The Problem with Conservatives
While I'm sure most of my Prog Blog friends won't agree with everything Sean Gangol of The Libertarian Enterprise has to say, I'm sure they will agree with his assessment of Conservatives. Read it and see if it reminds of of anyone you have encountered in the blogsphere or in real life.
The money quote:
"If you truly want to live in a free society, you must have tolerance for things you don't like. You may not like abortion, drugs or homosexuality, but these are things you have to co-exist with if you want to live free. If you are the type that want control over other people's bodies or if you want to treat a certain group of people like secondary citizens, then a police state is the only place you belong."
Exactly.
(Hat tip to Strike the Root)
Labels: Conservatives, freedom, libertarian, tolerance
posted by Mike @ 10:33 AM
64 comments
64 Comments:
Canada does not have a mainstream political party that actually believes in the pure concept of freedom. All of them want to oppress us in some manner - and all do it to further their own conception of how the world SHOULD work and how people SHOULD behave.
We're governed by a collection of statist hypocrites.
Wise words Andrew. And absolutely true.
None of them, not a one, cares about freedom, but what can we do for them now...
And yet, most conservatives would argue Liberals want to control other peoples right to life by treating beings perfectly able of life outside the womb as nothing more than an "unwanted clump of cells". In which case the quote would equally apply to both sides of your linear spectrum.
But your obvious partisanship only belies your true underpinnings.
Cheers!
"And yet, most conservatives would argue Liberals want to control other peoples right to life by treating beings perfectly able of life outside the womb as nothing more than an "unwanted clump of cells".
They have no brain function and are merely lumps of cells that cannot live outside the womb until about 30 weeks. But hey, if you disagree, simply don't have one. I won't control your body if you don't try to control mine.
"But your obvious partisanship only belies your true underpinnings."
Yes, a libertarian and anarchist quoting another libertarian with yet a third libertarian making a comment, but because we stand for letting someone make a choice we may not ourselves agree with, we must be "teh Liberal" right?
Add to the list that conservatives are not just authoritarian pricks who want to control even the body of other people, they stupid too.
The christian right conservative position regarding prohibiting abortion is mirrored by a "typical leftist" propensity to ensure that even folks who think it's murder have to pay for it through taxes. The left and the right both have their fair share of bullies; just the areas of bullydom differ.
I won't disagree with that assessment Ron. I'm just not sure that its "mirroring" exactly - I see the prohibition and control of another's body far more egregious than being force to pay taxes. But YMMV.
That being said, it is of course true that a lot on the left are also authoritarians as well. They just want a police state for the opposite reasons, but they still would be more comfortable in a police state. From a libertarian perspective, there is precious little difference between the Upper Right Quadrant and the Upper Left Quadrant.
Mike-
With an issue as important as determining a beings "humanity", you feel comfortable reducing the debate to whether or not they have 'brain activity'? Thus, you must believe it is ok to terminate the existence of people in a coma? Or are mentally handicapped people are 'less human'?
You have reduced this debate to an absurd level to take a shot at one, and only one, side of your linear spectrum. I think that is a fairly Liberal thing to do. A mroe fair perspective, such as what Ron offered, was beyond you for some reason.
And, for your own benefit, there have been BABIES delivered and survived after only 21 weeks. But of course, to you this was only a clump of unwanted cells and should have just been thrown out. I hope you have a chance to meet someone born before 30 weeks one day.
A true libertarian would be very concerned with the life and liberty of those unable to protect themselves. Such as the unborn. The depersonification of others for the intention of murder is as unacceptable for abortionists as it was for the third reich. But again, you are a self titled 'left' libertarian, not a true libertarian. This public debate should be renewed in the interests of the unborn.
"A mroe fair perspective, such as what Ron offered, was beyond you for some reason."
No, as you can see, I agreed with it.
Beyond that, I will not buy into or get caught up in your hyperbole.
If you do not believe in abortion, don't have one. I am concerned for the life of the woman whose body you wish to control. Is she to be a slave so you can feel better about a fetus?
Clearly then, you wish to use the power's of the state to enforce your particular opinion about how things should be on others, against their will. You are for a police state.
So thank you for proving the very point this post and the article I linked to were trying to make.
I won't get into why you don't agree - really its irrelevant - but you show that you are not willing, in order to be truly free, tolerate people and actions that you do not agree with. And living free to make your own choices without coercion from the state or others - even bad choices in some peoples opinion - is what "true libertarians", both left or right, care about.
Frankly I don't think you know what a libertarian even is...
Clearly you support the use of the state for exactly the same reasons, to force those of us who dont believe in extinguishing the life of an infant to fund such procedures. So what is your point?
Unfortunately, I dont believe that libertarians, or anyone, have the right to make free choices that harm the lives of others. I am concerned that ending the life on an innocent child is somehow more grevious than inconveniencing a woman who made the free choice to be impregnated (in all likliehood).
The fact that *YOU* arbitrarily decide who and what has 'life', and what value that has, is what defines you as a leftist, not a libertarian.
Mike has never said that he supports state funding of such procedures, and I'd be astonished if he did.
I see the prohibition and control of another's body far more egregious than being force to pay taxes
Hi Mike:
Well, the authorities don't yet control exactly what I do in order to raise the money to pay the taxes, but I'm still *exactly* a slave while I do it.
-----
Anonymous, hi:
This public debate should be renewed in the interests of the unborn
Given the legitimate strength of slippery slope arguments on both sides of this debate, and given also the inability of churches, states and NGOs to come up with any good "one answer suits all" positions (after centuries of trying), I'd be quite happy with the government being totally removed from the equation, and then simply leaving decisions regarding terminating or proceeding with a pregnancy left to mothers, fathers and their medical advisors.
"Clearly you support the use of the state for exactly the same reasons, to force those of us who dont believe in extinguishing the life of an infant to fund such procedures."
No, no I do not. Not at all. That is why I agreed with Ron. I never said that. I believe in free choice and truly free markets. If you have ever read my other stuff in the last few months, you will see that I don't support the idea of government at all anymore...so much for that argument. I wish to see government abolished from the earth.
"I am concerned that ending the life on an innocent child is..."
And therein lies the difference. I'm quite sure you are one of those "life begins at conception folks", but this rests on no historical or scientific proof. The fetus has no brain activity until after 20 weeks, cannot exist outside the womb until much later. As an acorn is not an oak tree, so it this not a human. Even in the Bible and tradition for thousands of years, a baby was not thought to be human until it drew its first independent breathe after birth - this was when the soul entered the body, the 'Quickening". May I point you to Exodus 22?
At any rate, what this shows is that we have different opinions. While I am more than willing to let you live with yours, you are not willing to let others have different opinions. If you want to believe an 8 week old zygot is the equivalent of an infant, you are more than welcome. Most folks won't share that opinion. The majority of abortions in Canada occur between 8 and 12 weeks and almost none occur after 20. Of those that do, almost all occur to save the life of the mother or to abort a severely deformed fetus likely to die soon after birth.
If you don't want to have an abortion, don't have one. But don't force other people to follow your particular beliefs against their will because you believe something scientifically and historically untenable.
And yet again, proving the point that you feel the need to interfere in the lives of others rather than than looking after yourself, or, better yet, doing something that will encourage people to choose not to have an abortion - you know, make the alternatives better and beat abortion in the market...
Ron,
Point taken.
"Given the legitimate strength of slippery slope arguments on both sides of this debate, and given also the inability of churches, states and NGOs to come up with any good "one answer suits all" positions (after centuries of trying), I'd be quite happy with the government being totally removed from the equation, and then simply leaving decisions regarding terminating or proceeding with a pregnancy left to mothers, fathers and their medical advisors."
Bingo! You said that way better than I did.
Rather than work to outlaw abortion and force people to not have one through coercion, make the incentive to carry the pregnancy to term and raise the child better than the the option of abortion.
Simple.
Rather than work to outlaw abortion and force people to not have one through coercion, make the incentive to carry the pregnancy to term and raise the child better than the the option of abortion
Exactly.
Ron, you know who once made that sensible recommendation on Larry King once? A Southern Baptist minister...
Mike: I'm not surprised, really.
As soon as one looks at the entire situation with a spirit of generosity rather than condemnation towards those whose positions differ, it becomes obvious that working to support positive action through providing better alternatives is better than working to prevent "bad" action through legislation.
"As soon as one looks at the entire situation with a spirit of generosity rather than condemnation towards those whose positions differ, it becomes obvious that working to support positive action through providing better alternatives is better than working to prevent "bad" action through legislation."
Yep.
Again, the point of the link and the real difference between libertarians (either left or right) and statists (either left or right).
Mike and Ron:
The problem with your thesis is that we are dealing with human life.
The value of life should not be an opinion. I dont think either of you would suggest your libertarian leanings would allow you to support the free actions of the Nazi's, who killed jews, homosexuals and others merely because they viewed them as "not human" or "an unwanted clump of cells". Now obviously we are dealing with a much more complex issue involving dependency upon a host, etc., etc. But to claim that "women should be allowed to have an abortion at any time of their pregnancy, without any interference of others" totally disregards the ONLY individuals who cannot contribute to the debate, and the ONLY individuals at risk of losing their life. You both agree that because the voice of the unborn cannot be heard, that they should not be considered AT ALL in this equation? Something doesnt make sense to me there.
Again, it is a scientific and medical fact that babies can be healthy and develop/live outside of the womb after only 20 weeks. Why is it that you might support the killing of these totally self sufficient beings based only upon their physical location, and the inconvenience they put upon a host who made the decision to become impregnated.
PS- I would appreciate you not assuming my positions, regardless of how it helps your thesis Mike.
Well, at risk of invoking Godwin, you are entirely missing the point, anon. Ron and I may, in fact, entirely agree with your position that life begins at conception. We differ in that we do not agree that the coercive power of the state should be brought to bear to force people to do something they do not agree with or consent to doing. You are saying, as Andrew pointed out way back at the top, that people should be forced to carry through on unwanted pregnancies, even if they do not want to. What Ron and I are saying is that rather than do that, create incentives and situations where the choice to have an abortion is not chosen.
Its really simple:
I will not be able to convince you that an fetus is not fully human and you will not convince me that it is. I will not convince you that the a woman can and should control her own body no matter what and you will not convince me that she should not for the sake of a clump of cells that no one can decide has reached a state of humanness. So rather than using outrageous hyperbole and trying to invoke visions of Nazis, why not spend your effort and money on and throw your support behind things that can prevent abortion without the state telling people what they can do with their body:
1. Encourage contraception - prevent the babies from being conceived in the first place and when they are only conceived when they are wanted, they won't be aborted.
2. Provide, through private charities and means, support, housing and education to women, so that they can both choose to carry on with their pregnancy AND maintain a decent life for the child. This will eliminate the hypocrisy of some anti-choice people who are ready to kill to prevent an abortion but don't give a damn about another welfare baby and crack mother once the child is actually born. And yes, you know there are people like this.
3. Go out of your way to accept single women raising a kid, treat them as regular people. Don't call them sluts, whores and demean them as loose morally because of perhaps a simple mistake. In short, no judgment.
4. Don't have an abortion. You'd be shocked how many "pro-life" folks end up having abortions, pretending that their's is somehow "different".
If you are willing to do this, you would have my support and likely the support of even people like Dr. Morgantaler. Do this rather than taking away choice. Make the choice of having an abortion the one not chosen.
Do you think you could do that, or would you rather tell people what they can and cannot do with their own body? Would you support allowing the state to take one of your kidneys against your will if it meant saving the life of another person? Its the same thing...
Ah yes, lets reword your statement again, because you are only repeating your logical fallacy over and over. Welcome to WWII:
I will not be able to convince you that a Jew is not fully human and you will not convince me that it is. I will not convince you that that anyone cannot and should not control thier own community no matter what and you will not convince me that they should not for the sake of a clump of cells that no one can decide has reached a state of humanness. So rather than using outrageous hyperbole and trying to invoke visions of Negro's, why not spend your effort and money on and throw your support behind things that can prevent genocide without the state telling people what they can do with their property.
Sounds horrible, doesnt it? But the correct decision is not to allow murder simply because you are not doing it. I dont kill humans, and I don't believe others should either. I dont believe making "better options to promote people NOT to murder" is an ethical and moral position.
It is important for us all to define WHAT A HUMAN IS. Not to ignore the question and pretend it doesnt matter. Currently, in our country, we allow taxpayer funded abortion up to the point of delivery with no questions asked. That, in my opinon, is a major failing of our society but yet a choice you feel comfortable with. This disturbs me.
"If you are the type that want control over other people's bodies or if you want to treat a certain group of people like secondary citizens, then a police state is the only place you belong."
There is no comparison between a full grown human and an embryo, a bunch of cells embedded in a cell wall in a uterus. It disturbs me you think otherwise. There is no analogy to the Holocaust no matter how many times you say it.
because the voice of the unborn cannot be heard [...] they should not be considered AT ALL in this equation is not at all my position, but I'm at work so more on this later. The topic deserves more than what I can provide now.
And you are correct, it is a more complex issue involving dependency upon a host...
An aside, re:
Currently, in our country, we allow taxpayer funded abortion up to the point of delivery with no questions asked. That, in my opinon, is a major failing of our society but yet a choice you feel comfortable with.
Anon, where did you get that either Mike or I was comfortable with that? We've both stated that we do not favour tax-payer supported terminations.
There is no comparison between a full grown human and an embryo, a bunch of cells embedded in a cell wall in a uterus. It disturbs me you think otherwise. There is no analogy to the Holocaust no matter how many times you say it.
Except for the fact that EVERY SINGLE FULL GROWN HUMAN must FIRST be an embryo, a bunch of cells embedded in a uterus. Is there no connection between a full grown human and a child, or a teenager?
As HUMANS we have created the social structures of Zygote, Embryo, Fetus, etc. As HUMANS we have created the right to kill these social structures. But WHY?
Again, you cannot avoid the heart of this argument: What IS a human? When does that clump of cells become a human? Is it merely the physical position of such cells? Is it the brain activity? Is it the act of birthing? Is it the ability for such 'clump of cells' to survive outside of the womb? Is it the color of their skin? Is it their beliefs? Is it their 'soul'?
For you to simply disregard the very essence of what makes us human in order to allow murder without guilt is exactly the same justification used for genocide and murder the world over. "They are not human, or at least as human as I am, therefore I (or we) have a right to kill them" is the crux of your argument, and it is simply not rational. Or at least you have not rationalized it.
You must agree it is not alright to kill a human, but yet you will not define precisely what a human is. You decry others as wanting to control the body of a woman, with no care at all for the body of the unborn. No balance, no consideration. No choice at all for a living organism who never asked to be implanted within a hosts body. Can you not see the logical deficiency at all, Mike?
Anon, where did you get that either Mike or I was comfortable with that? We've both stated that we do not favour tax-payer supported terminations.
Sorry Ron, you havent made your opinion as clearly as Mike and I never meant to suggest you did. But Mike presses that I should change my activities and not attempt to push the realities of abortion being similar to homicide. Mike seemingly prefers absolutely no limits on abortion beyond perhaps ability to pay? At least he has never said otherwise. Is that your position as well, that only the funding of such procedures is the issue, with no regard to timing or establishing the definitions of humanity?
re: You must agree it is not alright to kill a human
Unless one accepts that certain acts by definition put a person outside the realm of humanness, it is sometimes (as, say, in defense of one's own life) perfectly alright to kill a human.
Well, I think Mike and I would say that--given that all attempts (as I noted earlier) to legislate abortion and/or the "moment at which a fetus becomes truly human" have been failures, that it is probably more productive and more effective to change the tactic to one of providing better alternatives.
Ron, I totally agree.
Thus, the importance of defining what is hummanness.
As Mike likes to point out; 'If you are the type that want control over other people's bodies or if you want to treat a certain group of people like secondary citizens, then a police state is the only place you belong' is only true if everyone agrees on what is a person. Mike doesnt believe a fetus is a person, I believe Mike treats them like secondary citizens.
Perspective is everything.
Ron-
Would you have said the same thing living during the holocaust and discussing Jews with the Third Reich?
Sometimes it is up to society to push for better answers instead of pretending they are too hard and complicated.
I believe there is an appropriate middle ground that people can agree upon. I really don't believe modern society is there. I mean, do you honestly think it is morally acceptable for us to allow partial birth abortions? Because we do, today, in Canada, and only because we are afraid to ask such hard questions.
Still at work, so no long involved stuff right now but I actually start from a couple of different places, which is to say that:
1) regardless of humanness, no one/nothing has a right to the involuntary support of an unwilling host, and that
2) barring rape, pregnancy is a foreseeable (although far from certain, and often explicitly unwanted) consequence of a volitional act.
Even so, in a million years, I would still never move to legislate my position as a view with which all others must comply.
So, for now, let me just muddy the water by stating that I am always astonished at how men have no legal control over whether the pregancy is terminated or not, but still somehow magically obtain a responsibility (imposed when not voluntary) for years of support if the mother decides to carry to term.
Anon,
An acorn is not a tree. A grain of wheat is not a sheaf. A seed is not a flower. A fetus is not an adult human.
They are different.
As I said earlier, we will not agree when "humanness" occurs. Ron's point is that there are ways to deal with this that do not involve enlisting the coercive power of the state to tell people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.
"I mean, do you honestly think it is morally acceptable for us to allow partial birth abortions? Because we do, today, in Canada, and only because we are afraid to ask such hard questions."
Yet in the 20 years that Canada has been without an abortion law, these kinds of procedures have only ever taken place when the life of the mother is at stake, or the fetus is severely deformed and would die shortly after birth. No woman uses this for some deranged birth control. Even Dr. Morgantaler won't perform these procedures.
You see, if you give people the chance, they can make the right decisions without the need to be forced or coerced by the state - women don't seek these and doctor's don't perform them.
And again, this brings us back to the real point of this post. You are not willing to let people do things you do not agree with. You want to use all the coercive power of the state to control a woman's body, rather than trust her to do it.
And if a woman cannot control her own body, can any of us? I choose not to grant the state that kind of power over anyone.
You can fight abortion without needing to define humanness or resorting to coercive state power - merely prevent it in the first place via contraception and provide an easy alternative so that it is not chosen.
Why is that so complicated?
"So, for now, let me just muddy the water by stating that I am always astonished at how men have no legal control over whether the pregancy is terminated or not, but still somehow magically obtain a responsibility (imposed when not voluntary) for years of support if the mother decides to carry to term."
Ron, I agree that is a bit odd. I for one would state that the man should not have any say - it is a decision of the woman alone. That being said, he should also not be financially responsible for a child he does not wish to support. He should support the child voluntarily and the woman would have to support the child on their own, should they choose to go to term without that consensual support. Sounds like an area some do-gooders who wish for her to choose NOT to have an abortion can help, no?
Mike: Control and responsibility are corrolaries, which is to say "if you don't have one, you don't have the other." So I agree that logically that makes carrying or termination a choice of the woman alone, and the support for a carried child only morally/legally enforcable on the woman--unless one is willing to insist that women share the decision re: carrying to term with men (and, in fact, defer to a man's positive decision to carry to term), and I don't see how that would, or even should, work.
What I find interesting is that many women who insist men who don't want the baby should be compelled to support a carried child are often the same women who insist that it's wrong that women lose any control over their own bodies and choices, even for a short 9 months. I don't see how someone can consistently argue both positions.
Nor do I
Anonymous, with respect:
Would you have said the same thing living during the holocaust and discussing Jews with the Third Reich?
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I'll certainly answer if you let me know, but I can't see what I'd change.
Sometimes it is up to society to push for better answers instead of pretending they are too hard and complicated.
Unlike individuals, "society" only exists as a construct--but if you mean one should push for better answers instead of pretending, then yes, I agree except that this situation is one of those where I work also to accept that if people are free to act truly well, they will also be free to act badly, or certainly to act in ways that I may not understand or support.
This is a situation where I know that mistakes on both sides cause real damage, and I am much more prepared to accept that some unborn children will wrongly die than I am to accept the damage--including death--caused to otherwise intact, valuable, possibly troubled but adult lives by wrongful coercion of carrying to term.
I have a personal opinion about abortion in general (I think it is often if not mostly a huge error of expedience or of careless cause) but I do not pretend to know so much about the adult life of another and all the other/additional values in play in their lives that I will coerce behaviour in this situation. If there's gonna be an error of commission, I would rather it is theirs, not mine.
I believe there is an appropriate middle ground that people can agree upon.
Perhaps it is the middle where people choose to offer help but otherwise leave each other alone in troubled times unless help is asked for, at which time the request is accepted or denied with dignity to all but based on the judgement of the person being asked.
I really don't believe modern society is there. I mean, do you honestly think it is morally acceptable for us to allow partial birth abortions?
How about I answer this way: I think partial birth/late term abortions are usually but always a horrible idea, but I still think it moral to allow them.
Because we do, today, in Canada, and only because we are afraid to ask such hard questions.
I do my best to answer hard questions as well as ask them.
I'm an atheist, but if this is god's creation and I am to be judged, I am more willing to be judged for what I believe now and for what I attempt as generosity of spirit than I would be to be judged for being (I think) arrogant enough to know about the values in another's life to a degree where I felt I had a moral right to coerce what you suggest.
Please, though--and with my blessing--do all that you wish in a non-coercive manner to protect and save the lives of unborn children; it's good work.
read: usually but *not* always a horrible idea...
Just once I'd like to see a debate about conservative vs liberal that didn't use abortion as a focus. That may have happened later in this thread, but I lost interest.
f*ck. There's a bit more to it than that, isn't there?
candace: there's lots more to it, but still: the issue is a good one for isolating and/or illustrating essential principles.
Candace,
I know, I have tried to steer this back on topic a few times - the original topic being that conservatives (and as Ron has pointed out a large number of liberals) are not willing to live with those they disagree and are willing to use the state to enforce their values on others coercively. The original article pointed out that this means they really don't want freedom, they want a police state, albeit a police state they are in charge of rather than the victims of.
I actually think this should be more of a libertarian vs non-libertarian or authoritarian vs non-authoritarian discussion.
I find left-right, liberal-conservative perspectives cloud the real issues. I called the post "The Trouble with Conservatives" because that was the name of the original article I linked to and because of the irony - the argument applies equally to so-called liberals.
And well Ron has pointed out, this topic is a good one to reveal the differences, I think we could also have discussed this in the context of gay marriage, polygamy, taxes, the military, health care or any number of hot button topics.
I'd be happy to discuss this in another way if you are.
Anonymous and anyone else who opposes using tax money to provide abortions -- you're all clamouring, then, to end the centuries-old tax havens provided to churches, are you? Because religious tax exemption costs Canadian taxpayers far, far more than abortions do every year, and at all three levels of tax collection.
m@,
Well, I oppose using tax money period, but I see your point, sort of.
I don't want my money used for anything I do not explicitly consent to. Thus, rather than being forced to pay for things I do not agree with, I voluntarily contribute to the secular school or the women's health centre. If someone want to fund an Evangelical school or a home for unwed mothers, they can do whatever they want with their money, so long as it does not affect me ("neither picks my pockets nor breaks my legs"). A lot less conflict when everything is voluntary.
Beyond that, your point further serves as an example of Sean Gangol's overarching point - Conservatives and Liberals "want to control over other peoples bodies" and "want to treat a certain group of people like secondary citizens" thus both agree on having a police state. They only really disagree as to who should be in control of that police state, Conservatives or Liberals.
And guys like Ron and I just shake our heads.
Mike,
I'm sympathetic to your view, though I do think there's a collective good that is served by taxation. The problems that go along with that collective good are, I admit, enormous, but I'm comfortable living at an impasse.
What bugs me is when people bring up "my tax money is paying for dat!!!" as a way to block specific programs with which they disagree. I'd say, if they're going to take that view, they have to be consistent -- which I think you and Ron generally are, and our anonymous tax-paying friend is not.
Mike and Ron;
Thanks for a great and informative debate. I think we have all managed to showcase a logical position, although obviously from different perspectives. I dont think there is anything more to gain from commenting specifically on your responses re: abortion, so let's leave it there?
Mike - I agree pretty much totally with your last statement. As a libertarian, you should be equally disgusted with the actions of the traditional right and left. I think your initial stab at only the right was rather unfair, regardless of the quoted text, and I think you have expanded that thesis appropriately.
M@ - Your assumptions are dead wrong, and to compare tax exemptions to public funding is rather ridiculous. Regardless, please point out where I am inconsistent in my thinking because I think you are just making things up.
religious tax exemption costs Canadian taxpayers far, far more than abortions do every year
Leaving aside the comparison, let's not forget that there is a difference between money not gained and money lost--which is to say that if I have $100 and you take $50, I've lost $50, but if I have $100 and you just don't give me $50, I haven't "lost" anything.
The only way an exemption is a "loss" is if you figure the State had a right to (as in: owned all...) the dollars in the first place, and I don't think that.
Anon,
As I said earlier, part of my using that was partly to be ironic, knowing that lots on the left act exactly the same.
Permit me to barge in with what I believe is a slightly simpler and better libertarian perspective.
CAVEAT: I am just going to address the true libertarians now. There is so much ridiculous nonesense in this thread posted by people who clearly have no concept of freedom. Sorry for talking over the heads of coercionists.
First of all, the "money quote" taken from Sean Gangol in the opening of this thread is wrong. A truly free society holds private property rights, including the right to own and defend land, to be a primary right.
Thus, abortions will only be conducted on land owned by people who agree with abortion. People who disagree with abortion will be free to ostracize abortionists. There is no coercion and at the same time, nobody needs co-exist with abortion nor drugs nor homosexuality nor have tolerance for anything. The scientific debate about when life begins or whether drugs are bad or homosexuality is evil are alll irrelevent because those who want to be intolerant are free to leave and defend their intolerant land to the death. End of story.
With libertarianism focused on the primacy of property rights, solutions truly become simple.
---
I understand that we are stuck in an inescapbable state of affairs where coercion is all around us. However, my belief is that the only argument that has a hope of bring conservato-socialists close to appreciating true libertarian ideals is by focussing on the right to private property. Most people can accept the intuitive concept of "this is mine" and "that is yours" without much argument.
Charles,
You'll get no argument from me on your points, that's exactly how it would work and the beauty of a voluntary society.
But Sean's quote is still correct because even with private property rights, those of the coercive mindset would still try to enforce their will on others. His quote says more about the non-libertarian mindset than the libertarian one. You merely explain why libertarians would hold the position they do.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I wish to insist upon the following crucial technicality: enforcing one's will on an other person is a violation of private property rights.
When you say: "even with private property rights, those of the coercive mindset would still try to enforce their will on others." you are saying nothing more than "there is nothing to guarantee that some people will try to violate private property rights even in a libertarian world." We know that. Libertarians do not pretend that crime will never exist.
I agree that the quote speaks about the non-libertarian mindset but that is all it does -- which, realistically, does not amount to much. With the non-libertarian mindset, there is nothing logically consistent between right and wrong.
charles: you're mostly correct in what you say, but people's minds are opened by any number of right approaches.
When you say: I agree that the quote speaks about the non-libertarian mindset but that is all it does -- which, realistically, does not amount to much, you are pre-supposing your audience. It may amount to a great deal to someone who has not considered it that way before, or perhaps deeply enough.
This: "the only argument that has a hope of bring conservato-socialists close to appreciating true libertarian ideals is by focussing on the right to private property" assumes too much about the value of that sole argument, even as true as it is...and far too little about the range of experiences and, consequently, the far from homogenous hierarchies of all possible values in the target audience. "[C]onservato-socialists" are not their caricature; they are individuals.
In other words, there are many correct and useful ways to argue for freedom. It's a mistake to be a one-trick pony in this game.
Libertarians ARE one-trick ponies because the concept of freedom is extremely narrowly defined as a violation of property rights and its defense is a moral issue. I will not pre-suppose that non-libertarians are incapable of figuring that out on their own.
Indeed, I am pre-supposing my target audience and your objection suggests that it does not ring well with people who were excluded in my CAVEAT above. If you are suggesting that there are many different ways to arrive at becoming a libertarian, I agree. However, that is a slightly different issue.
""[C]onservato-socialists" are not their caricature; they are individuals."
I could have use the word "statists" instead. However, the similarities between "conservatives" and "socialists" from a libertarian perspective seems to be the whole point of this thread -- not their individuality. Am I wrong with that interpretation of this thread?
Charles: you said "the only argument that has a hope of bring conservato-socialists close to appreciating true libertarian ideals is by focussing on the right to private property", and I understood you to mean only conservato-socialists.
My point still stands; it is wrong that "focussing on the right to private property" is "the only argument that has a hope of bring conservato-socialists close to appreciating true libertarian ideals" (emphasis mine). Some conservato-socialists may, for only one example, be more compelled by Mises' arguments noting the impossibility of economic calculation in the socialist commonwealth than by an argument focussing on the right to private property.
Re: changing "conservato-socialists " to "statists": statists are not their caricature, either.
From Scott Bieser on the LeftLibertarian2 Yahoo group:
"A libertarian is someone who believes that no one has the right, under
any circumstances, to initiate force against another person, nor to
delegate or incite the initiation of force by other persons. Those who
live by this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not;
those who do not live by those principles are not libertarians,
regardless of what they may claim.
"
That, I think, puts libertarianism and anarchism in a much better context, because from this principle arises the right to property and also constrains it, though natural law. Its not just about private property and private property is not absolute - it is still constrained by the principle of non-aggression. That is, even on my own property, I could not simple enslave and murder people or cause any harm out of proportion to the harm they may have caused me, otherwise I would be in violation of the non-aggression principle.
Have you heard of Roderick T Long? He has some very good stuff about this over at Mises.org.
Mike,
You are right that the non-aggression principle is a more concise summary of anarchism but it is not an argument -- it is an axiom. It is assumed to be true. For most true libertarians, they probably read it and say: "Well, yeah. That makes perfect sense. I agree with that rule." They live and breath respecting universal freedom.
However, if you think the non-aggression principle is NOT just about private property, try justifying the validity of the non-aggression principle to somebody who does not see it as an obvious rule, for example a tax-collector or a state police officer.
You have to argue it in terms of natural law and the right to private property. Ultimately, one is half-full and the other is half-empty. Aggression is an assault on property.
You said: "That is, even on my own property, I could not simple enslave and murder people or cause any harm out of proportion to the harm they may have caused me, otherwise I would be in violation of the non-aggression principle." to which I play the devil's advocate and ask: so what? Why would that be wrong? What makes the non-aggression principle right? Answer: Natural law theory and the right to private property explains why it would be wrong. [I would also ask: How did those people get onto your property in the first place?]
Roderick T. Long? I have probably read his stuff because the name sounds familiar and I am always surfing through the Mises crowd. However, I have stopped keeping track of all that I read -- there is just so much! I have a recommended reading: The Argument From Morality Or, how we will win… which is a continuation of Forget The Argument From Efficiency by Stephan Molyneux.
Ron,
I understand that people can become libertarians from different directions but in the end, what brings a minarchist to become a full-fledged anarchist and be able to argue for its defense hinges upon the right to private property through natural law theory as a foundation. I realize we could go on and on and on with more examples but I insist that any argument that defends absolute anarchy depends on the primacy of property rights because that is what true anarchy is. I present you with the following challenge: find one argument in defense of libertarianism that does NOT depend on the right to private property.
The example you presented of the impossibility of knowing all information is not a defense of libertarianism. It just appeals to the "efficiency" of an absolute private property rights market [Anybody can define "efficiency" the way they want and anarchists define it in moral terms through the non-aggression principle.] or conversely, it shows the relative folly of state control. I would like to stress the word "relative" because a non-libertarian could laugh at your chosen argument and just say: "Big deal! All you are saying is that governments should be small. I know that! Anyway, you can not throw the baby out with the bath-water. You have to work within the system! Since we will never see an anarchist utopia we may as well have government limited to yadda yadda yadda......" That one example you chose from Mises does not condemn state control and thus, does not, in anyway, bring anybody close "to appreciating true libertarian ideals."
Secondarily, it seems like either I am misunderstanding your nomenclature or you are misunderstanding my caricatures. It sounded like you were subtly suggesting to me that I should not be so disresepctful to non-libertarians. Is that your point? If not please clarify.
Nevertheless, I will be more explicit about my disdain for non-libertarians: whether they choose to label themselves as conservatives or liberals or socialists or communists or statists or whatever, I do not care one whit. I use their labels interchangeably to express my smug indifference towards their moral political stance because they are all the same to me. While I am clarifying my labels, an anarchist and a true libertarian are one and the same too, in my book.
---
I barged into this thread because it was tearing apart the issue of abortion rights.
There are anarchists who believe that the right to self-defense is transferable -- to a good Samaritan passing by, for example. To illustrate, they believe that if there are human rights violations happening in a foreign country, you have every right to travel to that country and take up arms to defend those helpless victims without asking their prior permission. There are non-libertarians who share that belief too.
Take this a step further. Many people (anarchist and non-anarchist alike) believe that everybody has the right to intervene to defend a child from abuse without asking that child's consent. [Some people do not even believe that a child can give consent but that is a different issue.] Would it surprise you to learn that there are religious-folk who are also anarchists? They believe that the right to transfer self-defense to unborn children. I insist that only an argument based on property rights can create a balance.
Charles: After reading your newer posts and re-reading earlier ones, I think I understand your view better, and I have more appreciation for it. The right to property however is not the core of my view of anarchism unless by property you mean--at core--my right to myself, my own life, and you to yours. I'm not saying here, then, that I disagree with you. In fact, we may be working to say the same thing. Are we?
"None of them, not a one, cares about freedom, but what can we do for them now..."
I did not really come here to discuss abortion, but instead, I was interested in the main theme of the post. It is a generalization to say that conservatives all want to control other people's lives. That is simply not the case.
The big tent parties contain people of various views. They must be centrist to get elected. There does exists a Libertarian party. They are not getting elected because the bulk of Canadians don't vote for them. Federally, most vote for Liberals, NDP, or the Greens on the left and the Conservatives on the right.
"If you are the type that want control over other people's bodies or if you want to treat a certain group of people like secondary citizens, then a police state is the only place you belong."
I just don't see how this is attributed to Conservatives. I don't want people to do drugs, but I would want them stopped from committing crimes, like theft and murder, to pay for drugs. To simply suggest that all Conservatives yearn for or belong to a police state is wrong.
"It is a generalization to say that conservatives all want to control other people's lives. That is simply not the case."
Well as further comments suggest, I wasn't just aiming at Conservatives, but Conservatives, especially social conservatives are the most vocal and unapologetic advocates of interfering and controlling peoples lives. And not just abortion - who can marry whom, what I can put into my body, whom I can trade or associate with. Liberals and other political parties share this to lesser degrees and on different fronts. I personally thing Conservatives are most egregious.
"There does exists a Libertarian party. They are not getting elected because the bulk of Canadians don't vote for them."
Well they don't get votes because most principled libertarians don't vote for them. Most principled libertarians who do not want the state at all, do not participate in a system they see as illegitimate and thus don't vote at all.
"I just don't see how this is attributed to Conservatives. I don't want people to do drugs, but I would want them stopped from committing crimes, like theft and murder, to pay for drugs. To simply suggest that all Conservatives yearn for or belong to a police state is wrong."
As I said, Conservatives (and Liberals et al) want to use the coercive power of the state to enforce their mores on others, against their will and whether those people accept those mores or not. So you have Conservatives wanting to ban gay marriage, get tougher on drugs, further criminalize prostitution, tell me that I must invest my RRSP a certain way and steal part of my income to support the purchase of military equipment event the CF says is not needed. Some wish to outlaw homosexuality altogether. Some want to bring back the death penalty.
John the point is, if you support forcing people to live a certain way against their will and without their consent, you are supporting a police state. It is no different than if a far left socialist group used the power to abolish private property, confiscate or nationalize industry or enforce polygamy or other sect religious beliefs into law. It would be a coercive police state.
Did you read the link? I think it is pretty clear.
Ron and Charles,
I of course accept the right of self-ownership as self-evident. So, if that is the crux of Charles argument, then we are not that far apart and may be in violent agreement. But I think bringing in the idea of property rights without clearly defining it and setting out the boundaries can be a bit dangerous. Self-ownership does not mean that ownership can be transfered to another, or that a woman can "own" a fetus or any such thing. That opens the door to all sorts of issues of slavery and second-class citizen hood that would clearly violate the non-aggression principle.
This is why I feel the non-aggression principle is the central belief of libertarianism and private property grows from it, not the other way around. I think you would see that thinkers as varied as Rothbard and Proudhon would agree on that.
"John the point is, if you support forcing people to live a certain way against their will and without their consent, you are supporting a police state. It is no different than if a far left socialist group used the power to abolish private property, confiscate or nationalize industry or enforce polygamy or other sect religious beliefs into law. It would be a coercive police state."
Great. If that is the point of the post, then are you going to change the title of your post? Your titles paints all conservatives with the same so-con brush, but really how many conservatives are really so-cons? Will you change the title to "The Problem with Conservatives" or "The Problem with Conservatives (and Liberals et al)"?
Sorry, I missed the word social:
"The Problem with Social Conservatives"
John,
As I stated earlier, this was done because it was also the title of the original article I linked to.
And before you go feeling that regular Conservative are not covered think again. That kind of coercion can easily be shown in conservative economic policy as well. Anti-scab legislation, protectionism for professionals (Doctors, lawyers, accountants), "free trade" agreements that are thousands of pages long and still vastly restrict whom I can trade with and how.
To see the kind of thing I'm talking about, read The Conservative Nanny State by Dean Baker.
Basically, if you wish to tell me whom I can trade with, whom I can associate with or whether I can conduct the business I am trained for based on your beliefs or interests, then that is just as much a police state as the socons want.
If you want to prevent gays from marrying or prevent unions from forming or prevent me from trading with Cuba, then you are supporting a police state and merely arguing over who should control it.
The correct title should be "The Problem with Statists".
If you really believe there's no precedent for controlling another person's body in Canada, try renting a womb or selling a kidney. Or wait a few years to see how many more limitations will be imposed in the name of single-payer health care.
Most people want freedom without responsibility. Your body, your choices, your financial obligations.
lrC
lrC,
Well I don't know if you managed to read all the posts, but I did explain about 3 times why I named the post the way I did (it was the name of the original post.
Its irrelevant whether there is precedent for those things or not, the controlling of another person's body is not right. I don't see a problem with renting a womb (indeed, it may be the solution to the intractable problem that took over this thread) or selling a kidney. Or donating both, as the case may be.
As long as it is done consensually, freely and voluntarily with no coercion, then I really have little say in it.
That being said, there are precious few members of the Conservative Party that actually believe this. there are very few members of the Liberals or NDP either. One wishes for freedom without responsibility in economic affairs, but wants to control you socially, while the other wants to control you economically and allow you freedoms without responsibility socially.
Both are wrong.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sorry guys -- too many typos in my previous post submissions. I wish we could edit them after they are sent!
In response to Ron who said: "The right to property however is not the core of my view of anarchism unless by property you mean--at core--my right to myself, my own life, and you to yours. I'm not saying here, then, that I disagree with you. In fact, we may be working to say the same thing. Are we?"
I believe we certainly are working toward the same thing and my conception of property absolutely starts with exactly as you say, your right to yourself and my right to myself et ansi de suite.
However, I am not shy to say that your right to self-ownership also includes, by necessity, your right to appropriate physical property outside of your body. Naturally, we can dispute what that right may entail and the limitations upon a just appropriation -- that would be for a different thread, I suppose -- however, to give you a more complete idea of what anarchism means to me, it would be fair for me to also disclose that I believe you have the right to an exclusive ownership of more than just your physical body. To put it a different way: I do not believe in the communal ownership of many things. Catch my drift?
Nevertheless, regardless of what my complete personal conception of anarchism happens to be, I still stand by my previous statements.
In response to Mike who said: "But I think bringing in the idea of property rights without clearly defining it and setting out the boundaries can be a bit dangerous."
I can agree with that but when you say this: "This is why I feel the non-aggression principle is the central belief of libertarianism and private property grows from it, not the other way around." I insist that you are making a serious argumentative mistake because the non-aggression principle depends on a definition of private property.
Post a Comment
<< Home