"The state’s decriminalizing of an activity or substance doesn’t transform that activity or substance into a moral, healthy or admirable one. And libertarians don’t have to act like it does. You can celebrate the fact that people are free without celebrating all the dumb things those people do with their freedoms." - David HarsanyiSomething is wrong when we make the State the arbiter of morality. In so many ways we end up viewing expressed disapproval as an assault on someone elses freedom, and why? Because we've bought into the assumption that approval or disapproval, right and wrong, must be expressed with the coercive power of the State. There is no live-and-let-live if every judgement is reflected in law.
Friday, January 10, 2014
Freedom and Judgement
In Praise of Libertarian Judgementalism
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
People outsource morality to the government because (1) it's easier than developing one's own sense of morality, and (2) the government has very low standards.
Things like shaming are frowned upon these days, because it is 'judgmental', whatever that means. Shaming would be a good place to start. Maybe getting arrested, doing drugs, having kids out of wedlock, dropping out of high school, etc., should once again be considered shameful.
But good luck with that in this anything-goes society.
Well said.
The old "you can't legislate morality" thing is wrong. You *shouldn't* legislate morality. We shouldn't have that expectation, and yet we do.
The things that are legal aren't viewed as "not legislating morality" they're viewed as approved. If it's legal, it's not wrong. If someone thinks what you do is wrong, if they disapprove of your lifestyle or actions, then it must be that they intend to oppress you.
I think that a whole lot of libertarians buy into this every bit as strongly as any Statist. Everything should be legal because nothing is wrong... drugs or prostitution or buying liquor on Sunday... They're libertarian because it offers them permission, not because they disagree about the role of government and morality.
David Harsanyi was saying that we ought to feel free to mock the people in Colorado who waited in lines for 5 hours to buy a tiny baggie of pot... because they're mockable.
In order to be free, people have to be free to waste their lives or make bad decisions, but none of us have to pretend that their decisions aren't bad.
One of the problems is that we have become accustomed to the (false) idea that "the laws forbids doing ____" means "doing ____ is wrong".
If someone thinks what you do is wrong, if they disapprove of your lifestyle or actions, then it must be that they intend to oppress you. I think that a whole lot of libertarians buy into this every bit as strongly as any Statist.
Well, yes, because we realize that most people aren't libertarians.
The reality is that when a majority (or even a motivated minority) of citizens think something is morally wrong, they can and WILL constantly fight to make it illegal. Barring Supreme Court intervention, they will succeed.
Thus, from a strategic point of view, if we want a law kept off the books we must fight to convince people that the activity it would ban isn't morally wrong. Conceding that the activity is immoral but ought to be legal for principled reasons? That's a losing argument, nineteen times out of twenty.
The problem is that so many things that are just wrong are protected by law.
Killing a baby should be wrong.
Forcing nuns to provide condoms should be wrong.
Forcing churchs, temples, mosques and synagous to perform same sex marriage ceremonies should be wrong.
Forcing people to see Lena Dunham naked should be wrong.
But they are protected by some law that was dreamed up by some liberal judge who found something in the Constitution that was not there.
Winter is here.
The problem is that so many things that are just wrong are protected by law [...] Forcing nuns to provide condoms should be wrong.
That's a weird way of putting that. "Forcing nuns to provide condoms" isn't "protected by law" -- the law FORCES nuns to provide condoms.
Indeed, the law (wrongly) forbids business owners for firing employees for their religious beliefs. If I hired a nun and told her to distribute condoms and she said "no", I wouldn't be allowed to fire her for that.
I don't even know what a libertarian is.
I think I know what they're supposed to be in theory, when it comes down to organizing that into a political party it comes out quite whacked. It seems, libertarianism, whatever it boils down to, is not the sort of thing that makes for a great coherent political party.
So what are your proclivities?
Independent, I guess. I dunno, libertarian, I suppose.
Are you registered Libertarian?
There's a party for that? No, I am not registered libertarian. Look, parties run counter to the whole...
Are you registered Independent?
There's a party for that?
It's judgment, not judgement. Unless you're a Brit.
In my experience, most of the libertarians I've met are for legalization of drugs, and after that.....um....the level of political philosophy drops off quickly.
I was discussing politics with someone who didn't really follow politics much. His views were pretty well aligned with the libertarian perspective, and I told him so. He responded that he didn't see himself fitting into any ideological box. Congratulations, I said. You just passed the first litmus test.
Haha! Chip!
Yes, exactly... it's the Party for Non-Party-Joiners and Those Who Don't Play Well With Others.
Chip brings up something I've often considered about Libertarians: how do you create an effective political action group out of people who don't like groups and don't want to force anybody else to do anything (ie, political action)?
Which just got me considering this analogy: libertarians as the cats of the pet world. Not interested in doing what you want them to, self-indulgent (perhaps), and not easily herded.
Which would make Republicans the dogs: well trained creatures of habit, obedient, defensive, hierarchical, loyal to a fault.
Leaving Democrats to be the birds: shrill, reactionary, flocking, and shitting all over everything.
It might have been Steve Forbes who was once asked whether there would be a place for Jesse Jackson on his campaign team.
He said, "Yes, every campaign needs someone to write bumper stickers."
There's nothing absurd about the idea of a libertarian political party. The Democratic-Republican Party (Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe) was roughly libertarian in its policies, for example.
The modern Libertarian Party is a basket case because our winner-take-all elections really only allow for two viable parties to exist. The only way for a new one to arise is for one of the existing ones to crumble, as happened during the 19th century.
I actually did register as a Libertarian. I've never done a thing about it and there are no newsletters.
I did it because it was my "vote". There aren't really Libertarian candidates for most things, or that I want to vote for (and my philosophy is just *leaning* that way rather than hard core anyhow) but I can put one more *number* on the Libertarian roles as a statement to the rest of them all.
I consider myself a classical liberal. That's not the same as Libertarian is it?
I consider myself a classical liberal. That's not the same as Libertarian is it?
Libertarianism is a form of classical liberalism. Basically, libertarians are classical liberals who are skeptical of government's ability to perform.
Thanks for clearing that up. Once when I said I was a classical liberal the person said that meant I was a libertarian, which was news to me.
Great point; I remember when Philadelphia tried to go the "prostitution is a victimless crime" route in the 70s and it turned into an awful mess.
deborah said...
I consider myself a classical liberal.
So did Milton Friedman, so you're in good company.
I agree you can't legislate morality. That's why I'm in favor of legalized Slavery, Polygamy, and infanticide.
That's why I'm in favor of legalized Slavery, Polygamy, and infanticide.
The supporters of those thing also claim(ed) to have morality on their side. Live by the sword, die by the sword...
Ed, I take that to mean I'm on the right track.
"The supporters of those thing also claim(ed) to have morality on their side."
WTF?
Good old Rev. Always has a POV and disagrees, even when he doesn't make sense or grasp a point.
infanticide
Before or after the baby is born?
"The supporters of those thing also claim(ed) to have morality on their side."
For a guy who likes to make snotty claims about the role of morality in politics, you sure aren't very familiar with history.
Supporters of slavery claimed divine sanction for the institution.
Supporters of abortion claim abortion restrictions violate basic human rights and decency; the handful of supporters of actual infanticide claim utilitarian morality justifies their position. And of course polygamy is supported by both the Old Testament and the Q'ran, so there are plenty of religious folks out there who think God's backing them up on that issue, too.
Things like shaming are frowned upon these days, because it is 'judgmental', whatever that means.
Lol. "Judgmental" means rushing to judgment because reasoning whether your initial, emotional reaction was an appropriate one was too difficult. It doesn't mean never making a judgment of a person or an action.
But good luck with that in this anything-goes society.
We have a freedom-loving society. We actually go further than other societies in the importance we place on freedom, even at a very abstract level. Being more abstract and considerate of how to judge the way others use (or misuse) their own freedom is just a necessary consequence of that. It's harder, but it can be done. It's also the only healthy way to effectively deal with this historical aberration going by the name of American freedom.
Supporters of abortion claim abortion restrictions violate basic human rights and decency…
Don't forget medical science. Physicians and biologists are apparently very wrong to consider the primary health of a potential mother or whether the speculative rights of organisms with or without neural tissue may allow a state to force a pregnancy to its natural, or unnatural term.
Ok... judgement means *rushing* to judgement? In what reality? If you take your time and consider and decide that someone is an idiot, that what they're doing is wrong, that it's harmful to themselves (if you figure it's their right to harm themselves or not) and you *say* that they're harming themselves, or they're harming others...
So long as you don't RUSH then you're not judgmental?
Is this sort of like how "tolerance" doesn't require any sort of disagreement that you tolerate, but means outright celebration?
Also, please... it doesn't make it any smarter to pretend that abortion is about the health of the mother.
It almost never ever is.
We've got philosophers explaining, in all seriousness, that born babies are not yet sentient. Ignoring those who define as "not life" what is clearly both human and alive (sentient or not) is not ignoring science. Saying this isn't human life is ignoring science and then lying about the fact that what you really think is that it clearly, scientifically, biologically, IS, but you don't see a problem with killing it because it's not yet reached a point of awareness, even though it WILL.
The honest opinion is supportable, even if people disagree with you on when that human life matters. So why bother to go all stupid science denier about it?
Post a Comment