From: Jeremy Linden <jlinden@...>
Jeremy - Can you expand on how it is societies and cultures can be
'oppressive' and yet still be considered in violation of NAP? I don't
see how this relates to the rights of the individual. I should think
that social norms, peer pressures and the like to be akin to situations
where one person is offended by another, for what ever reason.I wasn't saying anyone was in violation of the NAP...as I've said numerous
times, I think the NAP is junk philosophy and libertarians shouldn't be
relying on it to structure our vision of the proper role of government.
Okay, this is very curious. I found your post from earlier where you used 'BAD philosophy' to describe NAP
Now I'm just a shade tree philospher, but could you possibly expand on what you mean by bad? The nice thing I like about philosophy in general is that basically anything goes. Some elements of any philosophy may not be authentic but when you say 'bad' , to me it brings up terms like 'illogical' or the realm of personal subjective. Of course I've only been studying libertarianism for 12yrs now, but to me individualism and NAP is down right elegant. Easy for everyone to understand and shown to work in the real world - even in its current inpure forms.
So if you wouldn't mind expounding on why it is junk and then explain briefly why a political movement/party cannot have a philosophical justification that would help me and others here understand your position better. In fact, I would postulate that philosophy is the ONLY reason to have a political movement. I haven't read all of your emails but it sounds like you think the LP should do 'stuff' or whatever is deemed practical to meet its ends at any given time. I'm not a hard core Randian, but this type of position smacks of classic subjectivism to me. I haven't heard any libertarian philosophers suggest that individual rights are not paramount to all else either, so if you have any links you could share that would be great.
So are you suggesting it is criminal for all others to frown on you for
say - 'wearing black socks with shorts'? Hopefully you are not
putting that offense in the same boat as a person killed for wearing
gang colors? And in that regard, would Ataturk be justified in either
- throwing all gang members in jail, not just the murderer...or even
throwing all of society in jail to educate protect future victims?
I don't think it is criminal to have social norms, even bad ones, but at
some point a culture becomes so oppressive that it inevitably takes over
the government and imposes its norms by force. Sometimes preventative
measures have to be taken to stop such a culture from doing so BEFORE it
gets too late and the damage is done. This critical point is likely
earlier in societies where there is less respect for individualism and the
rule of law than in Western societies where such traditions have a much
longer history.
that was my point about hindsight is 20/20. What you describe is pre-emptive force.
I'm also unconvinced that nationalism is a lesser evil
than tribalism, history aside. But more importantly - I think it is
somewhat odd that on the one hand, libertarians are on this mission to
dismantle the "modern" state, yet you seem to advocate others build it
up by hook or by crook to save themselves from social pressures?
Very few societies have been able to modernize in a tribal system. In
fact, I can't name one. There is something about modernism that works
better in a nation-state than in a tribal culture, I don't know what that
is. If all tribal cultures are primitive, might this say something about
tribalism in itself? I don't think all libertarians necessarily favor
dismantling the entire modern state, only those parts of it which violate
people's rights. Even if we claim that libertarians wish to roll back the
clock for the federal government of the USA by about 200 years, that is
still quite modern as the history of government goes, especially when you
consider that the USA was somewhat ahead of its time.
Again, I haven't heard any libertarian ideals that promote modernizing, reforming or otherwise helping governing systems become more effective of efficient. Since they only exist as entities of force against individuals - both internal and external, it seems counter productive to nation build for sophistication's sake. The functions of government outlined in a libertarian society are protection from other non-nap entities and provide a framework of justice internally to decide individual nap violations.
So yes, I think the LP is promoting a primitive style of government because it is the most moral in terms of indivual rights.
d
Jeremy