference et al.