FFRF gets its panties in a twist

[Seth]

Certainly if you think that those who use "the noble lie" to bind a state together, then you must accept that they are doing so knowing it is a control mechanism.

Of course. Many people need and want social control mechanisms. They want to be able to just live their lives without having to worry about the administration of the community. So long as they understand that and submit to it voluntarily, Libertarianism has no problem with their doing so.

While I agree that such affinity groups should have the ability to go off an do things on their own currently, that is not feasible.

Why not?

One of the main hurdling blocks to that is the use of "the noble lie" to enforce a false commonality of belief and moral behaviour up and to legislating for such moral behaviour.

Well, legislating someone else's morality (which is to say legislating behavior that is not an initiation of force or fraud) against their will would be initiating force against them, so in a Libertarian society, any person against whom such a law is made would be justified in using force in self defense. But there's nothing wrong with a society making rules for itself, so long as the decision is either unanimous or compliance is voluntary.

I thought that would be (pardon the pun) anathema to someone who is a Libertarian since it seems to me to go completely in another direction, especially in a Republic which has in earnest tried to keep church and state from interfering with each other, precisely for those reasons it seems to me.

The key to Libertarianism is voluntary association and adherence to contract. Legislating morality, unless it involves regulating behavior that constitutes an initiation of force or fraud against another (rape, murder, robbery, etc.) in ways that require involuntary compliance is indeed anathema to Libertarians.

If you're a member of a religious community that has moral rules for membership, and you submit voluntarily to the rule of the established authorities of that community, that's your right. But that community may not impose those rules on anyone who is not a voluntary member. At worst, members of that community may refuse to associate (socially or commercially) with other inhabitants of the community who do not subscribe to those moral rules.

But any attempt by the religious community to enforce their rules upon others against their will would be an initiation of force that would trigger the right of self defense.

Could, for example, a Mennonite community "shun" a Hedonist family that moves to town by refusing to trade or have social intercourse with them? Of course. Freedom of association, and it's necessary companion, freedom of DISassociation is a fundamental tenet of Libertarianism. Might this make the Hedonists uncomfortable or unable to buy the necessities of life like food? Yes, that might well happen, but the desire of the Hedonists to live and trade in a community of Mennonites does not outweigh the right of the Mennonites to refuse to associate with (or trade with) people whom they find to be morally corrupt. Therefore, the Hedonists would have to either figure out how to live in the Mennonite community without social or commercial intercourse (by traveling to another community to buy food for example) or they would have to go find a Hedonist community where they would be welcome.

What the Hedonists cannot do is invoke the law to prevent the Mennonites from shunning ("discriminating") against them. The absolute right of the Mennonites to decide for themselves with whom they will trade or associate trumps any assertion of a right to demand that others associate with the Hedonists against their will.

Might this result in, for example, segregation of communities based on race or ethnicity? Yes, it might, and likely would. But Libertarians hold that the right of freedom of association is paramount, and that no one has any right to demand that anyone be forced into association (social or commercial) with anyone else.

This is the basis of the commonly heard accusation that Libertarians are "racists" because they "approve of racial segregation." This is an absolutely false claim. Libertarians do not distinguish between race or any other characteristic when it comes to preserving the paramount right of freedom of association. That racists might use such a system to racially discriminate is beside the point. Racists will be racists, and the proper Libertarian response to racists is to shun them.

Let's suppose that in a Libertarian society, some group of racists decides that they will create a "no blacks" community. First off, if a black attempts to move into that community, it's a violation of Libertarian principles for the racists to try to prevent him from doing so by force or fraud. They can shun the black if they wish, because that is their right.

However, the racist community cannot demand that other communities or persons trade with them. Right-thinking Libertarians in surrounding communities would therefore identify the members of that racist community and would agree among themselves to shun those persons and refuse to trade with or associate with them so long as they manifested racist behavior.

By this method, unacceptable moral conduct short of force or fraud is disapproved of by the larger group of combined Libertarian communities who can exert influence on the moral behavior of any person or community without the use of coercive force merely through withdrawal of social and commercial intercourse.

If one person living in a community manifests racist behavior, exactly the same sort of non-coercive influence can be brought to bear by his neighbors and the other members of the community, who can identify him and agree not to trade or associate with him.

All of this proceeds without the need for laws or coercive force to amend social behavior, and it's based in the knowledge that most people have rational, well-formed adult personalities and are not sociopaths by nature. Given the power to determine for themselves with whom they will or will not associate, communities would quickly shake themselves out into communities with commonality of belief and moral practice, and the odd sociopath would find himself shunned by all, but likewise left alone to follow his own beliefs...so long as he initiates neither force nor fraud against another.

In this way, Libertarianism fosters liberty, freedom and respect for the rights of all without the use of involuntary coercive force to control moral behavior that falls short of the initiation of force or fraud.

[amused]

Given the power to determine for themselves with whom they will or will not associate, communities would quickly shake themselves out into communities with commonality of belief and moral practice, and the odd sociopath would find himself shunned by all, but likewise left alone to follow his own beliefs...so long as he initiates neither force nor fraud against another.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So much for diversity, or the chance for new folks to move into a community.

[Svartalf]

There's nothing wrong with diversity, the problem is the willingness of the components to coinhabit with each other rather than being unsufferable until everybody gives them their way and submits to their manners

[Seth]

So much for diversity, or the chance for new folks to move into a community.

This falsely presumes that the majority of people are either undiverse, racists, or exclusionary. That's simply not the case. Frankly, I'd prefer all the neo-Nazis live in one easily identifiable and avoidable community all by themselves.

[Seth]

There's nothing wrong with diversity, the problem is the willingness of the components to coinhabit with each other rather than being unsufferable until everybody gives them their way and submits to their manners

Why is that a problem? If you don't like the tenor or manners of the community, find another community or start your own. Why should you get to dictate to other people what community manners should be. That's like a heckler's veto. Just because you want to live somewhere particular doesn't mean that other people are obliged to put up with your bad manners and act as if nothing's wrong.

And nobody's going to try to run you out of town, you're free to be splendidly isolated in your home using any manners you like, it's just that other people aren't obliged to associate with you or support your preferred lifestyle.

[HomerJay]

Seth's problem is that property based Libertarianism needs tradition, it needs old power, old money old property and by definition random assignations of tradition.

It doesn't matter what those random traditions are, property Libertarianism needs them.

Unfortunately for Seth if those random traditions are religion based then property Libertariansim needs religion.

Progressive social Libertarianism, of course, is iconoclastic and can destroy religion and random traditions and isn't shackled in this manner.

[Seth]

Seth's problem is that property based Libertarianism needs tradition, it needs old power, old money old property and by definition random assignations of tradition.

It doesn't matter what those random traditions are, property Libertarianism needs them.

How so? Libertarianism doesn't depend on "old" anything, it simply respects the rights of property owners to obtain, use and enjoy their property free of constraint by government so long as that use and enjoyment does not initiate force or fraud on others. Nor does Libertarianism need "tradition," it needs only psychologically stable and mature adults to exercise rational self interest, compassion, altruism and charity as they enjoy their liberties.

Unfortunately for Seth if those random traditions are religion based then property Libertariansim needs religion.

Progressive social Libertarianism, of course, is iconoclastic and can destroy religion and random traditions and isn't shackled in this manner.

You're going to need to describe "Progressive social Libertarianism" a bit, because "Progressive," "social" and "Libertarian" are antithetical political beliefs.

[Audley Strange]

@ Seth.

Well you've basically explained to me a definition of Libertarianism which I've heard a lot of people enthuse about and in principle it doesn't sound particularly controversial, but what I am saying is that one of the things stopping libertarians from a libertarian society is in fact the belief is the binding of disparate groups together under "the noble lie" is as strong a political ideology as the kind of socialist ideology that you rail against. Neither are there to be accepted voluntary, they are, in actuality, not theory, coercive. Passing a law for free abortions because of socialist ideology is no different from passing a law saying No-one has the right to abortions because of religious ideology. Both breach the simple rule (which I always thought was a good one to explain libertarianism) "your right to swing your arm ends where my face begins"

I am not saying religion is oppositional to libertarianism. I'm saying the state co-opting religious ideology knowingly as a means to keep a state coherent despit or beliefs of a fracturing populace actually impedes progress towards something new like libertarian co-operative city states as much as things like socialist welfare programmes do.

I'm failing to see how you can condemn one without the other.

[Seth]

@ Seth.

Well you've basically explained to me a definition of Libertarianism which I've heard a lot of people enthuse about and in principle it doesn't sound particularly controversial, but what I am saying is that one of the things stopping libertarians from a libertarian society is in fact the belief is the binding of disparate groups together under "the noble lie" is as strong a political ideology as the kind of socialist ideology that you rail against.

You are assuming that a Libertarian society cares what some group within that society thinks or believes. It doesn't. So long as any group refrains from initiating force or fraud upon anyone else, and so long as membership in the group is voluntary, Libertarianism doesn't care if the group wants to run itself as a communist commune or an anarchist society.

Neither are there to be accepted voluntary, they are, in actuality, not theory, coercive.

Well, that would not be tolerated in a Libertarian society, and any attempt to coerce others against their will would result in activation of the right of self defense, which includes the use of force both individually and as a group against anyone or any group that attempts to coerce others.

But within any group, so long as the individuals are there voluntarily and are free to leave whenever they like, the internal structure, workings, discipline, punishment or rules are entirely up to the members. Others in a Libertarian society would not interfere in those internal policies in any way other than to refuse to trade or associate with the members if that's what the Libertarians wish to do.

Passing a law for free abortions because of socialist ideology is no different from passing a law saying No-one has the right to abortions because of religious ideology. Both breach the simple rule (which I always thought was a good one to explain libertarianism) "your right to swing your arm ends where my face begins"

Correct. Therefore, no law which is passed would be recognized, acknowledged or obeyed by anyone other than those who voluntarily agree to abide by that law. No such law can be imposed on anyone else unless the action regulated initiates force or fraud upon another. Those laws are enforceable against everyone, regardless of their internal workings, when the force or fraud is not voluntarily accepted by a member of a community or group.

I am not saying religion is oppositional to libertarianism. I'm saying the state co-opting religious ideology knowingly as a means to keep a state coherent despit or beliefs of a fracturing populace actually impedes progress towards something new like libertarian co-operative city states as much as things like socialist welfare programmes do.

Of course, but in a Libertarian society there is no "state" to co-opt anything. The term "state" implies an overarching political and social authority that can make and enforce rules and laws against the members of that society against their will. Such a thing only exists in Libertarianism to the extent that groups of Libertarians may band together to act in self-defense against some person or group that is initiating force or fraud upon others against their will. A group may try to proclaim or declare itself to be "the state" and claim authorization to make rules and laws to be applied against persons against their will, using "democracy" as a rubric, but in a Libertarian society, any attempt to actually do so would be met with whatever force is required, up to and including deadly force, to prevent the initiation of force or fraud by the so-called, self-styled "leaders" of this putative "state" that claims fictional "authority."

I'm failing to see how you can condemn one without the other.

You are not understanding the essential component of Libertarianism: individual liberty and freedom of choice. In a Libertarian society, each person is absolutely free to do as they please, and they are constrained only by their own contractual obligations and the requirement that in exercising their freedom of choice, they do not initiate force or fraud upon another.

Thus, they may join a society that has rigid rules of moral behavior, a "government" hierarchy, police, courts and strict enforcement of laws (including religious laws) that used the democratic, communist or socialist (or any other) model of governance as it's paradigm, and they may choose to be voluntarily bound to those laws. But no person can be involuntarily bound to any laws other than the universal Libertarian laws that one not initiate force or fraud upon another by anyone.

Any attempt to enforce any law other than the no initiation of force or fraud law upon anyone by anyone else against their will can be met with force to prevent it.

[Coito ergo sum]

Are there police forces to arrest someone who engages in fraud?

And, is there a judicial system to review cases where fraud is alleged?

If person A says person B is committing fraud, is person A's recourse limited to his own right of self-help and his friends to help him? If there is something more than that, what is it?

[Seth]

Are there police forces to arrest someone who engages in fraud?

If the community voluntarily pays to form and support one. If not, they can do so themselves, since all power and authority flows from the people to the government and is not abdicated by the people, they merely authorize concurrent authority to enforce the law to government agents.

And, is there a judicial system to review cases where fraud is alleged?

If the community voluntarily pays to support one. Otherwise one must hire a professional judge at one's own expense to hear the case.

If person A says person B is committing fraud, is person A's recourse limited to his own right of self-help and his friends to help him? If there is something more than that, what is it?

Whatever the community decides to fund voluntarily.

[Audley Strange]

You are assuming that a Libertarian society cares what some group within that society thinks or believes. It doesn't. So long as any group refrains from initiating force or fraud upon anyone else, and so long as membership in the group is voluntary, Libertarianism doesn't care if the group wants to run itself as a communist commune or an anarchist society.

No Seth, you are assuming that I am discussing Libertarian societies, I am not. I am saying that currently, as in reality, rather than projecting, that the concept of organisation around around a knowing falsehood in order to bind the entire society to a specific moral behaviour that they know is false is both a fraud and being upheld by threats of jail or worse is coercive. This is what Wolfowitz and Perl and Cheney actually believed. I'm not trying to single out the Bush Regimé, I'm sure the same kind of beliefs are held by many politicians. Thus, in order to have a society or societies that did ascribe to a libertarian philosophy one would have to, by definition deal with such force and fraud.

Well, that would not be tolerated in a Libertarian society, and any attempt to coerce others against their will would result in activation of the right of self defense, which includes the use of force both individually and as a group against anyone or any group that attempts to coerce others.

But within any group, so long as the individuals are there voluntarily and are free to leave whenever they like, the internal structure, workings, discipline, punishment or rules are entirely up to the members. Others in a Libertarian society would not interfere in those internal policies in any way other than to refuse to trade or associate with the members if that's what the Libertarians wish to do.

And in our current societies, the dictatorship of the commons or the dictatorship of the state or any other central control system that disallows Libertarians to be Libertarians surely must be seen as a threat towards the central ideas of Libertarianism. I think you're jumping through a lot of unnecessary hoops. You desire a libertarian society, you cannot have a libertarian society when there are those who are in control who desire that people not have a libertarian society, whether that be oligarchical corporate theocrats, Leninist Marxists, Neo-cons, The feminist conspiracy theorists, or talking apes with guns, as long as they demand control they are by definition a hindrance to the entire concept of libertarianism.

Correct. Therefore, no law which is passed would be recognized, acknowledged or obeyed by anyone other than those who voluntarily agree to abide by that law. No such law can be imposed on anyone else unless the action regulated initiates force or fraud upon another. Those laws are enforceable against everyone, regardless of their internal workings, when the force or fraud is not voluntarily accepted by a member of a community or group.

Yes and the use of religions for political ends against those who do not share in it, is indeed a fraud. Legislating against them requires force to have them submit. " The freedom for you to practice your religion ends where my face begins" not "Yeah go right ahead, because I like your form of mindless tyranny better than the pinkos." Come the "glorious day" this of course would be moot, but it's never going to happen as long as you tacitly support those who would bind disparate groups together under a false belief system who's doctrines were funded through taxation and enforced by legislation against a single moral view.


Do you see what I'm getting at yet? It's not individual freedom of conscience I'm talking about, it is those who would deny people that by making them adhere to a political philosophy that is not even believed by those using it. I don't see what the difference is between the Marxists using it or the Christians using it for their own ends and despite a rather interesting couple of posts from you on the philosophy of Libertariansism. I think you've avoided that central point. If self defence is good enough to use against one counterfeit authority demanding control over the masses, then it should be good enough for all counterfeit authorities of whatever ideological stripe.

Death to Tyrants, right? Better nipping them in the bud rather than allowing them to bloom.

Now, here and now, not once the dust has settled.

[Seth]

You are assuming that a Libertarian society cares what some group within that society thinks or believes. It doesn't. So long as any group refrains from initiating force or fraud upon anyone else, and so long as membership in the group is voluntary, Libertarianism doesn't care if the group wants to run itself as a communist commune or an anarchist society.

No Seth, you are assuming that I am discussing Libertarian societies, I am not. I am saying that currently, as in reality, rather than projecting, that the concept of organisation around around a knowing falsehood in order to bind the entire society to a specific moral behaviour that they know is false is both a fraud and being upheld by threats of jail or worse is coercive.

Yes, it is.

This is what Wolfowitz and Perl and Cheney actually believed. I'm not trying to single out the Bush Regimé, I'm sure the same kind of beliefs are held by many politicians. Thus, in order to have a society or societies that did ascribe to a libertarian philosophy one would have to, by definition deal with such force and fraud.

Of course.

Well, that would not be tolerated in a Libertarian society, and any attempt to coerce others against their will would result in activation of the right of self defense, which includes the use of force both individually and as a group against anyone or any group that attempts to coerce others.

But within any group, so long as the individuals are there voluntarily and are free to leave whenever they like, the internal structure, workings, discipline, punishment or rules are entirely up to the members. Others in a Libertarian society would not interfere in those internal policies in any way other than to refuse to trade or associate with the members if that's what the Libertarians wish to do.

And in our current societies, the dictatorship of the commons or the dictatorship of the state or any other central control system that disallows Libertarians to be Libertarians surely must be seen as a threat towards the central ideas of Libertarianism.

Certainly.

I think you're jumping through a lot of unnecessary hoops. You desire a libertarian society, you cannot have a libertarian society when there are those who are in control who desire that people not have a libertarian society, whether that be oligarchical corporate theocrats, Leninist Marxists, Neo-cons, The feminist conspiracy theorists, or talking apes with guns, as long as they demand control they are by definition a hindrance to the entire concept of libertarianism.

Indeed. So long as they attempt to impose their ideology by force, they are the enemies of Libertarianism. However, if their ideology is voluntarily adhered to by some, or all for that matter, it's not out of sync with Libertarianism.

Correct. Therefore, no law which is passed would be recognized, acknowledged or obeyed by anyone other than those who voluntarily agree to abide by that law. No such law can be imposed on anyone else unless the action regulated initiates force or fraud upon another. Those laws are enforceable against everyone, regardless of their internal workings, when the force or fraud is not voluntarily accepted by a member of a community or group.

Yes and the use of religions for political ends against those who do not share in it, is indeed a fraud.

Yes, it is. And very often an initiation of force as well.

Legislating against them requires force to have them submit. " The freedom for you to practice your religion ends where my face begins" not "Yeah go right ahead, because I like your form of mindless tyranny better than the pinkos." Come the "glorious day" this of course would be moot, but it's never going to happen as long as you tacitly support those who would bind disparate groups together under a false belief system who's doctrines were funded through taxation and enforced by legislation against a single moral view.

Obviously creating a Libertarian society would require a change in the way things are done now, but it only requires a societal determination to acknowledge and respect individual liberty and the principles of Libertarianism, combined with the determination to resist attempt to impose involuntary political ideology on others. This does not necessarily require the dismantling of voluntary groupings like religion, but it does require the removal of power and authority from those who seek to impose any ideology on anyone else involuntarily.

How one gets to Libertarianism is a subject for much debate, but since religion (at least in the US) is always voluntary, that aspect of the change-over is of some, but not priority concern. Achieving a Libertarian society in the US would likely be as simple as a majority of citizens voting for a constitutional amendment to that effect.

We can start that process by modifying the Commerce Clause to restrict Congress' ability to "regulate" interstate commerce to the single act of adjudicating disputes brought to it by the legislature of a state regarding complaints of restraint of trade with or by other states.

That single amendment would eliminate 90 percent of the federal government overnight. No more DEA, FDA, Commerce Department, Department of Education, etc.


Do you see what I'm getting at yet? It's not individual freedom of conscience I'm talking about, it is those who would deny people that by making them adhere to a political philosophy that is not even believed by those using it. I don't see what the difference is between the Marxists using it or the Christians using it for their own ends and despite a rather interesting couple of posts from you on the philosophy of Libertariansism. I think you've avoided that central point. If self defence is good enough to use against one counterfeit authority demanding control over the masses, then it should be good enough for all counterfeit authorities of whatever ideological stripe.

Death to Tyrants, right? Better nipping them in the bud rather than allowing them to bloom.

Now, here and now, not once the dust has settled.

[Coito ergo sum]

Are there police forces to arrest someone who engages in fraud?

If the community voluntarily pays to form and support one. If not, they can do so themselves, since all power and authority flows from the people to the government and is not abdicated by the people, they merely authorize concurrent authority to enforce the law to government agents.

And, is there a judicial system to review cases where fraud is alleged?

If the community voluntarily pays to support one. Otherwise one must hire a professional judge at one's own expense to hear the case.

If person A says person B is committing fraud, is person A's recourse limited to his own right of self-help and his friends to help him? If there is something more than that, what is it?

Whatever the community decides to fund voluntarily.

What I meant was, if person A funds a police force and a judiciary voluntarily, but B doesn't, and B does not consent to be bound by what A's community wants, what is the basis for the community taking action against B? Are people involuntarily subject to the laws of A's community?

Let's envision a community of 10,000 people living in Podunk County, Arkansas, and we live in a libertarian nation of the kind you are trying to explain to us.

So, 9,000 people vote for a bunch of laws, including: (1) you cannot commit fraud within the community limits, and they cannot sell postcards on streetcorners in the community, (2) you cannot be a vagabond within community limits, which means that you must carry with you at least $50 on you at all times, or you can be jailed, (3) all persons residing within the community limits must pay a $100 a year residence fee, and (4) each person is assessed a tariff on all of their income earned within the community limits at a rate of 5% of total income. The 9,000 have created a court system and police force, and a judiciary.

1,000 people do not consent to those laws, and they are living within the community limits. They refuse to pay the tarriff and fee, and they routinely walk around the town, selling postcards on street corners. Some of them have been known to walk around penniless.

Would the community of Podunk County have the right to arrest the 1,000 non-members, try them, and jail the guilty? On what basis? Can they impose the tarriff and fee upon the 1,000? If not, why not?