Fwd: The Jolly Libertarian

[Trevor Watkins]

A challenging review of libertarian ideas.

Trevor Watkins
bas...@gmail.com - 083 44 11 721 - www.individualist.co.za
PO Box 3302, Jeffreys Bay, 6330

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: The Jolly Libertarian <noreply+...@google.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 10:16
Subject: The Jolly Libertarian
To: <bas...@gmail.com>

The Jolly Libertarian

---

What I Believe Posted: 20 Jan 2020 01:29 PM PST Follow us on Facebook Me They say you can't teach an old dog new tricks or that a leopard can't change its spots. Such expressions are meant to imply that people become set in their ways, that they can't change, that ideas, once implanted in our brains, become fixed. This is true of some people. But I believe that this implies a rigid mindset, a mind impervious to new ideas, new evidence, and new understanding. The  mindset I am describing may be called doctrinaire. I have been an independent thinker for a long time, the first notable instance being when I rejected confirmation into my family's church at age 13. Although my confirmation class mates all were confirmed, I was the lone holdout. I had enough doubts that I could not, in good conscience, stand up in front of the congregation and make a lot of oaths that I did not really believe. In 1969 I discovered the works of Ayn Rand and soon joined an Objectivist study group. While everyone in our group was in fundamental agreement with Rand's ideas, we rejected the personality cult that surrounded Rand, calling the true believers Randroids. We largely believed Nathaniel Branden's response to his excommunication from Rand's inner circle. This did not diminish our enthusiasm for Rand's ideas. This soon led to my interest in the libertarian movement, which I have loosely followed ever since. From 1972 to 1978, after I had moved to Vancouver, I did not know any other libertarians nor sought them out. But I read a fair amount, both books and magazines like Reason. In 1978, two Torontonians moved to Vancouver and set up The Libertarian Foundation. I heard about them on the radio and not long after, moved in with them and some others who were keen on promoting libertarianism in Vancouver. A friend and I set up the first Libertarian Party riding association here. I wrote and edited various newsletters. I flirted with the anarchist wing of the libertarian movement. With the collapse of the price of gold in 1981, I started becoming skeptical of elements within the libertarian movement, the gold bug faction in this case. But I was still a dyed-in-the wool libertarian, believing in its basic tenets. I helped organize the 1996 Society for Individual Liberty Conference at Whistler, BC where I got to meet a number of notables in the movement. By 2000, however, I dropped out completely from active participation in the movement. I had encountered libertarians who were active holocaust deniers and even entered a lengthy online debate with one. The movement seemed to attract people on the fringe of society. And as a married man with children, I was very much a part of main stream society. While critical of aspects of society, I could not muster up the sort of righteous indignation so many in the movement seemed to feel. So my libertarianism became a quiet personal thing like it had been in the 1970s. It was largely philosophical and never really activist. I was not out to change society. After I retired I started this blog with the aim of promoting libertarianism, but also of being a self-critical voice within libertarianism. Two years ago I went back to university and have since taken several courses in political philosophy. My reading since retirement took me outside of mainstream libertarianism. And my beliefs have been in flux ever since. They are now starting to ferment in a definite direction, largely as the result of my introduction to one political philosopher in particular - Janet Ajzenstat. I only heard of her last year through a libertarian friend. I have used her writings as source material for my essays for my Political Science classes this last semester. So here is where my thinking has now evolved to. Metaphysics My metaphysical thinking still follows Ayn Rand's thought. Existence exists. It is our job as human beings to observe and try to understand it. There is nothing outside of existence. At this point in time, our knowledge of the universe is largely confined to physics and chemistry. What exists is matter and energy. There is no transcendental aspect to reality, at least nothing that has been proven to my satisfaction. I have never had a transcendental experience. Hence I am and remain an atheist. God is a self-contradictory concept, hence an impossible concept, as far as I can tell. Epistemology My views in epistemology are in flux as a result of reading Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind last year. I used to agree with the Randian view that reason is our means of knowing the world and that emotions were derivative and not primary. She and her protegé, Nathaniel Branden, argued that emotions were a psycho-somatic response to our values. And our values ought to be chosen through the use of reason. Reason is primary. Emotions are secondary. Haidt, using the most recent scientific research into moral and evolutionary psychology, argues that emotions are in control. That our thinking responds to our emotions and our reason often "rationalizes," that is, it find reasons to support our emotional response. This is the complete opposite of the Randian view and I am still thinking about it. There is other recent critical thought to consider in epistemology. I have read part of Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow which offers insights into mental shortcuts that the mind takes which actually undercut reason. And unread in my library for years is Daniel Goleman's Emotional Intelligence. One of Rand's basic tenets is that of the blank slate, that the mind is tabula rasa at birth, waiting to be filled with knowledge. This view is challenged in Haidt and it is also challenged in a full length treatment in Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, which is also on my bookshelf waiting to be read. I am leaning towards the more recent views because they are based on scientific research, not on philosophical speculation. I now believe we can have a scientific and factual understanding of epistemology as opposed to the speculations of philosophy. I believe epistemology has, in fact, become a science.  But I do want to read more on the subject before taking a definite position. As a a science, of course, any epistemological theories are subject to refutation by new knowledge. Ethics For a long time I subscribed to Ayn Rand's ethics of rational egoism. To some extent I still do. But her philosophy de-emphasized the importance of benevolence, even though she always talked about a benevolent view of life. I have yet to read David Kelley's Unrugged Individualism: The Selfish Basis of Benevolence which is on my Kindle app. But I believe benevolence goes beyond selfishness. Jonathan Haidt, in his researches in moral psychology, discovered that empathy is very common and natural to most people. But he notes that research has shown that libertarians are notably lacking in empathy, everything becoming intellectualized. Empathy is, for many libertarians, unnatural. I have a lot of natural empathy. I am easily moved to tears over tragic circumstances particularly as they involve individuals. I am not as easily moved in the abstract. A story about flooding or hurricanes or tornados devastating an area do not affect me a great deal. But specific and personal accounts of tragedy do. This came out more than I realized when I did volunteer work coaching recovering drug addicts and alcoholics in remedial English and computer skills. I never had a lot of use for drunks and drug addicts, but meeting these men face to face, hearing their stories, moved me greatly. We do not know the back stories of people. Someone once posted the following which struck a  chord with me. The topic was bullying. "The 14 year old girl holding hands with her 3 year old son, the one you just called a slut... She was raped at the age of 11. The girl you just called fat... she's overdosing on diet pills. The girl you just called ugly... she spends hours putting makeup on hoping people will like her. The boy you just tripped... he is abused enough at home. See that man with the ugly scars... he fought for his country.  That guy you just made fun of for crying... his mother is dying." We do not know the stories behind the people we meet. We do not know what tragedy or misfortune has entered their lives to cause the things that make us quick to judge. I believe empathy and concern for others is of much greater importance than is often acknowledged in the libertarian movement. This is especially so in the realm of politics where people who want to put their natural empathy for others into concrete action are routinely condemned as totalitarian control freaks instead of trying to understand the sense of common humanity that often motivates such views. Canadian political economist Stephen Leacock (best known for his humorous fiction writing) wrote in The Unsolved Riddle of Social Justice that "The nation which neglects the aged and infirm, or which leaves a family to be shipwrecked as the result of a single accident to a breadwinner, cannot survive as against a nation in which the welfare of each is regarded as contributory to the safety of all. Even the purest selfishness would dictate a policy of social insurance." Which brings us to: Politics Libertarian political theory is very basic and very simple: No person or group has the right to initiate the use of force against another. The only proper use of force is in self-defence or in retaliation against those who have initiated it.  What could be simpler? What could be more elegant?  To libertarians, the logic is so strong that any deviance from the so-called non-aggression principle is routinely condemned as evil. I used to subscribe to this view. But my recent readings and studies have changed my mind on a number of issues.  The most important of these mind changes is a better understanding of John Locke. Locke is famous for his Second Treatise of Government. For libertarians, there are two primary elements to consider. One is his defense of property rights using state of nature theory. The other is that legitimate government comes through the consent of the governed.  The latter is the more important and the one least elaborated on by libertarians. Libertarian thought, starting with Lysander Spooner and continuing up through Murray Rothbard and even to Robert Nozick, all rejected the idea that modern Western democracies actually have the consent of the governed. They have adopted the Spooner view that if you didn't sign it, it ain't binding. Locke resolved the problem with the idea of tacit consent. This issue troubled even some of the founders of the United States. James Madison recognized the impossibility of getting everyone to give explicit consent and its anarchist implications when he wrote : I can find no relief from such embarrassments but in the received doctrine that a tacit consent may be given to established governments and law, and that this assent is to be inferred from the omission of an express revocation... Is it not doubtful whether it be possible to exclude wholly the idea of an implied or tacit consent, without subverting the very foundation of civil society? (Letter to Thomas Jefferson cited in George H. Smith, The System of Liberty p. 108) Libertarians on the anarchist side of things (and who are, in my opinion, the dominant faction in the movement) reject this out of hand. Robert Nozick notably wrote "tacit consent is not worth the paper it is not written upon." But is this a valid take on tacit consent? Tacit consent is everywhere and takes place in a wide variety of contexts. If a man kisses a woman and she doesn't pull away or say no but reciprocates, consent is assumed. It is tacit consent. If a customer buys a product and it turns out to have a defect, say there is a hair in your hamburger, the customer returns the product and demands a new one. There is a tacit understanding that the product delivered was to meet certain standards and its failure to do so necessitated rectifying the defect. Sure, the vendor could say, sorry buddy, no backsies. But he would lose his reputation and his customers in short order if he persistently did this. Tacit consent to live under the rules established by the government under whose jurisdiction you live is similar. Madison is right and Nozick is wrong. The flaw lies in the assumption that because there is no explicit consent there is no consent at all. It presumes to make a case for each and every citizen in a jurisdiction. But the fact is, while some libertarian anarchists may not give consent, tacit or otherwise, a great many, indeed the majority of citizens, do give their consent. The only way to determine whether a specific individual consents to live by the rules established by his government is to ask him. The libertarian anarchist cannot assume that each and every citizen does not consent. There's an old saying, "if you assume something, you make an ass out of you and me." The anarchist assumption that no one consents to live under the rule of their government is, on the face of it, assinine. Some don't, sure.  But the vast majority do. The only thing an anarchist qua anarchist can assert is that he, personally, does not consent. He cannot speak for anyone else but himself. Which brings me to the next area where my views have changed considerably. And this is on what the state can legitimately do. The libertarian assumption is "next to nothing". The Randian paradigm, which acknowledges consent and the legitimacy of government, nevertheless restricts government to three functions: protection against domestic criminals, protection against external aggression from other countries, and law courts to settle disputes and provide remedies for criminal actions in a fair and honest way. The Randian paradigm does not allow for any form of welfare state, any provision for care for the indigent, for relief of victims of natural disaster, or for regulating business in any way. What Rand missed, and what libertarians miss, is that with consent, government action has legitimacy. Libertarian anarchists are okay with covenant communities promulgating whatever anti-libertarian rules they want. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a noted advocate of covenant communities, is notable for supporting repression of free speech, homosexuality and vagrancy. He refers to the people he doesn't like as "human trash" and is not against putting them on the rubbish heap. What such libertarians miss is that modern democratic governments as already constituted are, in fact, covenant communities. Which brings me to the third point of diversion with much of libertarian thought. It is based on a presumption that libertarianism's impeccable logic will inevitably sway the vast majority of people to adopt and support libertarian political ideals. This is a grossly Utopian view. My own position now, after some consideration, is that people are not homogenous thinkers. That people vary in tastes. And that even on ethical matters, there can be legitimate disagreement on issues, with neither side being the only legitimate or correct view. This is basically Isaiah Berlin's idea of value-pluralism, an idea I am still exploring and which I will write more about in later blog posts. Azjenstat's insight is that the most important element of Locke's thought is that of consent of the governed. She argues that specific issues - whether we should have higher or lower taxes, whether we should have more or less regulation of business, whether we should redress past acts of discrimination, whether the speed limit on a highway should be 80 km/hr or 100, whether a new highway or hospital should be built, and so on, are peripheral issues on which there can never be unanimity. This is the point Berlin makes as well - that values can often be in conflict and that neither side is necessarily right or wrong. What is important, for Ajzenstat, is that government be committed to certain rules and procedures that allow for the orderly transition of governments on a regular basis to reflect the changing mores, values and views of society while at the same time, recognizing the rights of minorities. The most important of these rights is that of free speech and freedom to contest the views on government currently in vogue. It is only through such accommodation that peace and freedom can prevail. Such a government may not be perfect, but it is responsive to change. Confidence in such government, whether we may disagree with the particular program of the current governors or not, is the cement that binds a nation together. Conclusion I believe that libertarianism has failed to make significant inroads after over fifty years as a modern movement because It does not reflect or acknowledge the natural empathy most people have for other people. It is ruthlessly logical, to the exclusion of such concerns. The usual sop libertarians throw to such concerns is, "Well, yes, of course we care about people who may fall on hard times, or are victims of some calamity or other, but we believe such concerns should be met and can be met more effectively by private charity. It is not the government's business." That is a very optimistic assumption, and not necessarily a true one.  Libertarians believe that the non-aggression principle trumps all other considerations. But the fact is that most people believe that it is okay to initiate force in some circumstances. The deciding factor for most people is whether initiating force, which is indeed recognized as an evil in general terms, prevents a greater evil. For libertarians there is no greater evil. That may be a mistaken view and indeed, most people believe it is.       Objectivists and libertarians are absolutists. If something violates the non-aggression principle it is evil. There no shades of grey. The idea that some evils are worse than others and that sometimes the initiation of force may be used to prevent a greater evil is discounted as wrong. Isaiah Berlin's value-pluralism argues that values are often in conflict with neither side being absolutely right or wrong. This necessitates choice between values at times.      As an example, government enforcing food safety standards is regarded as an unnecessary intrusion of government by most libertarians. But for most people, such enforcement prevents a greater evil from happening - namely people dying from tainted food. The libertarian counter-argument is that the market can settle such issues, that a company's fear of loss of reputation is sufficient to ensure food safety. Again, that is a very optimistic assumption and not necessarily a true one.      Another example is the American civil rights movement. Ayn Rand and libertarians have generally considered racism as a form of collectivism and condemn it as such. But doing anything about it in a legal sense has always been anathema. Racism must be cured by private mean.... through boycott or ostracism. Such views are naively optimistic and arguably civil rights legislation has done a lot to make racism, if not a thing of the past, at least largely frowned upon. And it has inestimably helped many people who have been victims of nothing other than the hatred of people who don't like the color of their skin. This is another case of a minor evil preventing a greater evil, something libertarians have not been able to fathom. Because unanimity on political issues can never be achieved, questions of policy will change frequently. This does not mean that we are not free. Real freedom lies in the ability to agitate for change and to try and influence change. As long as the rules of the game allow for regular and frequent changes of government through the electoral process, we are free. This means a constitutional framework must recognizes the importance of free speech, and in particular political speech, and ensure a process whereby governments can be changed as mores and beliefs shift. It does not mean instituting particular policy options as a permanent fixture. Libertarianism wants to see certain policy options instituted and made irrevocable.  Many libertarians believe that only by instituting permanent and unalterable change can society be improved. But, in fact, change can and does come piecemeal. It is a process of piecemeal social change that Karl Popper argues is the hallmark of a free society.       For example, the election of the Mulroney government in Canada in the 1980s ushered in an era where free trade was implemented and taxation became more transparent. Mulroney was ultimately defeated because of the Goods and Services Tax which many people did not truly understand and saw as a new tax. It, in fact, replaced the old Manufacturers' Sales Tax which was a hidden tax that was passed on to consumers. The GST introduced transparency. Its superiority can be shown in the fact that it is still with us today, as is free trade. Subsequent Liberal governments have not repealed the GST and reimposed the MST, they have not brought back the tariffs that were repealed with NAFTA and other trade treaties. Libertarians disdain the idea of collective action through governments. But the question arises, a question not considered by libertarians: If there is a threat to humanity, is it justified for governments to act in concert to overcome this perceived threat? Is it justified in imposing some measure of coercion to do so?      For example, if the world came under threat from an invasion by aliens from outer space, such as that depicted in the movie Independence Day, are governments justified in taking measures to counter that threat that may necessitate the initiation of force? In a modern context, climate change is often considered as such a threat.       Many libertarians take the approach of denying that climate change is a real phenomenon. But let's consider a hypothetical: If climate change is a genuine phenomenon and if it poses a real threat that can be countered by collective action which necessitates the imposition of some measures that can be construed as initiating force (for instance - banning the internal combustion engine) is such action justified? Remember that this is a hypothetical question: if these conditions hold, is it justified to take actions to save all of humanity at the expense of some imposition on our liberties? Unfortunately, I believe some libertarians would willingly sacrifice all of humanity rather than allow for any imposition by governments. They will fight to the bitter end against such actions because - "muh non-aggression principle" So am I still a libertarian? Yes. I believe less government is to be preferred to more government. But I am less libertarian than I used to be as I see value in much the government does to regulate in favour of consumer safety, health care, general welfare, disaster relief and other actions. I believe that some good things can be done through collective action via government action that cannot be done as effectively privately. And I believe many projects the government undertakes are worthwhile. I believe that politically, libertarians should agitate for more civil liberties, repeal of laws that impose narrow views of morality on people, abolition of ineffective and bureaucratic regulation that doesn't do what it is designed to do, lower taxes, promotion of self-reliance, and so on. But it must also be recognized that achieving such goals falls within the framework of the constitutional rules governing society, which are value-free, and which means that future governments may change those policies again. Such is the nature of freedom that such things as government policy on specifics is always in flux as times change. In the libertarian movement, the hatred of government is often visceral, especially within the anarchist community. I do not believe hatred accomplishes anything worthwhile.  To be sure, we are not a totally libertarian society. There are inequities that need to be addressed. But as long as we live in a society where the rule of law prevails, where fairness and equality before the law are general principles recognized by society, and where established constitutional rules support the frequent and regular change of government, we are free. What is necessary to make our society a completely libertarian society? No taxes? No regulation? No restrictions on what people can do as long as they don't harm anyone? While these have been the mantra for libertarianism from its inception, all of these proposals involve a wholesale makeover of society. It presumes that everyone will be on board with this. But the fact is, libertarianism has ignored the important principle of consent of the governed by denying that any such consent exists.  In fact, most people in Western democracies do give their tacit consent.  So there is only one change that needs to be made to make a society a purely libertarian one... and that is to give anyone who so chooses the right to opt out of the society.  This already exists in countries like Canada which explicitly recognize a citizen's right to leave the country. Canadians have the right to seek alternatives to being Canadian. What remains is what to do about those who want to opt out of Canadian society but wish to remain living where they are.  So the only thing needed to make Canada a completely libertarian country is to recognize the right to opt out. For most libertarians of the anarchist variety, this simply means the right to take you and your property out of Canada and become your own tiny little 10,000 square foot or so country.  Recognizing, of course, that the larger covenant community of Canada would have the right to put up a border crossing at your driveway... in other words, you would have to negotiate terms with your neighbour if you want to leave your property. Taxes would be replaced by access fees to the roads. You could have your own laws on your own little parcel, but you would have to recognize and agree to abide by the laws of your covenant community neighbour as soon as you step off your driveway.  I discussed this at some length in a previous essay. In short, I believe we live in a relatively free country and if such an option were made available, I would rather be a Canadian citizen than have my own tiny fiefdom and have to negotiate agreements with the city, province and country I live in. My consent to live in Canada is tacit, but I would make it explicit rather than lose my citizenship. If that makes me a non-libertarian, so be it.  Follow us on Facebook

You are subscribed to email updates from The Jolly Libertarian. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States

[jimgee1000]

Thanks, Trevor. An interesting read.

For me the most interesting two sentences in the entire piece....

"What remains is what to do about those who want to opt out of Canadian society but wish to remain living where they are.  So the only thing needed to make Canada a completely libertarian country is to recognize the right to opt out. "

I mean do we really have to share the same legal system, if we differ on such fundamental ideas?

Libertarians needn't be a pain. You could just let us go. I could say something like 'if no-argumentation is the preferred way forward for you, go for it,' but people who do not hold argumentation as the supreme ethic are not interested in listening to reason.... by definition. Do you really think that anyone who wants to be free is going to be perceived as useless to society anyway? In other words, the most valuable individuals in society have always placed the individual above the collective i.e. as primary, and they had to be stopped because of their ability to articulate that, not set free to spread their ideas.

Having said that, I can think of no better come-back to incessant idealistic libertarian assertions than something like: please... go ahead. Declare your independence, with no recourse to support from the current State, what is stopping you?

The silence is deafening.

Do you know of any argument against minority secession? (Also, there is the aspect to majority secession which I have not heard addressed, in my research, so far i.e. forming a majority with the future-assurance of the same right i.e. guaranteed right to further secede after initial secession.)

Jim

p.s. Btw, I have to say, going back a few weeks, that book you mentioned is awful. Truly. I had to abandon the read. Perhaps the other two are better.

[Jaco Strauss]

Btw, I have to say, going back a few weeks, that book you mentioned is awful. Truly. I had to abandon the read. 

Which book is that? 

Sent from phone

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/17d27840-49ab-49dc-b1c2-a8a725efefbb%40googlegroups.com.

[Trevor Watkins]

Please don't tease. I have read several books, and recommended 1 or 2. Which one are you referring to? Skin in the game most recently?

Trevor Watkins
bas...@gmail.com - 083 44 11 721 - www.individualist.co.za
PO Box 3302, Jeffreys Bay, 6330

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAEsHJewk6s41U_vekkPw%2BDGEEuDrUS7ytJJkmO4uw0FD%2B33T2g%40mail.gmail.com.

[jimgee1000]

The Authoritarians, by Bob Altemeyer.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/17d27840-49ab-49dc-b1c2-a8a725efefbb%40googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to li...@googlegroups.com.

[Trevor Watkins]

Heavens, that was years ago. My current recommendation, for the brave, is "skin in the game" by Nicholas Taleb. Almost as annoying.

Trevor Watkins
bas...@gmail.com - 083 44 11 721 - www.individualist.co.za
PO Box 3302, Jeffreys Bay, 6330

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/164e4e7a-677c-4c19-a697-41654f70c725%40googlegroups.com.

[jimgee1000]

Trevor, yes, it was a recommendation from the gareth cliff interview you did, which I genuinely found pretty powerful, from a libertarian angle. Especially when you elaborated on turning any piece of shanty town into a thriving hub of economic activity, with a green-light to up-end labor laws.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/164e4e7a-677c-4c19-a697-41654f70c725%40googlegroups.com.

[jimgee1000]

Jaco, you can find it online, if you want to have a look at it. It's free to download as a pdf file.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to li...@googlegroups.com.

[jimgee1000]

On 'tacit consent', there are a couple of things which spring to mind.

1) I don't see how one can give tacit consent. To give, in this context, is surely to make known. You can make some assumptions, but that shouldn't disqualify you from culpability of violating private property rights. Whether someone deems it appropriate to follow a violation up with legal action, should still be the prerogative of that person. I notice the examples given in support of the idea of tacit consent. In my own chosen jurisdiction, defensive force would be legitimate only in proportion to the offense. So the implication or assertion that society would collapse is, to me, not still a serious contention.

2) Is it possible to take an overly-narrow view of life, such that you don't notice the gun in the room? Is it possible that people very often go along to get along, under the threat of violence? Is there any truth to the notion that what has come to be known as Stockholm Syndrome, in varying degrees, is paraded as 'tacit consent'. A person who has little time for learning from history could be said to have a zoomed-in view of life. With a lady reciprocating the romantic advances of a man.... if you zoom out, is there still no gun to her head? (Would you still pay taxes if it were legal not to?)

Jim

On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 10:29:10 AM UTC+2, Trevor Watkins wrote:

[Trevor Watkins]

I have many issues with the Jolly Libertarian's analysis, which I will respond to later.

On the issue of "Tacit consent", I believe this is a custom designed to facilitate human interactions, but it not a principle on which one can rely. I believe consent is rather like Schrodinger's cat - its true status cannot be known until explicitly revealed.  The idea that I tacitly consent to pay for my meal upon entering a restaurant does not cover the case where I am gouged by a 100% service charge levied unexpectedly  at time of payment. I have often been kissed full on the lips by some awful elderly dowager, where my lack of response cannot be construed as consent. I am entitled to withdraw my tacit consent at any time with explicit, spoken dissent. Organisations or individuals relying on such "tacit" consent must always be aware that it may be denied.

Is there such a thing as "tacit threat", of violence, sanction, legal action?  Am I entitled to act upon it as if it were real violence. I believe so, but I must ALWAYS face the test of my peers as to whether my assumption was reasonable and proportional. I guess the same is true of tacit consent, does a jury of my peers agree that my actions were reasonable in denying tacit consent. If the compulsory service charge is 20% instead of 15%, can I refuse to pay?

Trevor Watkins

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/14a0a28f-f815-4a8b-a73f-7204667f252b%40googlegroups.com.

[jimgee1000]

ha ha... I just got the image of a dribbling old woman giving me a smacker full on the lips.

Imagine if it was an aunt from way back and your whole family was watching your response.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to li...@googlegroups.com.

[jimgee1000]

On Sunday, January 26, 2020 at 12:55:03 PM UTC+2, jimgee1000 wrote:

ha ha... I just got the image of a dribbling old woman giving me a smacker full on the lips.

Imagine if it was an aunt from way back and your whole family was watching your response.

.... to her announcement that she'd decided to leave your libertarian organization a tidy sum, in her will. 

[jimgee1000]

On the many edge-cases, I believe a jury of one's peers is a good solution. It would create a check on most of them before they could occur.

Running a restaurant is hard work. Pleasing customers - at least where competitors are legally free to compete on price - is hard work. Only if you were treating the business as worthless would you behave so badly.... and then it's an instant signal for someone to come and make you an offer to buy you out which is more than you, the gauger, value the business at and less then you, the person making the offer, value it at.

So much depends on whether or not the examples, which are typically brought up as gotchas, are playing out in a jurisdiction which the parties have voluntarily opted-in to or not.

Jim

On Sunday, January 26, 2020 at 12:34:27 PM UTC+2, Trevor Watkins wrote:

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to li...@googlegroups.com.

[jimgee1000]

I'm going to have a crack at a few more of these, as time permits....

I believe that libertarianism has failed to make significant inroads after over fifty years as a modern movement because

 

1. It does not reflect or acknowledge the natural empathy most people have for other people. It is ruthlessly logical, to the exclusion of such concerns. The usual sop libertarians throw to such concerns is, "Well, yes, of course we care about people who may fall on hard times, or are victims of some calamity or other, but we believe such concerns should be met and can be met more effectively by private charity. It is not the government's business." That is a very optimistic assumption, and not necessarily a true one. 

What may have escaped the attention of the Jolly Libertarian, is that the 'optimistic assumption' only applies where private charity is not undermined by coerced charity. . After all, who relishes being forced to pay for something first time and then being shamed for not wanting to pay for it again, voluntarily, after it was squandered on astro-turf-assigned middlemen? Only a happy little moron wouldn't feel a tinge of resentment. A happy little moron who a) fell for the guilt trip in the first place, and b) feels cheated when others don't fall for it, and c) then happily joins in on the shaming. ; 

2. a)Libertarians believe that the non-aggression principle trumps all other considerations. But the fact is that most people believe that it is okay to initiate force in some circumstances. The deciding factor for most people is whether initiating force, which is indeed recognized as an evil in general terms, prevents a greater evil. For libertarians there is no greater evil. That may be a mistaken view and indeed, most people believe it is.

If you are responding to initiatory force it's classed as defensive force, not initiatory. I would argue many, if not 'most', people understand the difference between offensive force and defensive force. That is the reason for the libertarian emphasis on *initiation* of force. Libertarians are pro self-defense. If you hold the individual as primary, you must by definition be in favour of the legal preservation of the right to self-defense. If there is no room for force, used in self-defense, you are not taking the Libertarian, individualist view.

2. b)  Objectivists and libertarians are absolutists. If something violates the non-aggression principle it is evil. There no shades of grey.

Not true. The shades of grey exist, but would be catered for adequately in the form of a jury. Also, where they - shades of grey - exist, they are(would be) limited in scope to wreak havoc and destruction. I would argue *severely* limited, given proportionality of self-defense laws and retribution laws. ;

2 c) The idea that some evils are worse than others and that sometimes the initiation of force may be used to prevent a greater evil is discounted as wrong. 

First part is false. Of course there are grades of evil. Murdering 1 person is different to murdering millions. The second part is true, I think. If I'm being more specific, it is mostly true. To clarify, the initiation of force should always be punishable, under the law. What individuals choose to do in view of protections afforded to them, under it, or not - as the case may be - would be up to them.

2 d) Isaiah Berlin's value-pluralism argues that values are often in conflict with neither side being absolutely right or wrong. This necessitates choice between values at times.

     As an example, government enforcing food safety standards is regarded as an unnecessary intrusion of government by most libertarians. But for most people, such enforcement prevents a greater evil from happening - namely people dying from tainted food.

Speaking of 'greater evils', how about people dying from NO food. What is coercive governments track record on that? 

2 e) The libertarian counter-argument is that the market can settle such issues, that a company's fear of loss of reputation is sufficient to ensure food safety. Again, that is a very optimistic assumption and not necessarily a true one. 

- *Would be sufficient*, not 'is sufficient'. You're confusing crony-capitalism and laissez-faire. 'Optimistic' going on what evidence? From the observation of life in which society do you draw that conclusion... a free society or one in which quality and price-controls are a function of State-licensure i.e. where coercive intervention is rife?

2 f)     Another example is the American civil rights movement. Ayn Rand and libertarians have generally considered racism as a form of collectivism and condemn it as such. But doing anything about it in a legal sense has always been anathema. Racism must be cured by private mean.... through boycott or ostracism.

Same error in evidence i.e. Monopoly Fallacy. I agree with Rand that racism is 'the most crudely primitive form of collectivism'. She was right to condemn it as such. 'Morally contemptible and evil,' I think is how she framed it. Doing anything about it legally i.e. passing a law punishing the expression of a preference for one group over another, for better or worse, is quite an extreme position to take, in my view. But I would be prepared to allow any individual to join such a jurisdiction, I would only demand the same courtesy in return i.e. the community of individuals making up that jurisdiction acknowledge that if you can enter voluntarily that you can leave voluntarily. And by 'leave' I include shifting borders (however that is achieved). That is what secession means, borders, designating effective laws, which reflect the changing preferences of individuals and groups.

2 g) Such views are naively optimistic and arguably civil rights legislation has done a lot to make racism, if not a thing of the past, at least largely frowned upon.

Sadly, at the expense of the freedom of association. This is what I mean when I say the equity clause and freedom of association are mutually exclusive. You can't have it both ways. You have to choose: do you want the freedom and responsibility of choosing your associates or don't you?

2 h) And it has inestimably helped many people who have been victims of nothing other than the hatred of people who don't like the color of their skin. This is another case of a minor evil preventing a greater evil, something libertarians have not been able to fathom.

In this case, the 'minor evil' being the jettisoning of the freedom of association, for better or worse, in favour of preventing the 'greater evil' of being hated (without any initation of force being commited). You must be joking. This is just very sloppy stuff. It's exactly the reason many libertarians are backing away from labeling themselves 'libertarian' and opting for 'voluntaryist', instead.... because of the zombi-like re-emergence of Jolly Libertarians. The same happened with the term 'liberal'. Now it means something totally different. Soon enough the word 'voluntaryist' will be co-opted, too. ;

Again, you want to live under those rules? Fine. Just don't force anyone else to do that.

Jim

On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 10:29:10 AM UTC+2, Trevor Watkins wrote:

[jimgee1000]

About the Jolly Libertarian's comments on racism,

Another example is the American civil rights movement. Ayn Rand and libertarians have generally considered racism as a form of collectivism and condemn it as such. But doing anything about it in a legal sense has always been anathema. Racism must be cured by private mean.... through boycott or ostracism. Such views are naively optimistic and arguably civil rights legislation has done a lot to make racism, if not a thing of the past, at least largely frowned upon. And it has inestimably helped many people who have been victims of nothing other than the hatred of people who don't like the color of their skin. This is another case of a minor evil preventing a greater evil, something libertarians have not been able to fathom.

It seems to me his idea of what racism is differs immensely from Ayn Rand's idea of it.

My impression, and it is what I am alluding to in a recent post entitled 'Ayn Rand's accent on Racism', is that Racism as it was experienced towards the end of the 19th century and increasingly understood into the 20th, was more like what is referred to by some as 'Scientific Racism'. It's worth listening to that 10 minute clip, because the relatively modern idea that racism is about discrimination based on skin color, alone, or even cultural difference, strikes me as a bit of a red herring.

('Scientific')Racism is rooted in the notion you are the product solely of your environment, chiefly your genes, not anything that might come from you, as 'a spiritual being'. It never tired of asserting mankind as a species was no more capable of rational thought or self-control than a manageable animal, which at that time(circa end of 19th century) were considered to be without a soul. And that what was necessary for its own survival was a race of super humans who could benevolently rule over mankind, for his own benefit.

Listening to this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZlSn5GSV2U , it sounds like this exact racism, was first and foremost expressed after the huge boom in economic freedom experienced, following the relegation of the primacy of the coercive collective, in law, in preference for the legal primacy of the individual - a relatively new phenomenon in human history, to the extent it occurred. It should come then as no surprise that the century to follow this 'century of peace' as it came to be known, was the 'the bloodiest century in human history' i.e. the 20th century.

People today get outraged that anyone could discriminate on the basis of skin-color. But this, it turns out, is - as a society legally valuing voluntary interaction above coercive intervention would prove - the most innocuous form of discrimination. In fact, not even 'scientific' racism would be able to survive in the aforementioned free society because the scientific process itself would be subject to market forces, rather than government-licensure, which is simply government-decree-with-monopoly-benefits, by another, more wholesome-sounding name. There is nothing any racist could do, given the legal protection of freedom of association, whether he claimed it was on the basis of science or not, to hold back any individual without that individual's voluntary participation.

Calling the libertarian ideal of decriminalized voluntary interaction, 'naively optimistic', is not something that can come from an advocate of individual liberty. Clearly there will be 'no-one to pick the cotton', in a society valuing voluntary interaction above coercive, 3rd party intervention. (I was very interested to hear the origin of the term 'the dismal science', as it came to refer to the subject of economics, in this interview. That is very interesting indeed.)

Jim

[jimgee1000]

3. a) "Because unanimity on political issues can never be achieved, questions of policy will change frequently. This does not mean that we are not free. Real freedom lies in the ability to agitate for change and to try and influence change. "

Being free to agitate for change. Doesn't sound particularly awe inspiring. To me the bar is being set way too low. It's a sign of infantilization that the instinct to molly-coddle the weak has become so strong. I say keep the bar raised and instead focus on questioning all assertions - scientific, religious, or otherwise - that lowering it is the only option. Once you have given up on doing that, it's a one-way street. It's really a bit like the first and last hurdle.

3. b) "As long as the rules of the game allow for regular and frequent changes of government through the electoral process, we are free."

'regular and frequent' compared to what? If someone is in breach of contract, in a free market/private contract, one could fire them immediately. I'm trying to imagine someone arguing for a clause to be put into a private contract which mandated there could be no termination for 5 years. That, despite how popular private contracts of this nature are, if you have so little faith in such a contract there is not much hope for you.

4 a) This means a constitutional framework must recognizes the importance of free speech, and in particular political speech, and ensure a process whereby governments can be changed as mores and beliefs shift. 

Sounds quite good, doesn't it? It's not the fact that maintaining a system of violence, in principle, is acceptable or unacceptable, it's just that it's difficult to find good enough exceptions of people who will implement the violence. That's the real problem. But that is life and that's what individuals should be resigned to (perpetually) coming to terms with.

4 b) It does not mean instituting particular policy options as a permanent fixture. Libertarianism wants to see certain policy options instituted and made irrevocable.

The freedom to say, 'no thanks, I choose a different set of rules, together with the rest of my family, friends and/or community'. That, as a 'permanent fixture', would be okay with me. But even then, it would be as permanent as the border delineating the rules chosen by private inhabitants.

Jim