[690] in libertarians
Re: The Religious Right - Threat, Menace, or ...?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Travis Corcoran)
Tue Feb 14 17:05:57 1995
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 95 16:57:02 EST
From: tjic@ICD.teradyne.com (Travis Corcoran)
To: moakler@ICD.teradyne.com
Cc: moakler@ICD.teradyne.com, libertarians@MIT.EDU, rosed@world.std.com,
lfb@panix.com, Todd_Seavey@kaplan.com, libernet@dartmouth.edu
In-Reply-To: <9502142137.AA02748@difrel.ICD.Teradyne.COM> (moakler)
> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 95 16:37:17 EST
> From: moakler (Kathryn Moakler )
>
> > Date: Tue, 14 Feb 95 14:35:52 EST
> > From: tjic@difrel (Travis Corcoran)
> >
> > > Date: Tue, 14 Feb 95 14:03:11 EST
> > > From: moakler@difrel (Kathryn Moakler )
> > >
> > >
> > > But these _aren't_ libertarian means... Traditionalist ends (meaning
> > > 'family values' etc) are exclusive of personal liberties (meaning, freedom
> > > to have an abortion, use birth control, be a single parent, be gay, etc.).
> >
> > The original article was not
> > arguing that the LP, Cato, or any other Libertarian group should
> > espouse "traditional" values, but that those with traditional values
> > saw that they could achive some measure of success in spreading those
> > values in a free society.
>
> I'm not convinced that these people aren't using Libertarianism as a stepping
> stone to GOP Traditionalism. I don't trust them. If they truly believe their
> morals are 'right' they will try to enforce them on others, whether through
> converting those others to christianity or enforcing those values through
> government (or shooting at abortion clinics, in some cases).
I can't agree with you here, and I provide myself as a counterexample.
I have some moral ideas which I truly think are correct; a mild
example: I am a teetotaler (sp?) by moral conviction, yet I would
never dream of trying to outlaw the sale of alchahol.
> > To recap: noone said the LP should endorse the values;
>
> I understand. I just think the LP should be wary of members with hidden
> motives. I think it should be more active in endorsing personal freedom.
I'd argue that almost everyone in the LP has some "hidden" motives:
some want drugs legalized because they want to use drugs, some want
prostitution legalized because they would like to frequent
prostitutes, etc. What is wrong with an idealogical group wanting
government to stop using taxpayer funds to compete with it in the
realm of ideas so that it can seek to convince people of its ideas?
> > > I don't understand why anyone would fight for the rights to keep
> > > their own earnings from the government's re-distribution plan, just
> > > so they could forfeit them to some religious organization's
> > > re-distribution plan.
> >
> > I think this is pretty easy: a lot of people are willing to take
> > actions of their own free will that they would not want to take if
> > compelled by others to take. I've bought a copy of _The Communist
> > Manifesto_ with my own hard-earned dollars, but I'd be pissed if the
> > government said that I had to spend the $$ to buy the book.
>
> Of course, you bought it because you wanted it. If you bought it because
> you thought it was the morally correct thing for people to do, you would
> think the world would be a better place if everyone did the correct thing,
> and you would convince enough people of this view, to pass a law mandating
> that people buy this book.
>
> In summary, you did it for selfish reasons, not altruistic. If you thought
> that altruism was morally correct, and selfishness was morally wrong,
> you'd encourage people to be altruistic, and altruists would eventually
> resent selfish people, and eventually demand the sacrifice of the
> selfish people.
Perhaps in this example, of the handful I provided, selfishness can be
used to explain my action. In some of the other examples (ex:
donating to a church) my actions were driven by the belief on my part
that it was the right thing to do. I would argue against the standard
objectivist rhetorical tactic that this is merely selfishness
masquerading as altruism as these actions were not taken to create an
(enjoyable) feeling of goodness. These actions were taken because I
thought they were right. I do think that the world would be a better
place if more people had moral codes closer to mine. But I've only
tried to convince people the believe this, never force them to obey
the code itself.
Again, I cite this as an example that it is possible to hold a belief
with out trying to force it on others.
> Christians typically believe (and encourage others to believe) in
> altruism as a the morally correct way to live. This is what I'm
> afraid of.
I don't understand why you're afraid of the belief of others, or of a
group trying to spread its views. If a belief that you consider bad
can be defeated in the area of ideas, there is no need to be afraid of
the belief itself.
> I guess I don't consider being guilted into altruism by religious people
> free will.
I think its a pretty pesimistic (and incorrect) view of human behavior
to say that people do not have the free will to stand up against false
guilt. I'd argue that adults have free will and the intelligence to
use it, if they care to (and this caring to or not caring to is just
another manifestation of free will).
> > > > Therefore, anything that reduces the role of the Washington
> > > > bureacracy in the lives of families is a step in the right direction."
> > >
> > > Yes, so the churches can step in and take over that role ...
> >
> > The difference between the US government and the church down the
> > street is that the government arrogates to itself a monopoly of force,
> > and (theoretically) maintains that private individuals and
> > organizations may not initiate use of force between themselves to
> > compell behavior.
>
> The church down the street instead arrogates to itself a monopoly on God,
> and maintains that private individuals won't get into heaven if they don't
> follow the altruistic rules of the church.
A church can claim whatever it wants to: you have the freedom to
ignore it. You can not ignore the government with out being arrested.
> You're right, no one's forcing anyone to believe in God, and
> play by these rules yet, but they sure do try to scare you into
> it...
If you grant that people are intelligent and have free will, they can
choose to join or not. No force is being used.
> > I personally think that the *mandatory* ( not optional ) lessons in
> > school on environmental concerns and current day politics constitute
> > far more government endorsement of idealogical positions than school
> > prayer does - by (a) cloaking themselves in the arguments of logic and
> > science (although rarely actually being rigorous examples of such );
> > and (b) being covered for a large amount of time they can convince
> > those who are not cynical enough to do further research.
>
> I think we agree here. I personally want my kids to learn the effects of
> pollution, so they won't pollute. I particularly want them to learn not
> to pollute _others'_ land/air/soil/water/whatever. I'd _almost_ argue for
> teaching these as respect for property rights, in public schools if there
> are to be such things.
The ecology taught in public schools is not private property
based, it is usually statist and collectivist in the proposed
solutions.
> This is basically irrelevant though, since I don't even think
> education should be public. With private education, you could have
> your kids taught whatever the hell you want them to be taught, be
> it how to pray, how to fix cars, or how to use birth control.
We agree here.
> By the way altruism _is_ encouraged in public schools currently. When
> a teacher tells the smarter kid to let the other kids answer, they're
> teaching the kid to sacrifice his intellectual stimulation for their
> educational needs. Just an aside.
While I'm sure everyone on this list has been so snubbed by teachers,
I'll play Devil's advocate and argue that if one kid monopolizes the
teacher by answering first all the time, all of the other kids are
getting less than their fair share of the educational services their
parents paid for.
> Kathryn
>
> opinions(Kathryn) != opinions(TJIC) != opinions(employer(TJIC))
;)
--
TJIC (Travis J.I. Corcoran) TJIC@icd.teradyne.com
opinions(TJIC) != opinions(employer(TJIC))
"Buy a rifle, encrypt your data, and wait for the Revolution!"
