Apparently, it's still *legal* for schools to expel gay stud

[Seth]

It works both ways, and the whole point of shunning someone, in the Libertarian sense of things, is to use the effect of an entire community refusing to associate with someone who is acting in anti-social ways to encourage the malefactor to behave in socially appropriate ways. A racist bigot who abuses blacks can and should be shunned by the community. They should not only refuse to associate with him, but they should refuse to TRADE with him, or permit him to use their private property. The bigot who cannot buy a sandwich or a tank of gas because his neighbors refuse to sell it to him, who is refused entry into private social events, who is an invisible non-person will suffer the consequences of his bigotry, and the community will not have to condone or support such bigoted behavior in any way.

Why is it that private property is so venerated in your version of libertarianism but a minimal set of human rights that would protect against bigotry is so anathema?

Depends on what you define as "human rights." As for why private property is "venerated," it's because it's private property, and comprises the fruits of the labor of the individual, to which he is entitled to the full use thereof.

You can't prevent a bigot from being a bigot. If you impose laws that cause bigots to conceal their bigotry, they will be concealed bigots, who are far more dangerous to liberty than "outed" bigots. I'd much rather have bigots announce themselves so I can shun them than enact laws to protect the tender sensibilities of the oppressed that serve only to drive bigotry underground, where it's much harder to detect and deal with. I prefer my enemies out in the open, thanks. Only when bigotry is revealed for what it is, to everyone, will society act to revile, repudiate and shun bigotry.

One of the reasons that bigotry and prejudice, not to mention open crimes against blacks persisted in the South after the Civil War was because it was kept quiet. It wasn't until the Civil Rights era, and through people like Dr. Martin Luther King standing up to bigotry and making a public display of the prejudice that things began to change. It was the photos and films on the nightly news of the abuses of the police in Birmingham and other places, and the publicity about the murders of civil rights activists, and the dogs and fire hoses and marches that were broken up with violence by the bigots in the South that caused the rest of the nation to finally wake up and recoil from what they had been ignoring for decades.

I'd much rather have the KKK march openly, so we can see what and WHO they are, than have them riding around in the night in hoods. I'd rather know who the homophobic bigots in Congress or my local legislature are than make laws that prevent them from expressing themselves.

Suppressing expressions of bigotry never stops the bigotry, it merely makes it covert. One cannot identify a neo-Nazi, and therefore shun him, without the swastika tattooed on his neck, so I'm happy to let them tattoo swastika's on their necks.

Public opprobrium can change behavior, but public opprobrium cannot be brought to bear against a crypto-bigot. Far better to allow them to "out" themselves.

In the context of a school, I think it's better for a school that supports homosexual bigotry to be openly identified as bigoted, because this allows both parents and students to make a choice about attending. Imagine the grievous harm that would occur if a homosexual child were enrolled in a private school that was filled with bigots and homophobes who were crypto-bigots whose prejudice and attacks on homosexuals at the school were tacitly approved or overlooked by the administration. It's far better for them to announce their policies so that homosexual students can avoid the place like the plague...and parents and community members can heap opprobrium upon them...than to subject some poor homosexual student to abuse unknowingly.

[Cunt]

I did earlier say that 'public opprobium' (you may have used a different phrase) was indeed force. I stand by it with stomach-wrenching examples if you need them.

In short, that public mod is one reason that people with intellectual and developmental disabilities have historically been treated worse than criminals. Locked into institutions, sterilized against their will, held for life with no sentence and often no crime having been committed.

That isn't the stomach wrenching part.

All because of a 'good old' shunning.

Strawman. And red herring. That practice ended decades ago in favor of throwing them out of institutions onto the streets, where they have to fend for themselves.

I really hope you are just ignorant and not being dishonest.
http://www.gov.mb.ca/fs/pwd/mdc.html#top
There are many. Before you defend them, try being sentenced and medicated into one for a number of years.

For NO crime.

They weren't "shunned," they were institutionalized because society either didn't want to deal with them or they legitimately felt that they could not function in society, which in many cases was true.

You bet it was shunning. Many places today continue that tradition of shunning and some even shun the families who produce 'defectives'.

The quality of SOME institutions was indefensible, but that doesn't support your assertion that shunning someone is an application of force.

Perhaps you could define 'force' in such a way that shunning isn't it, but that would be getting crappy with the words.

Shunning is force. Gentle force, maybe, but force just the same. India's 'untouchable' caste is shunned...do you consider that force?

In any event, nobody can prevent someone from being a bigot or prevent them from ignoring the plight of the mentally ill or anyone else...except the good people of a community who can shun such behavior.

Thereby forcibly preventing bigotry?

It works both ways, and the whole point of shunning someone, in the Libertarian sense of things, is to use the effect of an entire community refusing to associate with someone who is acting in anti-social ways to encourage the malefactor to behave in socially appropriate ways. A racist bigot who abuses blacks can and should be shunned by the community.

I know that the community identifying itself as the ku klux klan would disagree with you. There may be others.

They should not only refuse to associate with him, but they should refuse to TRADE with him, or permit him to use their private property. The bigot who cannot buy a sandwich or a tank of gas because his neighbors refuse to sell it to him, who is refused entry into private social events, who is an invisible non-person will suffer the consequences of his bigotry, and the community will not have to condone or support such bigoted behavior in any way.

Sounds noble when you spin it that way, but what about when the target isn't so noble? Like maybe Indias untouchables...?

Can it be misused? Of course, like anything else can be. But the vast majority of people in any community are people of good will and honorable intention, and using shunning appropriately to encourage good social behavior without the use of force is perfectly appropriate.

It may be the best way to accomplish many goals, but I will not blind myself to the fact that it is forcible.

You may erect boogy-men made of straw if you like, but it's all straw all the time.

I don't even know what you mean here, Seth.

In no way can a refusal to associate with someone be construed as initiating force. Period.

But when everyone does...it is a different thing altogether. And you were talking about group shunning. You may move the goalposts for yourself, but I remember where they were initially.

[Seth]

I did earlier say that 'public opprobium' (you may have used a different phrase) was indeed force. I stand by it with stomach-wrenching examples if you need them.

In short, that public mod is one reason that people with intellectual and developmental disabilities have historically been treated worse than criminals. Locked into institutions, sterilized against their will, held for life with no sentence and often no crime having been committed.

That isn't the stomach wrenching part.

All because of a 'good old' shunning.

Strawman. And red herring. That practice ended decades ago in favor of throwing them out of institutions onto the streets, where they have to fend for themselves.

I really hope you are just ignorant and not being dishonest.
http://www.gov.mb.ca/fs/pwd/mdc.html#top
There are many. Before you defend them, try being sentenced and medicated into one for a number of years.

For NO crime.

One does not have to commit a crime to be incapacitated and unable to care for oneself. To make the claim that all institutions are immoral because they medicate people and confine them is the true ignorance. When people are mentally or physically incapacitated and are unable to care for themselves, and there's no one in their family who is able or willing to do so, what do you suggest? Leave them lying in the gutter to die?

They weren't "shunned," they were institutionalized because society either didn't want to deal with them or they legitimately felt that they could not function in society, which in many cases was true.

You bet it was shunning. Many places today continue that tradition of shunning and some even shun the families who produce 'defectives'.

Bigotry is bigotry. Criminals use guns to commit crimes, but this does not mean that the possession of a gun by a law-abiding person makes them a criminal. You're forking straw by the truckload.

The quality of SOME institutions was indefensible, but that doesn't support your assertion that shunning someone is an application of force.

Perhaps you could define 'force' in such a way that shunning isn't it, but that would be getting crappy with the words.

"Force" has a very explicit meaning which does not include ignoring someone.

Shunning is force. Gentle force, maybe, but force just the same. India's 'untouchable' caste is shunned...do you consider that force?

Nope. It's reprehensible bigotry and prejudice, but it's not force. Those who shun the untouchables should be shunned by the rest of the world. I note, however, that India's untouchables are not merely shunned, they are physically and even legally restrained and often physically attacked, which is something else entirely.

In any event, nobody can prevent someone from being a bigot or prevent them from ignoring the plight of the mentally ill or anyone else...except the good people of a community who can shun such behavior.

Thereby forcibly preventing bigotry?

You can't prevent bigotry. Bigotry is always going to exist. The best society can do is to prevent physical oppression or violence.

It works both ways, and the whole point of shunning someone, in the Libertarian sense of things, is to use the effect of an entire community refusing to associate with someone who is acting in anti-social ways to encourage the malefactor to behave in socially appropriate ways. A racist bigot who abuses blacks can and should be shunned by the community.

I know that the community identifying itself as the ku klux klan would disagree with you. There may be others.

The KKK has been successfully marginalized and shunned by the bulk of the citizenry, which is why it's a small and relatively ineffective group of bigots.

They should not only refuse to associate with him, but they should refuse to TRADE with him, or permit him to use their private property. The bigot who cannot buy a sandwich or a tank of gas because his neighbors refuse to sell it to him, who is refused entry into private social events, who is an invisible non-person will suffer the consequences of his bigotry, and the community will not have to condone or support such bigoted behavior in any way.

Sounds noble when you spin it that way, but what about when the target isn't so noble? Like maybe Indias untouchables...?

Bigotry is bigotry. You cannot disdain shunning intended to repudiate bigotry by comparing it to shunning intended to perpetuate bigotry. That's intellectually dishonest.

[/Can it be misused? Of course, like anything else can be. But the vast majority of people in any community are people of good will and honorable intention, and using shunning appropriately to encourage good social behavior without the use of force is perfectly appropriate.

It may be the best way to accomplish many goals, but I will not blind myself to the fact that it is forcible.

It's not force because no force is involved.

You may erect boogy-men made of straw if you like, but it's all straw all the time.

I don't even know what you mean here, Seth.

I'm unsurprised at your confusion.

In no way can a refusal to associate with someone be construed as initiating force. Period.

But when everyone does...it is a different thing altogether. And you were talking about group shunning. You may move the goalposts for yourself, but I remember where they were initially.

Strawman.

[affirmedatheist]

Seth, I'd have to side with you on shunning, used properly it can be a powerful tool. And I'd even agree on the "let the idiot BE an idiot" idea.

To put this story into its context, religious schools (particularly the Catholic system) do get state (and some federal - evidently designing a system with a single government to point the finger at was too difficult for the writers of the Australian Constitution...) funding. I'd have much less problem with this law if state funding wasn't there personally, although I'd still be uncomfortable about the religious indoctrination that often goes on in such places.

In addition to these grants from government, many of these schools rake in a shit-ton of money in student fees (usually upwards of $20,000 per year per student, which compares with the cost of some university courses; quite excessive). They do tend to perform well academically and places are hence highly sought after by those who can afford it. Though it must be said, the supposedly secular system seems to run amazingly well on the smell of an oily rag, all things considered (some of these government schools occasionally outperform the private ones).

Further, the religiotards are creeping into the secular education system; there's in effect no separation of church and state. Scripture lessons are *opt-out*, and usually of the Christian (and increasingly of the HellSong variety), although ethics classes are now offered in some schools in lieu. We also have school chaplains in many schools, paid for in most cases by the GOVERNMENT. These chaplains, despite not being supposed to proselytise are doing so, and are basically required to be the personnel of religious institutions. And where they are following the letter of the law, they're not following the spirit of it, and encouraging people to camps and such. Some schools are even having these chaplains responsible for running certain external school activities, which means a child may have to miss out on said activity if their parents wish (or they do) not to have association with the chaplain.

Again, this is in the GOVERNMENT system.

I might add that this is one of the first threads I've made that has grown over 2 pages in length. Yay.

[Cunt]

Seth, I'd have to side with you on shunning, used properly it can be a powerful tool. And I'd even agree on the "let the idiot BE an idiot" idea.

I don't exactly side away from Seth on this, either. I simply acknowledge that group shunning is force.

Perhaps if I use another example I can make it clearer...

If you are a contractor, Seth, and you move here to make a living building homes, that sounds like acceptable commerce and community interaction.
If the concrete providers (there are 2 here) refuse to deliver concrete to you (they 'shun' you), you can not ply your trade. I would say that those 2 shunners are forcing you to either change professions or location.

Individual shunning isn't usually force (the way I see it), but when folks gang up together, it certainly can be.

What if a group of corporations threaten to 'shun' a government by not working in their country anymore? Is that force? It has often been called 'political force' as I recall.

As I said, I don't disagree with Seth that it is often the best kind of force to use, but it IS force of a kind.

[Seth]

Seth, I'd have to side with you on shunning, used properly it can be a powerful tool. And I'd even agree on the "let the idiot BE an idiot" idea.

To put this story into its context, religious schools (particularly the Catholic system) do get state (and some federal - evidently designing a system with a single government to point the finger at was too difficult for the writers of the Australian Constitution...) funding. I'd have much less problem with this law if state funding wasn't there personally, although I'd still be uncomfortable about the religious indoctrination that often goes on in such places.

In addition to these grants from government, many of these schools rake in a shit-ton of money in student fees (usually upwards of $20,000 per year per student, which compares with the cost of some university courses; quite excessive). They do tend to perform well academically and places are hence highly sought after by those who can afford it. Though it must be said, the supposedly secular system seems to run amazingly well on the smell of an oily rag, all things considered (some of these government schools occasionally outperform the private ones).

Further, the religiotards are creeping into the secular education system; there's in effect no separation of church and state. Scripture lessons are *opt-out*, and usually of the Christian (and increasingly of the HellSong variety), although ethics classes are now offered in some schools in lieu. We also have school chaplains in many schools, paid for in most cases by the GOVERNMENT. These chaplains, despite not being supposed to proselytise are doing so, and are basically required to be the personnel of religious institutions. And where they are following the letter of the law, they're not following the spirit of it, and encouraging people to camps and such. Some schools are even having these chaplains responsible for running certain external school activities, which means a child may have to miss out on said activity if their parents wish (or they do) not to have association with the chaplain.

Again, this is in the GOVERNMENT system.

I might add that this is one of the first threads I've made that has grown over 2 pages in length. Yay.

Well, evidently this situation meet with the will of the people, otherwise they'd change it. So, it's a manifestation of democratic will, is it not? Why would anyone who believes in Democracy complain about a manifestation of democratic will, I wonder?

If you want an "Establishment Clause" in the AUS Constitution, then enact one.

[Seth]

Seth, I'd have to side with you on shunning, used properly it can be a powerful tool. And I'd even agree on the "let the idiot BE an idiot" idea.

I don't exactly side away from Seth on this, either. I simply acknowledge that group shunning is force.

Perhaps if I use another example I can make it clearer...

If you are a contractor, Seth, and you move here to make a living building homes, that sounds like acceptable commerce and community interaction.
If the concrete providers (there are 2 here) refuse to deliver concrete to you (they 'shun' you), you can not ply your trade. I would say that those 2 shunners are forcing you to either change professions or location.

So? It's still not force on the part of the concrete providers. The same result would obtain if you moved to a community where there is no concrete service available. In that case, it's up to you to mix your own concrete, isn't it? You can hardly call it "force" that the community does not provide you with a ready source of concrete, either by economic circumstance or deliberate action. Perhaps the community does not want a cement batch plant in their community.

I would like to relate an interesting anecdote regarding force, government inaction and concrete batch plants that might be amusing. Some years ago, in a small mountain community in Colorado called Granby, one Marvin Heemeyer petitioned his local government for redress of grievances regarding their approval of a cement batch plant located adjacent to his muffler shop. The batch plant obstructed access to his property, and the town refused to grant him another access to the city streets. In addition, dust from the cement plant was alleged to have damaged paint on cars in the area. After many years of wrangling with the town over various zoning and land use disputes, Heemeyer armored his Komatsu D355 bulldozer using steel plate and concrete. It took him a year and a half to complete the project in secret. On June 4, 2004, Heemeyer drove his armored bulldozer out of his shop and proceeded to level downtown Granby, causing more than 7 million in damages and destroying or damaging 13 buildings. Police were entirely unable to stop him. They would have needed a Cobra helicopter armed with Hellfire missiles to penetrate the armor. Heemeyer injured no one in the rampage, but committed suicide in the cab (which he was irrevocably sealed into by design) when his bulldozer got stuck after falling into the basement of the Ace Hardware store.

Heemeyer's rampage is a cogent warning to arrogant city officials that people can be pushed too far, and that bureaucrats are not immune from public ire just because they are elected.

Individual shunning isn't usually force (the way I see it), but when folks gang up together, it certainly can be.

No, it can't. It can certainly have dire effects on the ability of the shunned person to participate in the community or even earn a living, but that's still not "force."

What if a group of corporations threaten to 'shun' a government by not working in their country anymore? Is that force? It has often been called 'political force' as I recall.

They do it all the time, and no, it's not "force" in any way. For it to be "force" one has to presume that the country has some inherent right to demand that the corporations do business in the country. No such presumption exists. It may certainly be political persuasion, but the country is not compelled to do anything by the actions of the corporations withdrawing from the country.

As I said, I don't disagree with Seth that it is often the best kind of force to use, but it IS force of a kind.

Only if you completely distort the definition of "force" to include the self-assigned and self-experienced consequences of being denied social or economic intercourse with the community.

The whole point of shunning, which is pioneered by religious groups like the Quakers and Mennonites, is that no force is used at all. Any emotional or economic pressure that occurs happens entirely within the individual who is being denied social intercourse, who is free to leave that community and seek another.

[affirmedatheist]

It's more a situation of lack of will. I suspect most Australians don't agree with the intertwining of religion and government, but nobody's really had the guts (or desire) to stand up to it. We sort of hover somewhere between the US and UK on this, in that there's a completely unbalanced influence on politics by (relatively within Australia) fairly hard-line Christian groups. Some battles are being won, others are being lost to them.

The frustrating thing is that S116 of the Australian constitution reads like a clause having the intent to separate church and state, but the constitutional lawyers have essentially tried to ignore it over the years. Anger is beginning to ferment over the increasing intertwining of religion and politics, and the chaplaincy program is being challenged, thank heavens (per se, I have few issues with parents being allowed to grant a representative access to the child, provided all the i's are dotted and all the t's are crossed; but it would best be done on a per child basis. It's the fact that the Federal government that funds this program that has me worried).