Stuff I wanted to keep from a current debate

I said this, in response to my brothers post
here:
Relativism refuses to understand or respect the actual relations. Concepts are hierarchically organised in the mind of the rational person; if some seem to conflict, it's because you're failing to understand their places in the hierarchy. They go from broad and deep to concrete and shallow: from dirt to Reality.We go from individual particles to complex Human Beings (made of many trilliions of particles, and more importantly, many hundreds or thousands of ideas, to the collective of human beings - tribes, communities, races, nations; which comprise various combinations of all of the above.Western Civilisation focuses its policies on allowing various people's ideas to reach fulfillment. Failed attempts at social organisation focus on controlling physical combinations.The emphasized word is one I meant to say, but didn't.I must add that not all ideas will succeed in reaching fulfillment, nor will the majority, having reached fulfillment, succeed in achieving their proclaimed goals. Their goals would be the long-term happiness of their adherents, in this life or the next, or (for atheistic ideologies) among their descendants (as long as they adhere to The Plan).Our Founders never expected us to achieve a permanent state of Utopia or Nirvana. They only hoped to create an ideological framework within which we could find solutions to our problems.Departures from that framework - communism, socialism, fascism, monarchy, oligopoly, theocracy and totalitarianism - have proven to be marked failures.As has, I suppose, Atomistic Individualism, though, within the Framework of a Constitution which respects individual, natural rights, I doubt that it would.Tribalism ha



Here's some knowledge, gained by experience, of how the Free Market works
at Ebay (from a long post at Human Advancement, all of which is worth reading):
The idea I described there is a form of the old practice of ostracism. Ostracism has gotten a bad rap over the years, partly due to a history of forced participation, but it is the one method of social influence that can be effective even when completely decentralized and absent the use of force. One of the key features is that, when it is voluntary, it is never absolute. The punishment truly fits the crime in that every single person gets a vote, on a continuing basis, and their vote actually counts. If one person decides to give the perptrator a break, his punishment is mitigated to that extent. If the perpetrator is unrepentant, or unwilling to make restitution, he is still free to live his life, just without the benefit of social and economic relations with his fellow man. If he does work to make amends, his punishment is gradually reduced as his efforts soften the hard feelings.
by Al at 12:17 AM

Comments (7)
Thursday, July 14, 2005


Here's a topic for discussion!
I said this in answer to Ron's comment to my last post. Oh, I should cite that, so it doesn't become forever unavailable to everyone who isn't willing to hack my password [or bribe it out of me (some currencies are more attractive than others, if you know what I mean)]:
Yeah I have an explanation for the corruption that has destroyed Africas credibility. The 4 horseman and the king of the desolate places.ron HomepageHere's what I said:
The evidence I've seen seems to indicate that the supernatural realms are purely reactive to what we humans decide to do with ourselves here.The prayers I've prayed that seemed to have had an effect in this world, seem to have been a matter of people accepting the mood I wanted them to accept and either acting carefully or carelessly based on that.The choice is always ours.BTW, I pray to Jesus, accepting the filter he (He) gave as an example in the Garden of Gethsemane, "Nevertheless, not my will, but Thine be done," but I don't forget the Parable of the Unjust Judge:
"In a certain city there was a judge, who neither feared God, nor had respect for people. In that city there was a widow who kept coming to him and saying, 'Grant me justice against my opponent.' For a while he refused; but later he said to himself, 'Though I have no fear of God and no respect for anyone, yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will grant her justice, so that she may not wear me out by continually coming.' " (Luke 18:2-5)But keep in mind that it was Justice that he was offering. He wasn't merely giving in to her whim.For the sake of discussion, keep in mind two things:1. I don't believe in determinism - i.e. that our choices are merely illusory. You'd have to present a pretty impressive argument to persuade me change my mind on that score.2. I base my beliefs on MY experience - the evidence of my OWN senses, and my interpretations of them. I'm willing to entertain others' accounts and interpretations of their own experiences, but I won't necessarily consider them definitive, and...Well, make it three things,3. I grant great respect to tried and true ideas. I won't throw out a traditional way or idea without solid historical evidence that it's crap. For instance, I'm a great fan of the Founders of America, but I do wish that many of the ideas of the Scholastics (Thomists within the Catholic Church) had been more strongly held by them and their successors. If I could, I'd claim St. Thomas Aquinas as my patron. If I knew how. (It'd probably help to read him, eh? I've only read bits from some of his more brilliant intellectual descendants, and a fair bit of his philosophical inspiration, Aristotle. Though, "study" would be too strong a word.)


I popped over here to see what you thought about my quoting 2 German philosophers within the past couple of weeks... and here you are talking about political philosophy!! Omni Homepage 07.20.05 - 7:49 am #

As far as I’m concerned, the highest goal of political philosophy is the preservation and maximization of individual liberty. Subordinate to that are the innumerable subjective conceptions of happiness. And those are too often mistaken for objective truths to which society must conform (e.g. religion, collectivism, tradition, culture, etc.). Needless to say, I’m not a fan of partisan politics, as it ultimately seeks to dictate the particulars and the parameters of my freedom.Robert Homepage 07.20.05 - 12:03 pm #

My point here is not that I don't understand this but that others don't understand this. In fact relativity has been bastardized and used as an excuse for people to do anthing that they want to do without regaurds to consequenses. And of course stupid people find out the hard way that their idea of the relative is in error. That is if they are wise. Liars just blame someone else and go and do something else stupid under the guise of relativity.ron Homepage 07.20.05 - 10:39 pm #ron Homepage 07.21.05 - 10:30 am #

To Robert I say: that singular politics is an oxymoron, because to practice the art of compromise with oneself is indescisive. In order for men to see good from evil it must be exposed and is the usual medium. Not always the best nor the right way but the usual way. Thus two opposing sides must exhist for now----anything else is dictatorial.ron Homepage 07.21.05 - 10:36 am #

OK I see a word is missing let me do this againTo Robert I say: that singular politics is an oxymoron, because to practice the art of compromise with oneself is indescisive. In order for men to see good from evil it must be exposed and debate is the usual medium. Not always the best nor the right way but the usual way. Thus two opposing sides must exhist for now----anything else is dictatorial.ron Homepage 07.21.05 - 10:39 am #

Yeah, that was a pretty important word to leave out.Trust me, in a purely libertarian society, there'd still be plenty to debate.Robert, unfortunately, that debate still goes on. The vast majority of the people in the world don't believe that Freedom is the path to happiness. They're in the thrall of the preaching of some charismatic wacko or other. (Too bad Lao Tzu never gained the following that Confucious had. That's what you get for being laid back.)Old Whig Homepage 07.21.05 - 10:30 pm #

You're right: Liberty is prior to happiness, and a prerequisite for it. It is not itself happiness.Happiness is certainly subject, and changes from moment to moment. But I can't imagine a moment of happiness involving a perceived threat of violent force. Thwarting that force, yes, but not the threat or the force itself.Old Whig Homepage 07.21.05 - 10:38 pm #

Omni...Criss Angel isn't a German Philosopher.Old Whig Homepage 07.21.05 - 10:57 pm #

I don’t disagree, Ron, in that I’m not an absolutist individualist. I’m not overly bothered by pluralism and diversity. I am, however, adamantly opposed to society at large (or anyone in particular) demanding conformity to a subjective moral code. In my estimation, regulating non-violent behavior in that way is a gross misuse of political power.Al, you make a good point. I would say that the primary reason for the rule of law, and by extension a government, is to protect individuals from force and fraud. But when a given majority pressures politicians to impose their will on a minority, the government ceases to be legitimate. And to be clear, I like Ayn Rand’s definition of the “smallest minority on earth”…the individual.Robert Homepage 07.22.05 - 2:51 pm #

With 6 billion people on earth it is very hard to find a place by yourself where you can be alone enough to really be an individual. As far as majority ruling it is probably the best form of Government ever created. Unfortunately I think that anywhere you have people collecting together for safety or economic reasons there are going to be some choices made that one group or the other do not like. In other words people are going to feel forced into obeying laws they don't believe are right. If our current situation was to bad I think we would revolt but apparently it isn't. As Americans We seem to have smoothed out a lot of the bumps and lumps that go along with a dynamic economy which is the number one reason for revolutions.ron Homepage 07.22.05 - 11:58 pm #

Since my response is too lengthy for a comment thread, I made it a full post.Robert Homepage 07.23.05 - 5:25 pm #

I have responded in your blog comments section Robert.ron Homepage 07.23.05 - 6:12 pm #


Saturday, July 23, 2005

The Individual and Society
A recurring theme of the posts here at Libertopia is that of individualism and individual liberty. While it may, at times, sound like a broken record (or a scratched CD), the concept of individuality is among my core principles. Beyond that, it appears to be a perennial “bee in the bonnet” for social ideologs of every flavor (excepting, of course, individualists). As it happens, coincidentally, a few of my fellow LLP members are engaged in a gentlemen’s disagreement, as well as my discussion with someone at another blog. I’ll deal with the latter first, which concerns Old Whig’s Brain Dump. Al concludedthis post with the following question: What, though, is the goal of political theory? As one might expect, my answer was: “As far as I’m concerned, the highest goal of political philosophy is the preservation and maximization of individual liberty.” Additionally, I rejected the desire of society to impose a narrow, subjective moral code on others. But Ron, a commenter, took issue with my response. The money quote comes from the comment exchange of the aforementioned post, in which Ron wrote:
With 6 billion people on earth it is very hard to find a place by yourself where you can be alone enough to really be an individual. As far as majority ruling it is probably the best form of Government ever created. Unfortunately I think that anywhere you have people collecting together for safety or economic reasons there are going to be some choices made that one group or the other do not like. In other words people are going to feel forced into obeying laws they don't believe are right.First of all, my view of ‘individualism’ is not synonymous with ‘isolationism’. Rather, my individualistic leanings refer to the unfettered ability to direct the affairs of my life, without being granted permission to do so by ‘the group’. Now, it’s important to appreciate the distinction between the subjective and the objective, in terms of self regulation. That is: objective prohibitions of personal conduct are limited to actions that impinge the liberty of another; whereas, all other conduct is the purview of the individual. To me, this is straight forward, but unfortunately, such is not the case for everyone. In that regard, I spoke to the decline of individualism a while back.With respect to the second part of Ron’s comment, and specifically: "As far as majority ruling it is probably the best form of Government ever created.", I could not disagree more. Rather than rehash my opposition to ‘majority rule’, I'll mention one of my first posts, in which I demonstrated the dangers of democracy. Now, to Ron’s other assertion: "In other words people are going to feel forced into obeying laws they don't believe are right.", I would say that “how one feels” about a certain law is irrelevant. What is truly important, in terms of drafting legislation, is that individual liberty is respected and that deference is given to the subjective choices of each individual adult. In other words, strict adherence to the original meaning and intent of the Constitution, a document designed to protect a "minority of one".In the same vein, my fellow LLP members, Brad and T.F. Stern, are examining the tension between the concerns of society and those of individuals. Brad’s view is not unlike mine. He sees it this way:
This, of course, is going to ruffle a lot of feathers. Some people are intolerant of any change, and to some people, tolerance is a code-word for “acceptance” or “celebration”. As with most things, my view on this is live-and-let-live. The people that talk about divorce destroying the “sanctity” of marriage don’t understand that other people getting divorced doesn’t mean you are required to at some point. Riled up about some female celebrity flouting tradition to become a “single mother”? That doesn’t mean you can’t raise your kids in a nuclear family. You think homosexuality is wrong? Don’t partake. You think your way is the “right” way and the “moral” way? Follow it, but don’t be shocked when others take a different route.Conversely, T.F. is convinced that individuals ought not to be “permitted” the liberty and freedom to be secular. He draws a line in the sand where tolerance is concerned.
When I hear that we must be tolerant of the deviant carnal members of our society, that is not the same as permitting these degenerates the ability to remove the foundation upon which our society depends by altering our concepts of liberty and freedom to mean disobedience and rebellion to God’s commandments and the eternal laws which have always been in place, regardless of man’s acceptance of them.While I certainly recognize the freedom of others to think and say whatever they like, I reserve the right to think and speak in opposition to any and every idea that is ultimately aimed at limiting my liberties and the liberties of similar dissenting views. In effect, various moralists and culturalists set themselves up as a mob of social dictators, who insist upon conformity to standards of their choosing, while rejecting the same treatment in reverse. The classic American example is illustrated in the form of partisan politics. Both the Left and the Right spend inordinate amounts of cash to seat their candidates, with the express purpose of imposing their ideological will upon everyone. All the while, they rather hypocritically decry the Islamists for having the selfsame goals. But to be fair, where the latter ignores the right to Life (suicide murderers), the former ignores the right to Liberty and Property (The New Deal, The Great Society, Reich, Kelo, prayer in public schools, "blue laws", McCain-Feingold, the FCC, etc., etc., etc.).
posted by Robert 4:33 PM

My response

The vast mafority of what you say I agree with. However it is a proven fact that this experimental form of government having stood now for greater than 200+ years and having for all intents and purposes become the greatest the world has ever seen in virtually any catagory you can think of is still going to be making laws that are about morals--Christian morals. In fact as we have strayed from those Christian moral values(I say laws given by God) we have strayed also from the individualistic society we once touted and protected. Hm. I wonder why? Could it be that God gives christians a greater ability to control ones self than non-Christians? I say so.ron Homepage 07.23.05 - 5:59 pm #

Could it be that as ourlaws grow away from God it finds that it needs to be stricter instead of freer ? That freedom does not lay with the unchurched but with the churched?I have over the last 30 years watched as one little freedom after another is gradually chipped away and our government has declared in all practicality that the Constitution is a living document. Phah! It is structure that must be inviolate or we perish as a nation. If you are going togrouse about Christian complaints concerning the laciviousness in our country caused by our government forcing people away from God by laws then you cannot complain about the lessening of freedom. You cannot have both freedom and lechery. (cake and eat it too stuff).ron Homepage 07.23.05 - 6:10 pm #