Free State Project Forum

FSP -- General Discussion => General FSP Discussion => Topic started by: JasonPSorens on July 09, 2010, 06:08:27 pm

Title: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 09, 2010, 06:08:27 pm
I'm trying to frame these options as neutrally as possible, so that it's not the equivalent of a "push poll." Which option fits you better?

Libertines believe that libertarianism is a complete theory of the good. In other words, whatever you do is fine, so long as it doesn't violate anyone else's rights. A friend of mine calls this "smoke 'em if you got 'em" libertarianism. This point of view is consistent with "enlightened self-interest," that is, that you should pursue your own interests, but with an eye to the long run. However, libertines don't believe that they ought to consider the interests of others or the "greater good," beyond not violating other people's rights.

Virtue libertarians (or "Responsibilitarians") think that people have obligations that go beyond not violating other people's rights. A responsibilitarian would likely think that drugs should be legal, but also that we should avoid drug abuse drug use that limits one's ability to lead a fulfilled, rational life. Another term for this philosophy is "fusionism," coined by Frank Meyer, who thought that a free society also had to be a virtuous society (a "fusion" of liberty and virtue).
Title: Re: Libertine or "responsibilitarian"?
Post by: Uncle Walt on July 09, 2010, 06:16:04 pm
I don't know about the part of "exercising responsibilities for ourselves and others."

I agree we need to exercise responsibility for our own actions ... but not for others.
How can you let others be free, if you take responsibility for them?
Title: Re: Libertine or "responsibilitarian"?
Post by: "Hagrid" on July 09, 2010, 06:19:26 pm
Walt, think 'ethics' and/or 'morals' in the sense that just because you _can_ do something doesn't mean you _should_ do something.

Just because you can observe someone stealing, and not get involved, doesn't mean that you _shouldn't_ get involved.

"With great power comes great responsibility" as Spiderman put it.

(and folks can easily guess what I voted now)
Title: Re: Libertine or "responsibilitarian"?
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 09, 2010, 06:27:36 pm
I don't know about the part of "exercising responsibilities for ourselves and others."

I agree we need to exercise responsibility for our own actions ... but not for others.
How can you let others be free, if you take responsibility for them?

Well, here are some possibilities of issues where taking responsibilities for others might come in, without "rights" or force being an issue...

1) Deciding whether or not to play very loud music out a window close to a neighbor.
2) Deciding whether or not to rescue someone who's drowning & can easily be saved.
3) Deciding whether or not to help out needy families that you know.
4) Deciding whether or not to flip someone off in traffic.
Title: Re: Libertine or "responsibilitarian"?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on July 09, 2010, 06:43:18 pm
I'm trying to frame these options as neutrally as possible, so that it's not the equivalent of a "push poll." Which option fits you better?

Libertines believe that libertarianism is a complete theory of the good. In other words, whatever you do is fine, so long as it doesn't violate anyone else's rights. A friend of mine calls this "smoke 'em if you got 'em" libertarianism.

"Responsibilitarians" think that people have obligations that go beyond not violating other people's rights. A responsibilitarian would likely think that drugs should be legal, but also that we should avoid drug abuse. Another term for this philosophy is "fusionism," coined by Frank Meyer, who thought that a free society also had to be a virtuous society (a "fusion" of liberty and virtue).
But wouldn't that be acting for oneself... not others?
Title: Re: Libertine or "responsibilitarian"?
Post by: Stoker on July 09, 2010, 06:57:34 pm
I'm trying to frame these options as neutrally as possible, so that it's not the equivalent of a "push poll." Which option fits you better?

Libertines believe that libertarianism is a complete theory of the good. In other words, whatever you do is fine, so long as it doesn't violate anyone else's rights. A friend of mine calls this "smoke 'em if you got 'em" libertarianism.

"Responsibilitarians" think that people have obligations that go beyond not violating other people's rights. A responsibilitarian would likely think that drugs should be legal, but also that we should avoid drug abuse. Another term for this philosophy is "fusionism," coined by Frank Meyer, who thought that a free society also had to be a virtuous society (a "fusion" of liberty and virtue).

What is "good"? Who decides? What are "rights"? Who gets to decide what they are and to whom they apply? Who decides whether or not you have harmed somebody else? Is shooting a rabbit to feed yourself ok? Would not this deprive another of something to eat?If your neighbor is hungry is it your responsibility to feed him ? Who decides? What about the rabbit? Does it have rights? Some say that they do, others say they do not.What if you accidentally introduce the Plague into your community as a result of bringing this rabbit home? What is virtue? Who decides what is virtuous, the Catholic Church? Islamic fundamentalists? Satanists? Eugenicists? Hedonists? Buddhists?  Overpopulation Alarmists? A Satanic Eugenicist Overpopulation Alarmist would think it virtuous to slit your whole families throats in a Satanic ritual, thereby appeasing Satan, eliminating a weak link in the genetic chain, and reducing population, all in one fell swoop. A Hedonist would think it is virtuous to eat all of our foodstocks and now and save none for an emergency because we could all die tomorrow and to not eat it would be a waste, and  a Pragmatist would think this to be insanity and clearly could cause starvation at some point. If the planet is truly overpopulated, would it be your responsibility to commit suicide so that the human race as a whole could survive? How about "just" not having children to reduce population? Is this your responsibility?

Without defining these things no sensible decision can be arrived upon.
Title: Re: Libertine or "responsibilitarian"?
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 09, 2010, 07:23:44 pm
I'm trying to frame these options as neutrally as possible, so that it's not the equivalent of a "push poll." Which option fits you better?

Libertines believe that libertarianism is a complete theory of the good. In other words, whatever you do is fine, so long as it doesn't violate anyone else's rights. A friend of mine calls this "smoke 'em if you got 'em" libertarianism.

"Responsibilitarians" think that people have obligations that go beyond not violating other people's rights. A responsibilitarian would likely think that drugs should be legal, but also that we should avoid drug abuse. Another term for this philosophy is "fusionism," coined by Frank Meyer, who thought that a free society also had to be a virtuous society (a "fusion" of liberty and virtue).
But wouldn't that be acting for oneself... not others?

Some people believe that they have responsibilities to act in a certain way toward others... Even if those responsibilities are not "rights" that can be legally enforced.
Title: Re: Libertine or "responsibilitarian"?
Post by: Dave Mincin on July 09, 2010, 07:51:42 pm
Count me as a "Responsibilitarians"   Thinking at times we don't really a have choice but do what duty dictates!
Title: Re: Libertine or "responsibilitarian"?
Post by: Dave Mincin on July 09, 2010, 08:07:22 pm
Hey Jason...easy questions! :)

1) Deciding whether or not to play very loud music out a window close to a neighbor.

Not, that is disrespectful.  If you want respect you must give it!

2) Deciding whether or not to rescue someone who's drowning & can easily be saved.

Save them...What kind of person would let someone drown?

3) Deciding whether or not to help out needy families that you know.

Help them...Isn't that part of being family or friend?

4) Deciding whether or not to flip someone off in traffic.

Not!  Need I say more? ::)
Title: Re: Libertine or "responsibilitarian"?
Post by: Stoker on July 09, 2010, 08:14:15 pm
Count me as a "Responsibilitarians"   Thinking at times we don't really a have choice but do what duty dictates!

Interesting. What exactly is "duty" and who defines what "your" duty is? Do you? Does your Government? Does your religious leader? Does an unknown entity that communicates with you through a tinfoil hat? If you decide what your duty is, do we all get to do this? What if your neighbor honestly thinks that the earth is hopelessly overpopulated and that it is thereby logically and morally his duty to reduce the population, starting with killing you and your family? If your Government decides what your duty is, does that make it "ok" to "just follow orders" if that means slaughtering other people who have done you no harm? This would make the SS guards who gassed millions of "Undesirables" virtuous and responsible, and those that later hanged them for their actions (us) murderers. If you are a religious person and  your leader issues a "fatwa" to kill your neighbors who are of a different religion, is this your duty?
Title: Re: Libertine or "responsibilitarian"?
Post by: dude6935 on July 09, 2010, 08:39:00 pm
What happens if I don't save a person from drowning? Do I get put in jail?

What if I try to save a person from drowning and I drown myself?

Law is not required to make people help each other 99.9% of the time.

But, if a person falls down your stairs and you watch them die without calling an ambulance, that should be (and is) illegal.
Title: Re: Libertine or "responsibilitarian"?
Post by: Friday on July 09, 2010, 09:06:54 pm
Jason, I *think* I understand where you're coming from, but have to disagree with the wording of your poll as being neutral.  I just looked up libertine on dictionary.com, just to be sure I didn't somehow have the wrong idea about what it means.  The first definition is as follows:

a  person  who  is  morally  or  sexually  unrestrained,  esp.  a  dissolute  man;  a  profligate;  rake. 

A person can qualify as libertine by that definition, while still not engaging in any of the example unfriendly behaviors you listed:

Well, here are some possibilities of issues where taking responsibilities for others might come in, without "rights" or force being an issue...

1) Deciding whether or not to play very loud music out a window close to a neighbor.
2) Deciding whether or not to rescue someone who's drowning & can easily be saved.
3) Deciding whether or not to help out needy families that you know.
4) Deciding whether or not to flip someone off in traffic.

I think people can be libertine and still be responsible people and good neighbors.  (And yes, I AM reading another Heinlein novel right now, so sue me.   :P )

Perhaps better adjectives would be narcissistic;  Dionysian;  improvident.
Title: Re: Libertine or "responsibilitarian"?
Post by: "Hagrid" on July 09, 2010, 09:54:59 pm
Jason, I *think* I understand where you're coming from, but have to disagree with the wording of your poll as being neutral.  I just looked up libertine on dictionary.com, just to be sure I didn't somehow have the wrong idea about what it means.  The first definition is as follows:

a  person  who  is  morally  or  sexually  unrestrained,  esp.  a  dissolute  man;  a  profligate;  rake. 


You've fallen into the same trap that Ian did on FTL when he looked it up in response to Neal A's phone call (Neal used the word, in part due to a conversation he was privy to involving Jason and myself) last week.  Modern usage (and most dictionaries) have skewed the word to mean a more sexual definition most of the time... In part because of how society has moralized sex more than any other area.

Look at wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertine_(disambiguation):  A libertine is one free from the restraint of social norms and religious morals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertine:  A libertine is one devoid of most moral restraints, which are seen as unnecessary or undesirable, especially one who ignores or even spurns accepted morals and forms of behavior sanctioned by the larger society. The philosophy gained new-found adherents in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, particularly in France and Britain. Notable among these were John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester, and the Marquis de Sade. "Libertine", like many words, is an evolving one, defined today as "a dissolute person; usually a person who is morally unrestrained"
 And then later on the page, it links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egoist_anarchism  (so clearly there is a parallel here, which is what Jason was going for...)



Quote
A person can qualify as libertine by that definition, while still not engaging in any of the example unfriendly behaviors you listed:
I think people can be libertine and still be responsible people and good neighbors.  (And yes, I AM reading another Heinlein novel right now, so sue me.   :P )
Perhaps better adjectives would be narcissistic;  Dionysian;  improvident.

I'd argue narcissistic has way more bad connotations (it's considered a mental illness in extreme forms), Dionysian is even closer to the Hedonist end of the spectrum, and improvident is a negative prefixed word so it's defined as being _not_ provident.

Libertine by the above, even by part of the definition you listed, is about _morals_, ethics, etc.  In other words, someone who rejects a moral standard of anyone else but himself.

Heinlein, by the way, as a related note, WROTE about Libertines such as Lazarus Long and Valentine Michael Smith, but most of his characters were very morally bound to a strong code of ethics (and Laz Long spends an entire novel and several lifetimes breaking free of his early embedded moralities)  So was Heinlein himself a Libertine or a Responsibilitarian?  I think based on his essays, and his political changes over the years, he was a Responsibilitarian who wanted to shake it off in his old age.
 
Title: Re: Libertine or "responsibilitarian"?
Post by: BikerBill on July 09, 2010, 09:57:41 pm
Jason, I *think* I understand where you're coming from, but have to disagree with the wording of your poll as being neutral.  I just looked up libertine on dictionary.com, just to be sure I didn't somehow have the wrong idea about what it means.  The first definition is as follows:

a  person  who  is  morally  or  sexually  unrestrained,  esp.  a  dissolute  man;  a  profligate;  rake. 

A person can qualify as libertine by that definition, while still not engaging in any of the example unfriendly behaviors you listed:

As can a rapist.

"Libertine" (uninhibited, bordering on sociopathic, in my mind) is a very loaded word, IMHO, at least today, and I suspect the majority of the "politically unsophisticated" most opposed to "libertarians" are so because they confuse the two.
Title: Re: Libertine or "responsibilitarian"?
Post by: Denis Goddard on July 09, 2010, 09:59:23 pm
*burp*
Is this the dope-smokin' thread? And where's the loose women? I heard this FSP was a big party, man... where's the drunk chicks?!?!
Title: Re: Libertine or "responsibilitarian"?
Post by: "Hagrid" on July 09, 2010, 10:22:04 pm
So I've split this off from Friday's post... because this is the key point:

Is someone who is a Libertine a 'good' person, a 'good' neighbor, 'responsible' etc?  Or can they not be, Or is that not possible to determine _enough_, which is why it's a good split from Responsibility?

So let's posit Able, Baker and Charlie.  Charlie is a Christian... and has a fixed set of morality, as preached to him by his pastor/bible/etc.  He believes in being Responsible, and has a shared set of morals with his church and neighbors.  He might not even be a Libertarian in any sense of the word... he believe that community rule is a good thing, and helps to define clear 'legal' standards of what is right and wrong.

Able is a Libertine.
Baker is a non-Christian Responsibilitarian.

Able does what he wants, as he wants.  Able's moral guidepost is Able.  Able lives his life completely by his own rules.  He doesn't care what Charlie and his other neighbors think or believe about him.  If he wants to mow naked, he's fine with that.  If he has a party, and there is loud music of the kind he likes, the drugs/alcohol he likes, etc, and nobody is hurt, but folks get rowdy and in 'fine spirits', Able is happy with his party.  If his neighbors don't like it, they can move, lower their shades, close their windows, etc.
Able is NOT liked by the Charlie church, because he violates THEIR sense of morality.  He's fine by his own standards, and thinks Charlie is a prude, and a stick in the mud, but at least they leave him alone.  He helps his neighbors when he feels like it, but not when he doesn't.  (His neighbors think he's uncharitable at times...)

Baker does what he wants, except he's respectful of the community morality, so while he might be fine with Able's naked mowing, he knows that Charlie gets upset so he avoids doing it. Nothing _wrong_ with it, but it's a bad idea, because Baker wants to maintain a 'good neighbor' policy more than he cares about mowing naked.  His parties are quieter, not because he has a problem with drugs or alcohol, but because he respects that not everyone is at his party, so he is cautious about the noise and the late nights.  He occasionally has a private party where he and his intimate friends let it hang out, but since it's behind closed doors and nobody else notices it going on, Charlie's morality isn't offended, and he considers Baker to be a good neighbor who always is ready to lend a hand if asked, and trustworthy.

Charlie can't _trust_ Able, but can trust Baker, because Able's 'moral guidepost' is entirely Able's own.  It's possible that Able's a good enough neighbor, except for the rare party or naked mowing, but Charlie isn't going to forget those.  Baker's own morality might vary from Charlie's... let's say Baker is a pro-choice, GLBT supporting, long haired guy, but he respects his Neighbors, and Charlie knows that despite their differences, Baker is _reliable_ in a way he can relate to, since he shows frequent acts of being aware and responsible of being part of the community at large.

Is Able 'wrong' for not being 'trusted' by Charlie?  Not at all.  Able might be a great person, with a fine sense of his own personal morality.  So is Baker... The difference is how they related to the community.

Able could be out of Ayn Rand, all about selfishness, as an example.  Able could be an Anarchist.  Able could be all manner of political views, religious beliefs, etc.  But the beliefs are all his own.... and he doesn't care what anyone else thinks about him.  Baker _does_ care, in that his own moral code has ONE more piece to it: Respect/Responsibility/Awareness of others and how they are affected by him.
Title: Re: Libertine or "responsibilitarian"?
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 09, 2010, 10:35:48 pm
Jason, I *think* I understand where you're coming from, but have to disagree with the wording of your poll as being neutral.  I just looked up libertine on dictionary.com, just to be sure I didn't somehow have the wrong idea about what it means.  The first definition is as follows:

a  person  who  is  morally  or  sexually  unrestrained,  esp.  a  dissolute  man;  a  profligate;  rake. 

A person can qualify as libertine by that definition, while still not engaging in any of the example unfriendly behaviors you listed:

Well, here are some possibilities of issues where taking responsibilities for others might come in, without "rights" or force being an issue...

1) Deciding whether or not to play very loud music out a window close to a neighbor.
2) Deciding whether or not to rescue someone who's drowning & can easily be saved.
3) Deciding whether or not to help out needy families that you know.
4) Deciding whether or not to flip someone off in traffic.

I think people can be libertine and still be responsible people and good neighbors.  (And yes, I AM reading another Heinlein novel right now, so sue me.   :P )

Perhaps better adjectives would be narcissistic;  Dionysian;  improvident.

Fair enough! Each of those has its own signification, though, so I may not have a term that really fits. Maybe egoist? But that will get Objectivist whiskers twitching.
Title: Re: Libertine or "responsibilitarian"?
Post by: BikerBill on July 09, 2010, 10:44:34 pm
*burp*
Is this the dope-smokin' thread? And where's the loose women? I heard this FSP was a big party, man... where's the drunk chicks?!?!

They'll be opposing the police state (http://www.cafepress.com/freemarket.12226871) at Palmer's Tavern (http://www.facebook.com/#!/event.php?eid=111036508945919), Rt 114 in Weare, tomorrow following the CNHT picnic (http://cnht.org/). Promise...   >:D
Title: Re: Libertine or "responsibilitarian"?
Post by: swamp_yankee on July 09, 2010, 10:56:16 pm
I think that dichotomy is a bit false.

The real question is do you afford others from all walks of life the same freedoms?

I hate to be harsh, but FSP seems to be  dominated by a bunch of swinging dicks with no responsibilities. You don't have to assume responsibility for others, you just have to understand and respect the fact that others do have responsibilities; a mother walking through the "common" with her two babies has all the rights that you you do. As does the Mormon, the Catholic, the Jew ...

Liberty is not the right to live like a college kid forever.

Title: Re: Libertine or "responsibilitarian"?
Post by: Ed on July 09, 2010, 11:02:37 pm
Quote
Deciding whether or not to play very loud music out a window close to a neighbor.

I don't think that falls outside the realm of "rights", regardless of whether or not it involves actual direct violence
Title: Re: Libertine or "responsibilitarian"?
Post by: Stoker on July 09, 2010, 11:41:20 pm
Quote
Deciding whether or not to play very loud music out a window close to a neighbor.

I don't think that falls outside the realm of "rights", regardless of whether or not it involves actual direct violence

The questions posited by the OP are flimsey and ill-thought out in the extreme. Take the loud music one for example: Is there an ordinance against loud music in this hypothetical situation? If so, what time of day are we talking about, and does this violate said law? Does the neighbor LIKE loud music? Is the neighbor playing loud music too? Is the neighbor an old lady or maybe a bunch of of thrashers in a Slayer cover band? Is the neighbor Deaf? Is the neighbor even home?

None of the questions posited are concise enough to formulate a meaningful answer, particularly the basic ones asking whether your viewpoint more closely resembles "Libertine" or "Responsibilitarian". This is ridiculously vague and leading in nature. This is like asking somebody whether they more closely relate to Axe Murderers or Stranglers. Take your time and make a proper choice now- those are the only two choices....
Title: Re: Libertine or "responsibilitarian"?
Post by: FTL_Ian on July 09, 2010, 11:46:20 pm
What about people who use drugs responsibly?  Or is everyone who uses drugs an "abuser"?

If it feels good, do it, but don't go overboard.  What choice would that be in your poll?
Title: Re: Libertine or "responsibilitarian"?
Post by: "Hagrid" on July 10, 2010, 12:04:51 am
What about people who use drugs responsibly?  Or is everyone who uses drugs an "abuser"?

If it feels good, do it, but don't go overboard.  What choice would that be in your poll?

In my example, Able isn't 'abusing' just using.  From your posts, I'd say you are much more likely a Libertine (by Jason's term, not by the dictionary terms as I mentioned about, and you discussed the other day with Neal on the air).  You define "responsible" for yourself, but care not at all what other people think about you or how they react to your actions.  It's their problem, not yours.  Correct?


Title: Re: Libertine or "responsibilitarian"?
Post by: "Hagrid" on July 10, 2010, 12:06:09 am
Fair enough! Each of those has its own signification, though, so I may not have a term that really fits. Maybe egoist? But that will get Objectivist whiskers twitching.

Yeah, like "responsibilitarian" is a real term... (grin)
Title: Re: Libertine or "responsibilitarian"?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on July 10, 2010, 12:11:41 am
I'm trying to frame these options as neutrally as possible, so that it's not the equivalent of a "push poll." Which option fits you better?

Libertines believe that libertarianism is a complete theory of the good. In other words, whatever you do is fine, so long as it doesn't violate anyone else's rights. A friend of mine calls this "smoke 'em if you got 'em" libertarianism.

"Responsibilitarians" think that people have obligations that go beyond not violating other people's rights. A responsibilitarian would likely think that drugs should be legal, but also that we should avoid drug abuse. Another term for this philosophy is "fusionism," coined by Frank Meyer, who thought that a free society also had to be a virtuous society (a "fusion" of liberty and virtue).
But wouldn't that be acting for oneself... not others?

Some people believe that they have responsibilities to act in a certain way toward others... Even if those responsibilities are not "rights" that can be legally enforced.
If your using drugs, how would that be acting irresponsibly toward others? If you were blowing smoke in my face, or leaving trash lying about... maybe... but using, not so much.
Title: Re: Libertine or "responsibilitarian"?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on July 10, 2010, 12:20:50 am
What about people who use drugs responsibly?  Or is everyone who uses drugs an "abuser"?

If it feels good, do it, but don't go overboard.  What choice would that be in your poll?

In my example, Able isn't 'abusing' just using.  From your posts, I'd say you are much more likely a Libertine (by Jason's term, not by the dictionary terms as I mentioned about, and you discussed the other day with Neal on the air).  You define "responsible" for yourself, but care not at all what other people think about you or how they react to your actions.  It's their problem, not yours.  Correct?



Charlie would be statist, Baker voluntaryist, and Able anarchist.
Title: Re: Libertine or "responsibilitarian"?
Post by: KBCraig on July 10, 2010, 12:52:07 am
*burp*
Is this the dope-smokin' thread? And where's the loose women? I heard this FSP was a big party, man... where's the drunk chicks?!?!

Fed infiltrator! Instigator! Provocateur!
Title: Re: Libertine or "responsibilitarian"?
Post by: FTL_Ian on July 10, 2010, 01:10:34 am
What about people who use drugs responsibly?  Or is everyone who uses drugs an "abuser"?

If it feels good, do it, but don't go overboard.  What choice would that be in your poll?

In my example, Able isn't 'abusing' just using.  From your posts, I'd say you are much more likely a Libertine (by Jason's term, not by the dictionary terms as I mentioned about, and you discussed the other day with Neal on the air).  You define "responsible" for yourself, but care not at all what other people think about you or how they react to your actions.  It's their problem, not yours.  Correct?

Yeah, I don't harm others or their property (and would make good if I did), so I'm pretty sure that means I'm responsible.  I care about what the people I care about think, but total strangers, not so much.  As long as I'm not ostracized within my peer group, yeah, the opinion of others matters little-to-not.  As long as there are others like me, all is well.
Title: Re: Libertine or "responsibilitarian"?
Post by: Sam A. Robrin on July 10, 2010, 09:14:21 am
I skipped ahead to the end, so I'm wondering if anyone has yet coined "responsibilitine" as the other alternative...
Title: Re: Libertine or "responsibilitarian"?
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 10, 2010, 09:19:03 am
Quote
Deciding whether or not to play very loud music out a window close to a neighbor.

I don't think that falls outside the realm of "rights", regardless of whether or not it involves actual direct violence

OK, I can see that, & I might agree with you. But I'm just trying to get at acts that one might consider "rude" or "offensive," but not actually a violation of your rights.
Title: Re: Libertine or "responsibilitarian"?
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 10, 2010, 09:23:02 am
What about people who use drugs responsibly?  Or is everyone who uses drugs an "abuser"?

If it feels good, do it, but don't go overboard.  What choice would that be in your poll?

It's up to you... This is obviously not a scientific poll to begin with, and people are too complex to be shoehorned into one category all the time. So I would just say to pick whichever category seems to be closer to your approach most of the time.
Title: Re: Libertine or "responsibilitarian"?
Post by: "Hagrid" on July 10, 2010, 09:24:41 am
Charlie would be statist, Baker voluntaryist, and Able anarchist.

Charlie is a statist sort, in my scenario, yes.  I made that clear.
Able and Baker don't have to be anarchist or voluntaryist.

Able and Baker could both be Democrats, for example.  They could both be big L Libertarians.

This isn't about political philosophy, it's about other elements of personality (IMHO)
Title: Re: Libertine or "responsibilitarian"?
Post by: "Hagrid" on July 10, 2010, 09:29:58 am
Yeah, I don't harm others or their property (and would make good if I did), so I'm pretty sure that means I'm responsible.

No, you just redefined 'responsible' to mean 'not harming others or property'.  That behavior is clearly covered under  "so long as it doesn't violate anyone else's rights".

Jason, I think the problem is you've used the word as it's own definition.  Responsibilitarian: "Beyond not violating others' rights, we also need to exercise responsibility for ourselves and others."  By using the word responsibility in the definition, anyone who thinks of themselves as 'responsible', is going to pick that.  Libertines have a self-definition of it, enabling them to think of themselves as meeting that criteria.


Title: Re: Libertine or "responsibilitarian"?
Post by: Dreepa on July 10, 2010, 09:39:28 am


I hate to be harsh, but FSP seems to be  dominated by a bunch of swinging dicks with no responsibilities.
Liberty is not the right to live like a college kid forever.



seems is the key word.
Title: Re: Libertine or "responsibilitarian"?
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 10, 2010, 03:38:06 pm
Yeah, I don't harm others or their property (and would make good if I did), so I'm pretty sure that means I'm responsible.

No, you just redefined 'responsible' to mean 'not harming others or property'.  That behavior is clearly covered under  "so long as it doesn't violate anyone else's rights".

Jason, I think the problem is you've used the word as it's own definition.  Responsibilitarian: "Beyond not violating others' rights, we also need to exercise responsibility for ourselves and others."  By using the word responsibility in the definition, anyone who thinks of themselves as 'responsible', is going to pick that.  Libertines have a self-definition of it, enabling them to think of themselves as meeting that criteria.

That's a good point. I need to tweak this a bit, put more flesh on "responsibility." The term "virtue libertarian" is sometimes used. That might be more neutral, as well as being an actual term.  :D
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 10, 2010, 03:45:25 pm
OK, I've edited the first post and the poll. As stated now, I don't think there's much gray area, if any, and I don't think you need any context to answer the question. When you're considering the right thing to do, the first thing to consider is other people's rights - we all agree on that. Even if an action benefits you, you shouldn't do it if it violates someone else's rights. The final thing to consider is your own interests - will your choice work to your own benefit, all things considered? We all agree that's relevant. But where we disagree is whether there are any steps in between. Do you need to consider the interests of others, the "greater good," or anything else before going ahead & doing what works for you? Are there any obligations or responsibilities beyond mere libertarianism?
Title: Re: Libertine or "responsibilitarian"?
Post by: FreeStyle on July 10, 2010, 03:50:47 pm
I don't play loud music out my window
nor do I piss on my neighbor's yard
I don't blow pot smoke in their faces
I keep my lawn trimmed and trash in proper recepticles
I don't work on my car at 3 in the morning
I smile and wave to my neighbors
I don't allow fighting that might disturb others
I bring in my neighbor's trashcans so they don't blow away after the trashmen have left
as a matter of fact, I bet you couldn't find one neighbor that has anything against any behavior I've shown

I guess I'm a libertine. . . because I don't have a responsibility to others. . . I have only a responsibility to myself.  I personally feel that my behavior should reflect the type of person I am.  I'm kind, caring, nurturing, helpful, courteous, cheerful, thrifty, brave, and clean. (scout's honor)

and when I tell people who I am, I don't need to be ashamed for anything.  "Oh you're a Free Stater?"  conversations generally lead to informing them that I'm neither democrat nor republican, but a voluntaryist.  Which usually leads to me informing them that I am an anarchist.  One such neighbor even said that they have never met a more normal anarchist.  

Quite right.  
Title: Obligations vs. Responsibilities for a Libertarian
Post by: FreedomFred on July 10, 2010, 04:17:05 pm
What is "responsibility"?

I chose my own "responsibility". I choose to be responsible for my kids, I choose to act responsibly in all my affairs. But I do not let others dictate to me what the terms of that responsibility should be.

If I hurt or injure someone by accident, I take that responsibility upon me to do what I can to repair the damage. And, of course, I would never intentionally initiate aggression against anyone.

I  hold myself responsible for the future -- of my kids, myself, and others I might choose to be responsible for.

And I am, of course, responsible to get important truth disseminated if need be.

But these are my choices, and we all have our choices.  And no one can force us to those.

Does this make me a "virtue libertarian"? I don't know. But I do know that I grow suspicious of labels. As long as I am not doing harm to my fellow humans, and am taking care of my kids, I am fulfilling my obligations -- and of course, that's my choice. Anything beyond that, I might do out of the "goodness of my heart". whatever that's supposed to mean. But I have no obligation to do so.

So, I suppose we should talk about the differences between obligations and responsibility.
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: Dave Mincin on July 10, 2010, 04:25:37 pm
"So, I suppose we should talk about the differences between obligations and responsibility."

Are they really that different? :D
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: FreedomFred on July 10, 2010, 04:32:13 pm
"So, I suppose we should talk about the differences between obligations and responsibility."

Are they really that different? :D

Functionally, yes. An "obligation" implies you don't really have a choice in the matter, or a choice against your obligation would be immoral. A "responsibility" can be something you simply chose to be responsible for, but could potentially walk away without issues of morality.

For instance: I am obligated to care for my kids -- I can't walk away from that. But I may have responsibilities at my job -- which I could walk away from by quitting.
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: Dave Mincin on July 10, 2010, 04:43:09 pm
Hey Fred,

I'm old school....Sometimes like it or not we must do our duty!  That's it, respect you thoughts, but for me duty is duty!
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: FreeStyle on July 10, 2010, 05:03:14 pm
so are duties more like obligations or responsibilities. 

duty = doody
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on July 10, 2010, 05:55:47 pm
OK, I've edited the first post and the poll. As stated now, I don't think there's much gray area, if any, and I don't think you need any context to answer the question. When you're considering the right thing to do, the first thing to consider is other people's rights - we all agree on that. Even if an action benefits you, you shouldn't do it if it violates someone else's rights. The final thing to consider is your own interests - will your choice work to your own benefit, all things considered? We all agree that's relevant. But where we disagree is whether there are any steps in between. Do you need to consider the interests of others, the "greater good," or anything else before going ahead & doing what works for you? Are there any obligations or responsibilities beyond mere libertarianism?
Still have me lost. If I avoid drug use to have a more fulfilling life... isn't that self-interest? I believe the 'greater good', is in our own self-interest. Its the nature of 'greater good' that is in question.
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: time4liberty on July 10, 2010, 08:19:47 pm
Yep, I have strong moral beliefs. I think people should help those in need, be kind to others, live responsibly, treat their bodies well, respect property rights, honor marital agreements, and not initiate aggressive violence/coercion against others. :)

To me, forcing one's moral beliefs on others by threats of agressive violence would be itself very immoral. I guess that puts me in camp #2.
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: FreedomFred on July 10, 2010, 08:43:39 pm
Hey Fred,

I'm old school....Sometimes like it or not we must do our duty!  That's it, respect you thoughts, but for me duty is duty!

I get that. Thing is, you still have to choose to do your duty!
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 10, 2010, 09:03:19 pm
OK, I've edited the first post and the poll. As stated now, I don't think there's much gray area, if any, and I don't think you need any context to answer the question. When you're considering the right thing to do, the first thing to consider is other people's rights - we all agree on that. Even if an action benefits you, you shouldn't do it if it violates someone else's rights. The final thing to consider is your own interests - will your choice work to your own benefit, all things considered? We all agree that's relevant. But where we disagree is whether there are any steps in between. Do you need to consider the interests of others, the "greater good," or anything else before going ahead & doing what works for you? Are there any obligations or responsibilities beyond mere libertarianism?
Still have me lost. If I avoid drug use to have a more fulfilling life... isn't that self-interest? I believe the 'greater good', is in our own self-interest. Its the nature of 'greater good' that is in question.

I don't think it's purely self-interest, because it's allowing an external standard ("fulfillment") to trump the hedonic principle. Some may say that the guy who gets stoned all day in the basement is living the best life for him - who are we to judge? A virtue libertarian would say that some lives are better than others, and a life that gives you the most pleasure isn't necessarily the best life.
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 10, 2010, 09:04:08 pm
Yep, I have strong moral beliefs. I think people should help those in need, be kind to others, live responsibly, treat their bodies well, respect property rights, honor marital agreements, and not initiate aggressive violence/coercion against others. :)

To me, forcing one's moral beliefs on others by threats of agressive violence would be itself very immoral. I guess that puts me in camp #2.

Yep!
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: Uncle Walt on July 12, 2010, 09:31:50 am
Okay ... I see what you're trying to say.

But I still don't have a responsibility to save a drowning person, or stop a mugging, etc, etc.
Though I may feel a compulsion to do so, and act on it. 

So I'll vote the second choice.

 ;D
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: FreeStyle on July 12, 2010, 10:33:39 am
I'm with Walt. 
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: WendellBerry on July 12, 2010, 11:15:38 am
Okay ... I see what you're trying to say.

But I still don't have a responsibility to save a drowning person, or stop a mugging, etc, etc.
Though I may feel a compulsion to do so, and act on it. 

So I'll vote the second choice.

 ;D

My sense is that Jason is trying to slap lipstick on a pig.

Classical liberalism's view of freedom naturally leads to people thinking they only have an obligation/duty/responsibility to that which is spelled out in a direct contract that they have voluntarily agreed to.

a civic republican view of freedom is practicing VIRTUOUS behavior within small-scale, face-to-face, DELIBERATIVE, civic bodies.

It is classical liberalism's ideal about freedom that has led to folks not believing we can reign in government and get back to the original statement of intent (the sole role of governance is)...the logical conclusion being Ian's view (polycentric law/private defense agencies/private insurance) - so-called, "free market" anachy .
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 12, 2010, 11:59:07 am
Classical liberalism's view of freedom naturally leads to people thinking they only have an obligation/duty/responsibility to that which is spelled out in a direct contract that they have voluntarily agreed to.

It shouldn't do that. It's a logical fallacy to infer that just because it's only legitimate for the law to enforce people's rights, those are the only moral obligations that people have. But psychologically, there does seem to be such an effect. I've seen it in operation too many times on this forum to argue otherwise. It's disturbing and tells me that a society of libertarians might not be a very good society. How can I get a free society without having to live with libertarians?  :D
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: Ed on July 12, 2010, 12:15:20 pm
a very strong +1

so many libertarians, here especially, get so carried away with individual rights and property rights, that they forget that in certain, special situations, things that they say you supposedly have the "right" to do really amount to murder. See: the shipwrecked people and the isolated island owned by one guy hhypothetical example. Again, the right to swing your fist ends at punch my face. Well if one's action or inaction leads to a "punched face", and the causality absolutely can be drawn and is unique to the rights-exerciser and the special situation, then it violates that principle. It doesn't come up much, but it does come up sometimes, and we do have laws for it - such as with the shipwrecked example, or moving out of the way of ambulances and firetrucks, or being required to at least call authorities (or the old English "hue and cry").
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: Ed on July 12, 2010, 12:23:49 pm
Quote
It's disturbing and tells me that a society of libertarians might not be a very good society

Yeah... I get the same feeling and it really disturbs me too. That's what bothers me so much. Because for so long, I thought I was a part of this movement (libertarianism). Of all the things I had read, and do read, I never would have gotten that feeling about libertarians, or the people whom I thought were libertarians. I even shrugged off some of the more popular critiques of libertarianism one can find (the ones that come up with a little googling - try "libertarianism makes you stupid"). Then I came to this site and learned different - and I can see how accurate those critiques are.
I mean, it really takes a cold, selfish mofo to argue that his property rights include the right to murder (see: island example).

So, I'd love to live in a place with a lot of libertarian voters, and thus the policies they would have put in plave. The thing that would bother me is all the libertarians.
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 12, 2010, 12:28:43 pm
OTOH, I have to say that this forum isn't representative of the FSP. When living in NH, I really enjoyed working with libertarians, even those with odd views on some things. So I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek above.
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: time4liberty on July 12, 2010, 12:37:46 pm
Online forums are not representative of people as a whole.
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: FreeStyle on July 12, 2010, 01:46:44 pm
I guess if you're afraid of 'libertarian society' you should probably stay in the socialist one you hate so much.  No need to pee your pants, if you don't think it'll work, stay where you are.  Look out your tinfoil covered windows and gather lots of guns that you'll only be able to shoot one of at the numerous agents.

If you can't understand the NAP, you should read more about it.  It's really quite simple in both idea and in action.

Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on July 12, 2010, 02:28:52 pm
OK, I've edited the first post and the poll. As stated now, I don't think there's much gray area, if any, and I don't think you need any context to answer the question. When you're considering the right thing to do, the first thing to consider is other people's rights - we all agree on that. Even if an action benefits you, you shouldn't do it if it violates someone else's rights. The final thing to consider is your own interests - will your choice work to your own benefit, all things considered? We all agree that's relevant. But where we disagree is whether there are any steps in between. Do you need to consider the interests of others, the "greater good," or anything else before going ahead & doing what works for you? Are there any obligations or responsibilities beyond mere libertarianism?
Still have me lost. If I avoid drug use to have a more fulfilling life... isn't that self-interest? I believe the 'greater good', is in our own self-interest. Its the nature of 'greater good' that is in question.

I don't think it's purely self-interest, because it's allowing an external standard ("fulfillment") to trump the hedonic principle. Some may say that the guy who gets stoned all day in the basement is living the best life for him - who are we to judge? A virtue libertarian would say that some lives are better than others, and a life that gives you the most pleasure isn't necessarily the best life.
Stoned all day in the basement is a moral extreme. What about the addict that is addicted to nicotine. And I still don't understand how having a fulfilling life can really be judged externally.
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: "Hagrid" on July 12, 2010, 04:05:57 pm
Jason, I'll be teasing you about this for a long time...  July 12th 2010: When the founder of the idea "Hey, what if lots of libertarians moved to one place" decided "Hey, all of them in one place might not be the best idea..."    >:D
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 12, 2010, 05:09:56 pm
LOL... Yeah, I was thinking in the abstract there. But in practice, lots of libertarians in one place seems to work much better than anyone would predict!
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 12, 2010, 06:20:36 pm
Yeah, it works out in the end. So you ready to sign up, Ed?
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: KBCraig on July 12, 2010, 09:02:29 pm
Online forums are not representative of people as a whole.

Neither is academia, and Jason's in both.  ;)
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: Friday on July 20, 2010, 07:34:35 pm
"a dying culture invariably exhibits personal rudeness. Bad manners. Lack of consideration for others in minor matters. A loss of politeness, of gentle manners, is more significant than a riot."  -- some guy
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: ladyattis on July 21, 2010, 01:27:55 pm
"a dying culture invariably exhibits personal rudeness. Bad manners. Lack of consideration for others in minor matters. A loss of politeness, of gentle manners, is more significant than a riot."  -- some guy Dr. Baldwin

FTFY :)
Title: Re: Libertine or "responsibilitarian"?
Post by: Russell Kanning on July 22, 2010, 06:06:42 am
Charlie would be statist, Baker voluntaryist, and Able anarchist.
Charlie is a statist sort, in my scenario, yes.  I made that clear.
Able and Baker don't have to be anarchist or voluntaryist.
oh man
one of the 3 name guys is calling me a statist ;D
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: Russell Kanning on July 22, 2010, 06:13:35 am
i'm no libertine
but i also do not have much virtue ;D
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: "Hagrid" on July 22, 2010, 12:31:16 pm
i'm no libertine
but i also do not have much virtue ;D

Sure you do, Russell.  I'd definitely consider you one of the folks who does strive to be a good neighbor.
And who called you a statist?  Not me.
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: Russell Kanning on July 22, 2010, 04:09:20 pm
i was just joking

man for a guy with that hairdo, you sure can be serious ;D
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: "Hagrid" on July 22, 2010, 06:43:32 pm
i was just joking

man for a guy with that hairdo, you sure can be serious ;D

 O0
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: dalebert on July 31, 2010, 10:30:29 am
Do you need to consider the interests of others, the "greater good," or anything else before going ahead & doing what works for you? Are there any obligations or responsibilities beyond mere libertarianism?

Crap, this got long.  If you don't want to read it all, skip to the summary in the last paragraph.

At the core of my philosophy of life is that the "greater good" is intimately intermingled with my own self-interest.  So I can say without contradiction (within my own POV) that I should absolutely pursue my own self-interest.  What defines libertarianism is more about the "how" than the "what" or "why".  How should we attempt to alter the behavior of others once we have concluded that's our goal?  We almost always agree that force, threat of violence, is a bad choice (at least in theory and rhetoric if not in practice), so we tend to agree that others engaged in that behavior needs altering.  Beyond that, we might agree on other behaviors that should be altered but disagree on effective tactics.

I have concluded over the years that positive methods are drastically more effective than negative ones.  That doesn't mean I always live up to the ideal.  I'm human. This is kind of philosophically in line with the opposition to force.  Incentivising the behavior I want tends to be more effective as opposed to punishing the behavior I don't want.  Complimenting, providing moral support, or somehow convincing someone of what I believe-- that the general good DOES serve your self-interest, these are all positive forms of persuasion.  When logical discussion has failed, and your audience is clearly unreceptive, it becomes nagging or whining, which is negative.  Guilt-tripping is negative.  Trying to make someone feel a sense of obligation to do something that they don't believe is actually serving their own self-interest is a kind of guilt-tripping.  If you convince them it's actually in their self-interest, though it's a harder task, then it's actually positive.

Since I drastically increased my volunteer efforts locally, helping other people without any immediate and overtly obvious reward, I became a much happier person.  I'm sure we evolved as social creatures and there is some built-in reward mechanism, some subconscious understanding even for those who don't make a conscious logical connection, that each one of us as individuals is healthier and more prosperous in a socially reciprocal environment.  This is positive reinforcement refined over millions of years of evolution.  That got perverted by authoritarians into a sense of obligation to others and self-sacrifice which is essentially the root of statism.  Think of authoritarians as a kind of step back in the "three steps forward, two steps back" nature of natural selection.

As a for-instance, I bet Jason and I agree that the over-use of bullhorns is behavior we'd like to alter, like a loud 420 protest at the Pumpkin Festival  (and we probably agree about quite a few other behaviors, frankly).  The bullhorn is philosophically (though not overtly) aggressive, which is why I think it's ineffective or even counter-productive.  I've expressed my opinion and tried to be as logically persuasive as possible, on several occasions, and have failed.  Now it's just nagging.  What I can do that I think is more persausive, though it takes patience, is withdraw my incentives like my moral support.  I can (and have) just walked away from a protest when I feel the bullhorn is being excessively used.  Lately, I'm hearing others start to chime in in agreement with me about the bullhorns.  Not nagging, just sort of dropping in a "Yeah, I agree with that actually."  I feel my live-and-let-live approach and my patience are paying off much better than continual unproductive nagging might have.

In summary-- Nagging someone about over-using a bullhorn is hypocritical.  Both are aggressive negative reinforcement tactics aimed at an unreceptive audience.  Trying to induce a sense of obligation to others in people who do not believe as we do that it's in their own self-interest is philosophically akin to statism, and the reason why it's ineffective.
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: dalebert on July 31, 2010, 10:58:24 am
Trying to expound upon what I think Ian is trying to say about "not caring what people think"--

Lauren Canario was the person who put a fire under my butt to actually pack my shit and actually make the move to NH.  She fucking INSPIRED me.  It was because I saw her as this incredibly brave and virtuous person who was willing to take risks and boldly stand up for what she believed, and I was convinced of the same beliefs, that made me want to emulate her.

One time she made a sort of mildly disapproving comment on a forum about something I said or did.  I don't recall exactly but I recall that I read way too much into it as she later clarified and I eventually calmed down.  But the point is her comment hit me like a ton of bricks and had me scrutinizing and analyzing my own behavior for how I should change it.  Why?  Because I respected her!  I saw her as a virtuous person who lives her life in a virtuous manner, practicing what she believes to the absolute fullest she possibly can.  Therefore HER opinion had tremendous weight with me.

So saying "I don't care what people think" is too sweeping of a statement and can easily be misinterpreted.  I don't care about the opinions of people whom I don't see as virtuous.  And when it's total strangers and I have no history to go on, it largely depends on what specifically they're saying and how they say it.  Someone complaining about toplessness (not nudity-- I refer to women dressing similarly to how men already do) is weightless to me because I feel the POV is rooted in sexism which is an example of absolutely not virtuous.  I have not been convinced otherwise and many people have tried (see the post about nagging above).  So unless and until someone convinces me it's not a sexist view, the fact that it bothers a sexist has zero weight with me.

Of course that's just an example that seems good because it's recent and topical.
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: MaineShark on July 31, 2010, 11:42:39 am
Jason, you don't even seem to grasp the concepts being discussed, looking at the wording of your poll.

Quote
If I want to do something, it's right to do it, so long as it doesn't violate anyone else's rights.

That's positive-rights-based nonsense.

An actual libertarian would say,

Quote
If I want to do something, it's not wrong to do it, so long as it doesn't violate anyone else's rights.

Liberty doesn't talk about what's right.  Liberty talks about what's wrong, and then falls silent.

Someone who says that, "it's right for me to do whatever I want" is a sociopath, not a libertine.  Your lack of understanding of the philosophical basis of liberty has led you to create a poll with missing categories, yielding worthless data.

Nothing that doesn't violate anyone's rights can possibly be a wrong choice.  That doesn't make it a "right" choice.  What choices we each feel are right, is a matter of our own personal ethics, and has nothing to do with liberty, which only defines what choices are wrong.

I also find it amusing that the ones (like Jason) who most go out of their way to tell us that there are situations in which others' rights must be violated for the sake of convenience (like the constant "rights are not absolute" rants), are trying to call others "libertines."  Guess what, folks?  Those of us who say, "it is never acceptable to restrict another's exercise of his rights, regardless of the stakes," are the ones showing responsibility.  Those who are willing to violate others' rights when it's more convenient to do so, are showing that they do what they feel, rather than respecting others.

Joe
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: Dreepa on July 31, 2010, 01:56:05 pm
I didn't vote.
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: MaineShark on July 31, 2010, 03:10:38 pm
I didn't vote.

Neither did I.  No point, in a dishonest poll.  At least the ballots the government uses allow me to mitigate the dishonesty by writing in "none of the above."

Joe
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: "Hagrid" on August 01, 2010, 11:55:29 am
Joe, who is a libertine (IMHO), rants about how invalid the choices are, and redefines responsibility, same as Ian did.
Dale, who is much more of a virtue libertarian, criticizes the 'obligation' as coming across as nagging and counter productive.

Jason, I think it's a good split, but it's a self-selection problem: self-identification is faulty here.

I'm reminded of the testing at the beginning of the movie in Blade Runner, asking empathy questions about a turtle in the desert.
The way folks answer is more instructive than the outright answer they might identify with.
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: MaineShark on August 01, 2010, 02:31:31 pm
Joe, who is a libertine (IMHO), rants about how invalid the choices are, and redefines responsibility, same as Ian did.

You mean, "correctly defines," right?  "Responsibility" doesn't mean, "doing whatever I feel like, and damn the consequences to others."  Responsibility is about actually having principles, not doing whatever one feels best about.

And yes, I'm probably a libertine, in most senses of the word.  I have few rules.  But I follow those rules with utter dedication.  In the end, the result is that I abide greater ethical standards than those who rail about "virtue" while making back-room deals with whomever will give them what they want at the moment.

I'm reminded of the testing at the beginning of the movie in Blade Runner, asking empathy questions about a turtle in the desert.
The way folks answer is more instructive than the outright answer they might identify with.

Which test, if you understood the issue, you would realize would not actually work.

A relative who was in poor health asked me to be her healthcare proxy.  Her reason for asking me was her certainty that, if the time came that her condition matched the point where she wanted life support removed, I would do it, without fail.  Empathy - the real thing, not a hollow imitation used to mask one's own desires - would demand that I abide my promise to her.  Those who cry over the turtle, while ignoring the plight of those who will be executed upon "failing" the test, demonstrate that they don't really have empathy.  Their only care is about what pleases them at the moment (like saving the turtle), while ignoring the difficult questions about the horrors they implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) support out of convenience.

Joe
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: dalebert on August 01, 2010, 07:54:20 pm
Dale, who is much more of a virtue libertarian, criticizes the 'obligation' as coming across as nagging and counter productive.

Interesting since I voted myself libertine, just as the closest choice because I found the choices rather flawed as well.
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: "Hagrid" on August 02, 2010, 08:35:30 am
Dale, who is much more of a virtue libertarian, criticizes the 'obligation' as coming across as nagging and counter productive.

Interesting since I voted myself libertine, just as the closest choice because I found the choices rather flawed as well.


As an external observer, your community involvement posting put you more into virtue libertarian in my mind, but of course, you'd know yourself better :)
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: dalebert on August 02, 2010, 01:32:18 pm
I just acknowledge what seems readily apparent to me-- that everything I do is for self-serving reasons.  It's just a matter of short-sightedness when someone behaves in a really self-centered manner and fails to realize that it's not serving their long-term self interest.

You could simplify the poll.  Since most libertarians are fairly well versed in the terminology of rights already, you could say

a) Do you believe in negative rights?
b) Do you believe in positive rights?

They are mutually exclusive concepts, after all.
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: WendellBerry on August 02, 2010, 02:28:27 pm
I just acknowledge what seems readily apparent to me-- that everything I do is for self-serving reasons.  It's just a matter of short-sightedness when someone behaves in a really self-centered manner and fails to realize that it's not serving their long-term self interest.

You could simplify the poll.  Since most libertarians are fairly well versed in the terminology of rights already, you could say

a) Do you believe in negative rights?
b) Do you believe in positive rights?

They are mutually exclusive concepts, after all.


Yes but he is not talking about legal obligation that require someone to labor for someone else (positive rights) but rather moral obligations to other members of a community.
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: "Hagrid" on August 02, 2010, 02:44:41 pm
Yes but he is not talking about legal obligation that require someone to labor for someone else (positive rights) but rather moral obligations to other members of a community.

Exactly....

With moral defined within as what ethical/religious/philosophic/etc creed/religion/faith/belief you wish to invoke.

Dale, we're not talking positive rights... mandatory charity is an oxymoron.  But choosing to (do or not do) something you have the right to (do or not do) is another level of decision making.
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: Dreepa on August 02, 2010, 02:52:06 pm
i don't know the difference between a positive right or negative right.
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: dalebert on August 02, 2010, 04:29:14 pm
Dale, we're not talking positive rights... mandatory charity is an oxymoron.  But choosing to (do or not do) something you have the right to (do or not do) is another level of decision making.

You're deliberately phrasing it in a less meaningful way than he did in the loaded questions though.  You can talk about peacefully persuading people to make different decisions which is perfectly in line with negative rights.  When you use words like "obligations and responsibilities", the obvious implication is a positive right to control the behavior of others, and as it's phrased, it specifically includes behavior beyond that which violates rights (negative ones, that is, the only kind that make sense).  And "which may override self-interest" is only a slightly wordy expression for "self-sacrifice"-- "you have obligations and responsibilities to others which may involve self-sacrifice".
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: JasonPSorens on August 02, 2010, 05:31:23 pm
When you use words like "obligations and responsibilities", the obvious implication is a positive right to control the behavior of others, and as it's phrased, it specifically includes behavior beyond that which violates rights (negative ones, that is, the only kind that make sense).

Not at all - in fact, that interpretation is explicitly ruled out: "Beyond not violating others' rights..." In other words, the poll asks whether you believe that you can have moral obligations/responsibilities that shouldn't be enforced legally. I gave some examples earlier in the thread. Flipping someone off in traffic doesn't violate anyone's rights, but some might say that one has a moral obligation not to do it nevertheless, and that it shouldn't be illegal for you to do it. You don't believe that - OK. That's what I was asking with the poll.

Quote
And "which may override self-interest" is only a slightly wordy expression for "self-sacrifice"-- "you have obligations and responsibilities to others which may involve self-sacrifice".

Sure. But where do you get coercion or control out of that?
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: MaineShark on August 02, 2010, 07:38:57 pm
When you use words like "obligations and responsibilities", the obvious implication is a positive right to control the behavior of others, and as it's phrased, it specifically includes behavior beyond that which violates rights (negative ones, that is, the only kind that make sense).
Not at all - in fact, that interpretation is explicitly ruled out: "Beyond not violating others' rights..." In other words, the poll asks whether you believe that you can have moral obligations/responsibilities that shouldn't be enforced legally. I gave some examples earlier in the thread. Flipping someone off in traffic doesn't violate anyone's rights, but some might say that one has a moral obligation not to do it nevertheless, and that it shouldn't be illegal for you to do it. You don't believe that - OK. That's what I was asking with the poll.
Quote
And "which may override self-interest" is only a slightly wordy expression for "self-sacrifice"-- "you have obligations and responsibilities to others which may involve self-sacrifice".
Sure. But where do you get coercion or control out of that?

Because moral obligations can be enforced?  Else, you're just talking a personal, aesthetic opinion.  Flipping folks off in traffic violates my aesthetic principles, so I don't tend to do it, and would encourage others not to.  If it were a moral obligation, then I would be justified in forcefully stopping others from doing it.

This post brought to you by, "words mean things."

Joe
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: dalebert on August 02, 2010, 10:08:03 pm
Law is derived from morality, even natural law, and even if your notion of morality is secular and/or utilitarian, e.g. a tool created by humanity to help us get along and exist in a mutually beneficial fashion.  And with libertarians, morality inevitably incorporates language of rights which are critical for determining whether violence is justified, i.e. natural law.  To talk about morality and rights as two completely different and unrelated things makes no sense, at least not in the context of libertarianism.

A guy flipping someone off might think he's making his community a better place by discouraging bad driving, knowing he might get flipped off back or even risk road rage.  A lady going topless can believe she's creating cognitive dissonance about sexism and promoting equality at the risk of personal arrest.  Both of those actions might be chosen out of a sense of obligation and responsibility to the community.

I feel you're really misinterpreting true intentions rather than tackling a more difficult argument of utilitarianism.  Will going topless or smoking pot in public actually make the community a better place?  If someone believes it will, then they're better defined as a virtue libertarian per your definition.  I behave more like your virtue libertarian, but I do it purely for self-serving reasons and not out of any sense of obligation or responsibility, so I actually fit your definition of a libertine.
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: WendellBerry on August 02, 2010, 10:16:14 pm
i don't know the difference between a positive right or negative right.

a negative right means not to be subjected to an action from another person or group.

a positive right means to be subjected to an action from another person or group.

most libertarians believe positive rights are only explicitly those actions that one contracts directly from another person or group.

Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on August 02, 2010, 11:03:16 pm
Natural Law isn't derived from morality. Morality is a collective concept that does not entail all life equally.
Natural Law derives from self-interest.
For instance a male lion upon defeating the old Pride Alpha will kill the cubs... thus increasing its genetic dominance.
Its not the moral act of a stepfather, but is natural and acting within its self-interest.

If it for some reason the lion chose not to kill the female cubs... I would presume that it did so for further hunting/mating possibilities in the future.

Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: dalebert on August 03, 2010, 01:52:38 am
I was referring to something more along the lines of, but not necessarily exactly like, this (http://www.iep.utm.edu/natlaw/), which is more like what anarchists are typically referring to with the expression.  It might be in a lion's self-interest to be that violent, but it is arguably not in a human's, particularly when it's readily apparent how much we benefit from a mutually beneficial social structure and when the integrity of that structure is heavily dependent on respecting the rights of others.
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on August 03, 2010, 07:31:36 am
Most animals benefit from mutual beneficial social structure (hence why I used a lion). Its the social context of defining and sanctioning of Rights that differ.

Even interesting to watch individuals sanction a right in one instance, then oppose it in a comparable.
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: JasonPSorens on August 03, 2010, 09:17:34 am
Law is derived from morality, even natural law, and even if your notion of morality is secular and/or utilitarian, e.g. a tool created by humanity to help us get along and exist in a mutually beneficial fashion.  And with libertarians, morality inevitably incorporates language of rights which are critical for determining whether violence is justified, i.e. natural law.  To talk about morality and rights as two completely different and unrelated things makes no sense, at least not in the context of libertarianism.

I don't think a virtue libertarian would find anything to disagree with there. For a virtue libertarian, rights are a subset of morality; for a libertine, they are the totality.

Quote
Will going topless or smoking pot in public actually make the community a better place?  If someone believes it will, then they're better defined as a virtue libertarian per your definition.  I behave more like your virtue libertarian, but I do it purely for self-serving reasons and not out of any sense of obligation or responsibility, so I actually fit your definition of a libertine.

Yes, that's right. I wanted to get at people's fundamental thinking about their actions, rather than whether they happen to have "conservative" or "progressive" tastes.
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: FTL_Ian on August 04, 2010, 02:15:01 pm

So saying "I don't care what people think" is too sweeping of a statement and can easily be misinterpreted.  I don't care about the opinions of people whom I don't see as virtuous.  And when it's total strangers and I have no history to go on, it largely depends on what specifically they're saying and how they say it.  Someone complaining about toplessness (not nudity-- I refer to women dressing similarly to how men already do) is weightless to me because I feel the POV is rooted in sexism which is an example of absolutely not virtuous.  I have not been convinced otherwise and many people have tried (see the post about nagging above).  So unless and until someone convinces me it's not a sexist view, the fact that it bothers a sexist has zero weight with me.

I agree and would point out for the record that I never said "I don't care what people think".  As Dale explained, people's opinions matter according to how much the person with the opinion matters to me.

We are constantly critiqued and attacked anonymously on the local newspaper comments.  These people matter nothing at all. 
Once we were approached by a local business owner and parent while we were doing middle school outreach.  Her opinion mattered to me because she bothered to speak it personally and not hide anonymously behind the keyboard.  For that she deserved respect and got it.  The conversation ended with handshakes all around.
The people who drive by and shout, "Get a job" do not matter.  They are almost as bad as the anonymous commenters.
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: FreeStyle on August 04, 2010, 02:56:42 pm
lots of talk about morality.  Who chooses what is moral? 
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: time4liberty on August 05, 2010, 01:10:21 pm
Quote
Trying to induce a sense of obligation to others in people who do not believe as we do that it's in their own self-interest is philosophically akin to statism, and the reason why it's ineffective.

Is this not the point of the NAP? Pointing out to people that they are violating basic moral obligations, even if they believe that they are themselves benefiting by doing so? Must we explain to a thief that he/she would somehow benefit more greatly from earning a living -- can we not simply point out that stealing is wrong, that it violates the rights of his/her victims?

I completely disagree with the sort of Randian notion that all behaviors should be done for one's own self benefit. Caring about others is probably the most fundamental attribute of a decent person. Ironically, it's an attribute that most of the people who make these arguments clearly hold -- I doubt, Dale, that you chose to do these charities because you wanted to benefit yourself. Indeed, I'd guess that the only reason these activities make you happy, is precisely because you do care about others, and like to see others benefit!

Choosing to help others does in fact make one happier -- but only if one genuinely does care. You can't start out seeking only your own benefit, completely disinterested in the well being of others, and then derive happiness from charitable behavior.
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: time4liberty on August 05, 2010, 01:17:54 pm

So saying "I don't care what people think" is too sweeping of a statement and can easily be misinterpreted.  I don't care about the opinions of people whom I don't see as virtuous.  And when it's total strangers and I have no history to go on, it largely depends on what specifically they're saying and how they say it.  Someone complaining about toplessness (not nudity-- I refer to women dressing similarly to how men already do) is weightless to me because I feel the POV is rooted in sexism which is an example of absolutely not virtuous.  I have not been convinced otherwise and many people have tried (see the post about nagging above).  So unless and until someone convinces me it's not a sexist view, the fact that it bothers a sexist has zero weight with me.

I agree and would point out for the record that I never said "I don't care what people think".  As Dale explained, people's opinions matter according to how much the person with the opinion matters to me.

We are constantly critiqued and attacked anonymously on the local newspaper comments.  These people matter nothing at all. 
Once we were approached by a local business owner and parent while we were doing middle school outreach.  Her opinion mattered to me because she bothered to speak it personally and not hide anonymously behind the keyboard.  For that she deserved respect and got it.  The conversation ended with handshakes all around.
The people who drive by and shout, "Get a job" do not matter.  They are almost as bad as the anonymous commenters.


Nevertheless, what random people believe, who you never meet, has a strong impact on the direction of society. The fact that a person does not matter to you does not mean that they cannot greatly inhibit any movement towards a free society.

Not that actions should be chosen to cater to anonymous, self selected posters on a newspaper site -- because they're not representative either -- but what the people who you never personally meet think, is to a large part what will determine the success of any effort for freedom.
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: time4liberty on August 05, 2010, 01:25:15 pm
lots of talk about morality.  Who chooses what is moral? 

Each person acts according to what they perceive/reason to be morally right and wrong, same as anything. Thankfully, we all seem to have pretty similar perceptions about basic right and wrong. Not quite as similar as our perceptions about physical reality, but very similar nonetheless.
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: WendellBerry on August 05, 2010, 01:33:12 pm
lots of talk about morality.  Who chooses what is moral? 

Each person acts according to what they perceive/reason to be morally right and wrong, same as anything. Thankfully, we all seem to have pretty similar perceptions about basic right and wrong. Not quite as similar as our perceptions about physical reality, but very similar nonetheless.

1. An act is good if and only if it benefits others.

2. An act is evil if and only if it coercively harms others by

initiating a direct, actual invasion.

3. All other acts are neutral.

4. If an act includes good and evil elements, the good does not

cancel out the evil.
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: time4liberty on August 05, 2010, 01:33:19 pm
Dale, we're not talking positive rights... mandatory charity is an oxymoron.  But choosing to (do or not do) something you have the right to (do or not do) is another level of decision making.

You're deliberately phrasing it in a less meaningful way than he did in the loaded questions though.  You can talk about peacefully persuading people to make different decisions which is perfectly in line with negative rights.  When you use words like "obligations and responsibilities", the obvious implication is a positive right to control the behavior of others, and as it's phrased, it specifically includes behavior beyond that which violates rights (negative ones, that is, the only kind that make sense).  And "which may override self-interest" is only a slightly wordy expression for "self-sacrifice"-- "you have obligations and responsibilities to others which may involve self-sacrifice".


It's possible to have a moral obligation to take a positive action, yet it still be immoral for others to force you to take that action, right?

If I have plenty of bread, and someone is hungry on my doorstep, I think it would be morally wrong for me to turn them away. Yet, I think it would also be morally wrong for someone to force me to give them my food.

In other words, I would say that while we do have positive obligations, it is not the job of humans to enforce those obligations on each other.
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: time4liberty on August 05, 2010, 01:45:11 pm
lots of talk about morality.  Who chooses what is moral? 

Each person acts according to what they perceive/reason to be morally right and wrong, same as anything. Thankfully, we all seem to have pretty similar perceptions about basic right and wrong. Not quite as similar as our perceptions about physical reality, but very similar nonetheless.

1. An act is good if and only if it benefits others.

2. An act is evil if and only if it coercively harms others by

initiating a direct, actual invasion.

3. All other acts are neutral.

4. If an act includes good and evil elements, the good does not

cancel out the evil.

I'd say that's a pretty excellent start ... I pretty much agree. I would probably say it's possible for indirect harm to also be evil, depending. Personally, I might also characterize self-destructive behavior as "evil" in a sense, and self-constructive as good.
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: time4liberty on August 05, 2010, 01:48:30 pm
I don't think a virtue libertarian would find anything to disagree with there. For a virtue libertarian, rights are a subset of morality; for a libertine, they are the totality.

Well said.
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: ONLYWAY on August 05, 2010, 01:52:19 pm
How ridiculous!  A bunch of rich little, sociopathic, spoiled brat anarchists deciding what is universally right and wrong...What a joke!  God determines what is right and wrong and he told us plainly in the Bible.

lots of talk about morality.  Who chooses what is moral? 

Each person acts according to what they perceive/reason to be morally right and wrong, same as anything. Thankfully, we all seem to have pretty similar perceptions about basic right and wrong. Not quite as similar as our perceptions about physical reality, but very similar nonetheless.

1. An act is good if and only if it benefits others.

2. An act is evil if and only if it coercively harms others by

initiating a direct, actual invasion.

3. All other acts are neutral.

4. If an act includes good and evil elements, the good does not

cancel out the evil.

I'd say that's a pretty excellent start ... I pretty much agree. I would probably say it's possible for indirect harm to also be evil, depending. Personally, I might also characterize self-destructive behavior as "evil" in a sense, and self-constructive as good.
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: time4liberty on August 05, 2010, 02:00:57 pm
How ridiculous!  A bunch of rich little, sociopathic, spoiled brat anarchists deciding what is universally right and wrong...What a joke!  God determines what is right and wrong and he told us plainly in the Bible.

Assuming you're not a crazy person, you believe the bible because it matches, at least to a great extent, what you've observed about the world, your internal observations, as well as your moral perceptions. I mean, unless you just happened to pick a random book off the shelf ... right?

And, I'd suggest that these basic moral principles are probably not too different from those Wendell proposed.

I mean, if you believe in God, you must believe that there is such a thing as a moral sense, in humans ... right?
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: Dreepa on August 05, 2010, 03:11:22 pm
How ridiculous!  A bunch of rich little, sociopathic, spoiled brat anarchists deciding what is universally right and wrong...What a joke!  God determines what is right and wrong and he told us plainly in the Bible.


He also told you  not to eat shell fish or pork.. do you abide by those?
Do you stone sinners, hookers and gays?  the bible tells you to.
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: ONLYWAY on August 05, 2010, 03:24:44 pm
Wow!  you actually believe you are the decider of morality don't you?   There is a God and He made the rules.  Your condescending attitude toward the Bible shows just how arrogant and foolish you are.  Have you ever read the Bible?  really read it?

Let's test your basic moral sense:
1.)  Is permarital sex between 2 consenting adults good or bad?
2.)  Is a girl walking around naked good or bad?
3.)  Is homosexuality good or bad?
4.)  Is beasteality good or bad? 
5.)  Is selfishness good or bad?

My ancestors didn't fight and die so that some spoiled brat bimbo can walk around without her top off...grow up!


How ridiculous!  A bunch of rich little, sociopathic, spoiled brat anarchists deciding what is universally right and wrong...What a joke!  God determines what is right and wrong and he told us plainly in the Bible.

Assuming you're not a crazy person, you believe the bible because it matches, at least to a great extent, what you've observed about the world, your internal observations, as well as your moral perceptions. I mean, unless you just happened to pick a random book off the shelf ... right?

And, I'd suggest that these basic moral principles are probably not too different from those Wendell proposed.

I mean, if you believe in God, you must believe that there is such a thing as a moral sense, in humans ... right?
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: ONLYWAY on August 05, 2010, 03:39:00 pm
NO you are totally wrong on that as usual..takiing all way out of context.  have you ever read the new Testament?  Let me maek it easier for you only 3 chapters can you read that much?  1 Corinthians 6, Romans 1 and John 8

Do you believe in murdering babies because they might get in the way or have sex with whoever you can not matter what the emotional or physical impact is on others because your morals tell you that it is ok?

How ridiculous!  A bunch of rich little, sociopathic, spoiled brat anarchists deciding what is universally right and wrong...What a joke!  God determines what is right and wrong and he told us plainly in the Bible.


He also told you  not to eat shell fish or pork.. do you abide by those?
Do you stone sinners, hookers and gays?  the bible tells you to.
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: MaineShark on August 05, 2010, 03:50:20 pm
Have you ever read the Bible?  really read it?

Let's test your basic moral sense:
...
2.)  Is a girl walking around naked good or bad?

...

My ancestors didn't fight and die so that some spoiled brat bimbo can walk around without her top off...grow up!

So, you found that in the Bible, did you?  Because you "really" read it, huh?

Chapter and verse, please.

Joe
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: time4liberty on August 05, 2010, 03:52:02 pm
Wow!  you actually believe you are the decider of morality don't you?

No, I don't. I believe that I have an ability to perceive morality, albeit imperfectly.

There is a God and He made the rules.

This may shock you, but I agree.

Or rather, "the rules" are quite literally the character of God.

Your condescending attitude toward the Bible shows just how arrogant and foolish you are. 

How was I condescending? The question I was asking is, why do you believe the god of the bible is the true one? Is it not, in part, because the content of the bible largely matches your own moral sense?

Suppose the bible claimed Jesus advocated all kinds of clear evil, and spent his life murdering innocent people. Certainly, you would have rejected the bible in this case, right? You would have concluded that the person described in the bible was not God at all, because his life was not good or admirable.

Have you ever read the Bible?  really read it?

Yes, a lot. Are you listening or thinking about anything I'm saying, or just reacting?

Let's test your basic moral sense:

I'm not going to answer these questions here, because I'm afraid the conversation will be sent too far afield. I'd be happy to answer them in a PM or another thread.

My ancestors didn't fight and die so that some spoiled brat bimbo can walk around without her top off...grow up!

1. Where did I advocate that, and what does that have to do with this discussion?

2. Don't you think calling someone a "spoiled brat bimbo" is pretty much the opposite of loving? Have YOU seriously read the bible?
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: ONLYWAY on August 05, 2010, 05:21:44 pm
You have got to be kidding.  Are you seriously asking me to prove from the Bible if nudity is a sin?  i guess you didn't get too far in your reading of the Bible.


Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
 
There are dozens of other verses speaking about woman being modest.

Have you ever read the Bible?  really read it?

Let's test your basic moral sense:
...
2.)  Is a girl walking around naked good or bad?

...

My ancestors didn't fight and die so that some spoiled brat bimbo can walk around without her top off...grow up!

So, you found that in the Bible, did you?  Because you "really" read it, huh?

Chapter and verse, please.

Joe
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: ONLYWAY on August 05, 2010, 05:43:04 pm
NO.  The content of the Bble does not match my moral sense...it is closer now then it was.  I was a drunk whore when I got saved.  The teachings of the Bible didn't line up with my ideas at all.  I thought I was a pertty good guy...I didn't hurt anyone but I was wrong.  God shapes us into His image through His word and the Holy Spirit.

BTW - go read Romans 1 and see the terms God uses to describe homosexuals and go count how many times he uses much harsher words then bimbo regarding woman's modesty ( ie harlot, whore, etc)

Wow!  you actually believe you are the decider of morality don't you?

No, I don't. I believe that I have an ability to perceive morality, albeit imperfectly.

There is a God and He made the rules.

This may shock you, but I agree.

Or rather, "the rules" are quite literally the character of God.

Your condescending attitude toward the Bible shows just how arrogant and foolish you are. 

How was I condescending? The question I was asking is, why do you believe the god of the bible is the true one? Is it not, in part, because the content of the bible largely matches your own moral sense?

Suppose the bible claimed Jesus advocated all kinds of clear evil, and spent his life murdering innocent people. Certainly, you would have rejected the bible in this case, right? You would have concluded that the person described in the bible was not God at all, because his life was not good or admirable.

Have you ever read the Bible?  really read it?

Yes, a lot. Are you listening or thinking about anything I'm saying, or just reacting?

Let's test your basic moral sense:

I'm not going to answer these questions here, because I'm afraid the conversation will be sent too far afield. I'd be happy to answer them in a PM or another thread.

My ancestors didn't fight and die so that some spoiled brat bimbo can walk around without her top off...grow up!

1. Where did I advocate that, and what does that have to do with this discussion?

2. Don't you think calling someone a "spoiled brat bimbo" is pretty much the opposite of loving? Have YOU seriously read the bible?
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: MaineShark on August 05, 2010, 06:36:28 pm
You have got to be kidding.  Are you seriously asking me to prove from the Bible if nudity is a sin?

Yup, that's exactly what I'm asking you to do.  Lots of folks go around saying, "the Bible says X," when they are just listing their own beliefs, with no Biblical backing.

i guess you didn't get too far in your reading of the Bible.

I've read it.  As an outsider, I've likely read it with more care than someone brought up in that religion.

Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them

Given that Adam and Eve had just committed a major sin, their behavior can hardly be taken as an example to follow, eh?

There are dozens of other verses speaking about woman being modest.

Good.  Among these "dozens of other verses," maybe you can find some that actually define nudity as a sin.

Joe
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: time4liberty on August 05, 2010, 07:29:18 pm
NO.  The content of the Bble does not match my moral sense...it is closer now then it was.  I was a drunk whore when I got saved.  The teachings of the Bible didn't line up with my ideas at all.  I thought I was a pertty good guy...I didn't hurt anyone but I was wrong.  God shapes us into His image through His word and the Holy Spirit.

Are you asserting that man has no sense of right and wrong whatsoever? Because if so, isn't it a remarkable coincidence that the morals exhibited by Christ so closely match the belief most people have of what's right? I mean, I don't know of many people who think the ideal is to be a murderous thieving miserly hateful arsonist.

It would be a strange thing, if a god with a strong moral character created a bunch of creatures "in his own image", who had no moral sense whatsoever, would it not?

Apparently you haven't read much cs lewis. Perhaps he's "arrogant and foolish" too.

I can tell you right now that if the New Testament advocated murder and arson, I would immediately recognize it as wrong, and not believe a word of it.

BTW - go read Romans 1 and see the terms God uses to describe homosexuals and go count how many times he uses much harsher words then bimbo regarding woman's modesty ( ie harlot, whore, etc)

-That was written by Paul, not God.
-Romans 1, in no translation I've heard of, uses either the word harlot or whore.
-Harlot and whore are translations of literal words for prostitute, not slurs intended to demean.
-You called her a "spoiled brat bimbo", just to be clear.

I don't want to beat you over the head about this ... but somehow I can't see Christ calling people "spoiled brat bimbos". In fact, he tended to hang out and have drinks with the kind of people you'd call "spoiled brat bimbos". The closest he came to any sort of insult was when he described the pharisees as "whitewashed tombs -- which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean", to others, in order to warn them of them.

And those folks, you may recall, where the ones who spent most of their time running around pointing fingers at others.

Perhaps I misperceive your attitude -- it's easy to misunderstand a person on a forum -- but you're sounding a lot more like a pharisee to me right now than like Christ.


Also, you didn't respond to any of my other questions.
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: Ed on August 05, 2010, 07:34:09 pm
ok...

I'm not particularly religious, but I remember my Bible and Sunday School...

that's like the most basic thing in the Bible. I mean that's not even up for discussion. Adam and Eve ate from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and then could tell the difference from good and evil, and then it is written that they then "knew" that being naked was wrong. It's written in such a way that it assumes that nudity is wrong. It takes it as a given.

The only other one I remember is that Noah or one of his sons or something found him naked, passed out drunk in his tent and was embarassed him and covered him up.

It would take some liberal damned interpretation to say that those passages say anything other than nudity is wrong.
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: MaineShark on August 05, 2010, 09:17:50 pm
I'm not particularly religious, but I remember my Bible and Sunday School...

that's like the most basic thing in the Bible. I mean that's not even up for discussion.

"I just know it!" isn't a rational argument.

Adam and Eve ate from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and then could tell the difference from good and evil, and then it is written that they then "knew" that being naked was wrong. It's written in such a way that it assumes that nudity is wrong. It takes it as a given.

Chapter and verse.  It says they knew they were naked.  It never says anything about it being wrong, in any of the translations I've read.

The only other one I remember is that Noah or one of his sons or something found him naked, passed out drunk in his tent and was embarassed him and covered him up.

The Hebrew word translated as "naked" in that passage, if I recall correctly, actually means, "with an erection."  Which is a bit different from simply being without clothing.

Plus, Christians always seem to tell me that the Old Testament no longer applies, and the only rules are the Ten Commandments, and the words of Jesus.

I mean, if we're going to go Old Testament, here, let's start with the explicit rules, like keeping kosher, or the other fun bits in Leviticus, like how it's a sin to wear clothing of blended fibers (no cotton/polyester weaves for the devout, right?).

Two thousand years ago, nudity was commonplace.  Many of the poorer folks couldn't even afford clothing.  Bathing in rivers, in full view of others, was also common.  Remember, this was the Roman empire we're talking about, where public orgies were not unheard of.  If nudity was verboten, I'd expect Jesus to be giving quite a number of sermons against it.  Can't seem to find that.

Joe
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: Ed on August 05, 2010, 09:31:32 pm
Quote
I just know it!" isn't a rational argument

I obviously didn't say that. Try not to be so obnoxious.

as to the direct translation - well yeah, sure, it says they knew they were naked and then covered themselves up. But the implication is clearly that there's at least something off about being naked - all of a sudden they didn't want to be naked. If this weren't significant they wouldn't have mentioned it.

Your old testament/new testament rules double standard actually makes more sense. But the fact that Jesus didn't talk about it directly doesn't mean it wasn't understood or accepted as part of normal society (wearing clothes). If you're preaching about newer, complex ideas, you tend not to focus on stuff that's already been accepted.
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: rossby on August 05, 2010, 09:48:08 pm
then could tell the difference from good and evil, and then it is written that they then "knew" that being naked was wrong. It's written in such a way that it assumes that nudity is wrong. It takes it as a given.

1. It doesn't say they could tell the difference between good and evil.
2. It doesn't say being naked is wrong.

Keep in mind "good and evil" doesn't literally mean good and evil. Translation problem. It means a complete knowledge or wisdom. Contrast it with the creation of Adam and Eve in Gen 2, where they are created in the nude but do not have knowledge that they should be ashamed. Sure, there are probably contemporary social standards incorporated in the text. But, recall in the original Hebrew text, they covered only their genitals.

Since it's all allegorical about Man's moral imperfection and explanatory for why he doesn't live in a perfect world, no one really knows what the exact meanings of the phrases are. Why, you'd have to ask whoever wrote the Epic of Gilgamesh... The attitude toward nudity varies wildly throughout the Bible.
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: MaineShark on August 05, 2010, 09:49:40 pm
Quote
I just know it!" isn't a rational argument
I obviously didn't say that. Try not to be so obnoxious.

That's the logical meaning of the sort of argument you used.

as to the direct translation - well yeah, sure, it says they knew they were naked and then covered themselves up. But the implication is clearly that there's at least something off about being naked - all of a sudden they didn't want to be naked. If this weren't significant they wouldn't have mentioned it.

But it wasn't a sin, before then, was it?  God, after all, created then in the nude, and didn't tell them to wear clothing.  That's something they came up with, in the course of sinning.  The obvious implication is that the need for covering is something that sinners feel, not something that those in a state of grace feel.

Your old testament/new testament rules double standard actually makes more sense. But the fact that Jesus didn't talk about it directly doesn't mean it wasn't understood or accepted as part of normal society (wearing clothes). If you're preaching about newer, complex ideas, you tend not to focus on stuff that's already been accepted.

No, it was normal for folks to not wear clothing (at least occasionally).  If he was trying to change that, so that folks wore clothing all the time, he would have had to say something.

Joe
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: anon37268573 on August 05, 2010, 09:51:28 pm
I'm trying to frame these options as neutrally as possible, so that it's not the equivalent of a "push poll." Which option fits you better?

Libertines believe that libertarianism is a complete theory of the good. In other words, whatever you do is fine, so long as it doesn't violate anyone else's rights. A friend of mine calls this "smoke 'em if you got 'em" libertarianism. This point of view is consistent with "enlightened self-interest," that is, that you should pursue your own interests, but with an eye to the long run. However, libertines don't believe that they ought to consider the interests of others or the "greater good," beyond not violating other people's rights.

Virtue libertarians (or "Responsibilitarians") think that people have obligations that go beyond not violating other people's rights. A responsibilitarian would likely think that drugs should be legal, but also that we should avoid drug abuse drug use that limits one's ability to lead a fulfilled, rational life. Another term for this philosophy is "fusionism," coined by Frank Meyer, who thought that a free society also had to be a virtuous society (a "fusion" of liberty and virtue).

I'm not sure how firm your line is here between choices.  It seems blurry.  There's a middle ground beyond the "greater good" and not violating others' rights.

For example, one perspective I see missing here is committing to decisions that may not violate others' rights at the time but that will eventually lead to the violation of others' rights.  I've never known a junkie whom wasn't a thief.  But, using heroin the first time doesn't violate others' rights.  And heroin use leads to poor decision making that results in public health risks - like the spread of HCV.  I've never known anyone whom used heroin and didn't perform activities that could result in the spread of HCV and HIV.  So, would considering future theft and public health count as "some 'em if you got 'em" or "virtue libertarianism"?

I had a college roommate die of a heroin overdose.  So, I have a good bit of experience with this.  And, I can tell you that there are chemical forms and structures that can defeat any form of logical argument.  Oxycodone swept through South Boston like a tidal wave when I lived there.  I believe that it's more addictive than heroin.  Something more addictive than Oxycodone will be engineered in the near future.

Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: Ed on August 05, 2010, 09:52:54 pm
Quote
That's the logical meaning of the sort of argument you used

No it's not. That was just my starting off point before I laid out what I had to say.

Why do you have to go out of your way to make a swipe at someone else in every post?

Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: rossby on August 05, 2010, 09:55:21 pm
I'm trying to frame these options as neutrally as possible, so that it's not the equivalent of a "push poll." Which option fits you better?

Libertines believe that libertarianism is a complete theory of the good. In other words, whatever you do is fine, so long as it doesn't violate anyone else's rights. A friend of mine calls this "smoke 'em if you got 'em" libertarianism. This point of view is consistent with "enlightened self-interest," that is, that you should pursue your own interests, but with an eye to the long run. However, libertines don't believe that they ought to consider the interests of others or the "greater good," beyond not violating other people's rights.

Virtue libertarians (or "Responsibilitarians") think that people have obligations that go beyond not violating other people's rights. A responsibilitarian would likely think that drugs should be legal, but also that we should avoid drug abuse drug use that limits one's ability to lead a fulfilled, rational life. Another term for this philosophy is "fusionism," coined by Frank Meyer, who thought that a free society also had to be a virtuous society (a "fusion" of liberty and virtue).

I'm not sure how firm your line is here between choices.  It seems blurry.  There's a middle ground beyond the "greater good" and not violating others' rights.

Second!

I'm getting hung up because the difference, as expressed, really seems to be a choice between "everything that isn't forbidden is allowed" and "some things may be better to do than others". That is, statements of permissibility and desirability. One could say both statements are true.
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: ONLYWAY on August 05, 2010, 11:00:29 pm
First of all this is not allegory!  This is a literal account.   If someone hides from god and then tries to shift blame to someone else they udnerstand they did wrong.  Of course they udnerstood the difference between good and evil - even before they sinned - obviously!  After they sinned they gained a sin nature which led them have feelings of lust, guilt, selfishness, shame , etc.  That is why they covered themselves and hid from God.  Only eve was deceived - adam knew what he was doing when he did it but both intentionally and knowilngly sinned.

While this is a literal account of the fall of humanity it is also a great picture of our saviour!  Yes, they only covered themselves partially (notice the word aprin) and they used fig leaevs (vegetation repersents mans attempts to cover sin with good deeds - see cain and able) BUT God made them COATS (covered completely) of animal skins (these where first animals ever killed) - without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.  to cover their nakedness...nakedness is not only a sin but is the classic picture of sin. 

read gen 3:15 - it is the first time the Gospel is ever shared - directly after first sin ever occured. 


then could tell the difference from good and evil, and then it is written that they then "knew" that being naked was wrong. It's written in such a way that it assumes that nudity is wrong. It takes it as a given.

1. It doesn't say they could tell the difference between good and evil.
2. It doesn't say being naked is wrong.

Keep in mind "good and evil" doesn't literally mean good and evil. Translation problem. It means a complete knowledge or wisdom. Contrast it with the creation of Adam and Eve in Gen 2, where they are created in the nude but do not have knowledge that they should be ashamed. Sure, there are probably contemporary social standards incorporated in the text. But, recall in the original Hebrew text, they covered only their genitals.

Since it's all allegorical about Man's moral imperfection and explanatory for why he doesn't live in a perfect world, no one really knows what the exact meanings of the phrases are. Why, you'd have to ask whoever wrote the Epic of Gilgamesh... The attitude toward nudity varies wildly throughout the Bible.
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: ONLYWAY on August 05, 2010, 11:06:33 pm
right and wrong, SIN, are absolute...explained clearly in the Bible.  However, not all sins should be illegal.  God gave everyone a free will so why should we take away the opportunity God gave to all?  However, however, some sins do need to be "illegal". 

I'm trying to frame these options as neutrally as possible, so that it's not the equivalent of a "push poll." Which option fits you better?

Libertines believe that libertarianism is a complete theory of the good. In other words, whatever you do is fine, so long as it doesn't violate anyone else's rights. A friend of mine calls this "smoke 'em if you got 'em" libertarianism. This point of view is consistent with "enlightened self-interest," that is, that you should pursue your own interests, but with an eye to the long run. However, libertines don't believe that they ought to consider the interests of others or the "greater good," beyond not violating other people's rights.

Virtue libertarians (or "Responsibilitarians") think that people have obligations that go beyond not violating other people's rights. A responsibilitarian would likely think that drugs should be legal, but also that we should avoid drug abuse drug use that limits one's ability to lead a fulfilled, rational life. Another term for this philosophy is "fusionism," coined by Frank Meyer, who thought that a free society also had to be a virtuous society (a "fusion" of liberty and virtue).

I'm not sure how firm your line is here between choices.  It seems blurry.  There's a middle ground beyond the "greater good" and not violating others' rights.

For example, one perspective I see missing here is committing to decisions that may not violate others' rights at the time but that will eventually lead to the violation of others' rights.  I've never known a junkie whom wasn't a thief.  But, using heroin the first time doesn't violate others' rights.  And heroin use leads to poor decision making that results in public health risks - like the spread of HCV.  I've never known anyone whom used heroin and didn't perform activities that could result in the spread of HCV and HIV.  So, would considering future theft and public health count as "some 'em if you got 'em" or "virtue libertarianism"?

I had a college roommate die of a heroin overdose.  So, I have a good bit of experience with this.  And, I can tell you that there are chemical forms and structures that can defeat any form of logical argument.  Oxycodone swept through South Boston like a tidal wave when I lived there.  I believe that it's more addictive than heroin.  Something more addictive than Oxycodone will be engineered in the near future.


Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: rossby on August 06, 2010, 12:55:02 am
First of all this is not allegory!  This is a literal account.

Then God would be a liar. Gen 2:17. If we also believe it is the true word of God, we should suspect the rest of the Bible's accuracy.

Yes, they only covered themselves partially (notice the word aprin) and they used fig leaevs (vegetation repersents mans attempts to cover sin with good deeds - see cain and able)

Make up your mind. You said this was not allegorical.

While this is a literal account of the fall of humanity it is also a great picture of our saviour!

Nothing in Genesis refers to Jesus Christ. Not literally. You're pretending that it's metaphorical again.

right and wrong, SIN, are absolute... explained clearly in the Bible.

Please cite to this alleged clear explanation.
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: Dreepa on August 06, 2010, 05:45:47 am
Adam and Eve weren't even married!


also the bible never says were all those other people came from?

Was Adam really hundreds of years old?

How did Noah get the duckbilled platypus on the ark?

What exactly happened in Genisis 9:24?  Should Noah have been killed for that?

Also the bible says it is okay to have polgamy... are you cool with that?
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: WendellBerry on August 06, 2010, 07:43:51 am
lots of talk about morality.  Who chooses what is moral? 

Each person acts according to what they perceive/reason to be morally right and wrong, same as anything. Thankfully, we all seem to have pretty similar perceptions about basic right and wrong. Not quite as similar as our perceptions about physical reality, but very similar nonetheless.

1. An act is good if and only if it benefits others.

2. An act is evil if and only if it coercively harms others by

initiating a direct, actual invasion.

3. All other acts are neutral.

4. If an act includes good and evil elements, the good does not

cancel out the evil.

I'd say that's a pretty excellent start ... I pretty much agree. I would probably say it's possible for indirect harm to also be evil, depending. Personally, I might also characterize self-destructive behavior as "evil" in a sense, and self-constructive as good.


http://www.foldvary.net/works/ue1.html (http://www.foldvary.net/works/ue1.html)
Title: Re: Libertine or virtue libertarian?
Post by: JasonPSorens on August 06, 2010, 08:34:06 am
This got way off topic, so I'm locking it. I believe there are some threads in the Religion & Liberty forum already discussing the Bible issues.