slug.com slug.com

6 1

Is there a contradiction in being a total libertarian in politics, but also believing there should be extensive rules governing social life (i.e. not just "do what I want when I want" freedom)? Longstanding debate with a friend - I believe this IDW community can give us insight!

fpinto 4 Mar 11
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

6 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Congratulations! My first comment ever on IDW; and you are the lucky recipient! I am nothing if not verbose, so hold on to something...
...
1st I'm a little concerned with what appears to be an association of "Libertarian" with "Do what i want when I want" in your question. That isn't Libertarian, it's anarchism. The context of your question however delves into something I wish more people considered and/or understood.
"You cannot legislate morality, but morality should govern".
...
I have been social media crucified for my easily misunderstood assertion "I miss the days when I could shoot someone just for trespassing." This sounds like I want to shoot someone, but that is farthest from the truth. People accused me of being careless and cruel, willing to potentially kill someone for mistakenly crossing my property line. Again, farthest from the truth. The point of my statement is that legally, I'm supposed to have the right to shoot someone just for crossing my property line without permission -you know, like crossing a country's border-; but the Social morality imposed on me by my neighbors, is what SHOULD stop me from being careless about who I shoot. That is to say personal morals aside, because I care about my relationship with my community, I would verify that there is an actual intentional threat before "Sending Rounds downrange". The laws should protect my right to defend my property from incursion, but my community should cause me to be conscientious about how and when I pull the trigger.
I'm supposed to have the right to protect what is mine and even have the right to be a Jerk, if I so please. It's a moral local community that is supposed to create the desire within me to be considerate in my actions. Please notice, I said "create the desire" and not "force".
...
When the USA was "new", you knew you needed to be friendly with your neighbors (if you could) because life is uncertain and you never know when you might need a hand. So, if you could help them and maybe gain a potential favor for the future; it was self-serving to do so. "Friends come and go, but enemies accumulate"; alienating a neighbor is putting a potential enemy on your border.
Social, moral incentive.
Do what is "right" because it's "Right" or simply because it isn't worth the consequences for not doing what is right; either reason works.
...
The reason it was important for the individual states to BE "Individual" is that each community has a different set of priorities and a different outlook on "Morality". Each community, wants to encourage those of like minds to gather and to encourage those who... have a different moral outlook.. to seek other communities more in line with their outlook. The reason for the Federal Government was ONLY to provide for the common protection of the individual states as a group and to ensure commerce between these states. That commerce of both products AND ideas, ideals, morals etc was supposed to be the glue holding us together... how far we've fallen.
...
I have lost faith in the Libertarian PARTY (having become just like what it despised), but most of the original platform is spot on in this regard. I have the RIGHT; but that doesn't mean I should. The laws ensure my right; a strong community will provide a moral imperative.
...

Thanks for the lengthy and thoughtful response! My reply comes essentially as a clarification on your first point : "I'm a little concerned with what appears to be an association of "Libertarian" with "Do what i want when I want" in your question." - that "association" is in fact precisely what I am challenging and putting pressure on in my post! Aside from this, we are pretty much aligned - yes we should have the "right", from the state's perspective to be jerks, but that in no way means that a morally conscious and evolved human being SHOULD be a jerk unless, of course, there are good reasons to ... this confusion is, in my view, one of the sources of the rise of nihilism and hedonic egotism among those who are skeptical of social norms generally ... hope this helps clarify!

1

If the state has no power govern the behavior of the citizens, then the community needs impose 'norms' on behavior. Society needs such norms in order function. NAP all by itself is not sufficient.

0

What exactly do you mean by extensive rules governing social life?

I mean norms, patterns and codes of behavior that shape our relationships with others. Classic examples - loyalty, compassion, fairness, friendship - each of which have their own codes in order to fully flourish. The alternative to this is the view "I do what feels good in the moment" and rejects adherence to rules that ultimately constrain our behavior - the social equivalent of what libertarianism is in politics, if you will, embodied in philosophies such as hedonism, egotism, most versions of nihilism ... so yes these rules are partly self-imposed, but they must also be shared with others in order for the relationship to be truly defined by them ...

0

Can you give example(s) of "extensive rules governing social life"?

Are you talking about making laws regarding who I date or spend recreational time with?

Or by "rules," do you mean a self-imposed code?

I mean norms, patterns and codes of behavior that shape our relationships with others. Classic examples - loyalty, compassion, fairness, friendship - each of which have their own codes in order to fully flourish. The alternative to this is the view "I do what feels good in the moment" and rejects adherence to rules that ultimately constrain our behavior - the social equivalent of what libertarianism is in politics, if you will, embodied in philosophies such as hedonism, egotism, most versions of nihilism ... so yes these rules are partly self-imposed, but they must also be shared with others in order for the relationship to be truly defined by them ...

1

I've often thought the same myself. Economically, I lean more towards libertarianism or classical liberalism but politically lean more towards social conservatism. I've come to the conclusion that it's best not to try and pigeonhole yourself and adhere to any particular - ism. We can all view a variety of ideas and decide which bits we agree with and which bits we don't. I'm aways suspicious of people who subscribe 100% to only one ideology without being open to other ideas. They tend to be a little intolerant!

3

The moral order and the social order are separate things. A Libertarian can have a moral order he follows and still believe in limited government (He may have stricter moral rules to follow than the law). A person who wants a limited government so he can "do what I want when I want" would be someone without a moral code or a limited one. Laws are not made to prevent you from doing what you want, but to protect people from those who would engage them in harmful ways without their consent. The reason a Libertarian wants limited government is to prevent the government engaging with him in ways that he does not consent.

Agreed - virtually verbatim. I feel as though some can only hold one "meta" idea in their minds while reasoning (i.e. "freedom", "equality", "duty", etc.) and this leads to so much muddled thought. I've always felt as though there are several "layers" (global, national, communal, local, family, interpersonal, etc) .. there is no need to apply the exact same meta idea to all of them in equal measure ... many philosophical disagreements today I feel come down to this "mixing of the layers" ... one might even say this is one of the main features of ideology

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:22218
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.