Liberty News Forum
Political News Forum - Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics. Not for wimps!
Political Opinion Page - Recent Posts - LNF Forums LNF in the Age of Empowerment! Algorithm free!
Christian Forum - Religion Forum - Entertainment - Sports Forum
Military - A1 News Page - Computers Tech - Financial News - Bunker - Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll
The House - Off the Wall News - Page 2 - Rasmussen Reports Polls - Chat Room
Liberty News ForumLNF Forums HerePolitical Opinion Page - The Hot Seat › Just in case you missed it...
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 3 [4]  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Just in case you missed it... (Read 446 times)
TowardLiberty
LNF Speaker
LNF Bunker
*****
Online

anti-state, anti-war and
pro-market

Posts: 38,216
Location: Houston
Joined: Apr 6th, 2008
Gender: Male
Re: Just in case you missed it...
Reply #30 - Dec 2nd, 2019 at 11:50am
Print Post  
The D-Man wrote on Nov 30th, 2019 at 6:05pm:
Difference is not dichotomous but continuous, in that there are varying degrees of difference between different ways. The more difference there is between the ways of different people, the more conflict there is when those people live in the same place.


I don't think so. It can be the case, but it is not necessary. It depends on how open people are to new things. And it depends on whether both groups are tolerant and social, or bigoted and uncivil.

Quote:
And the more difference there is in the ways of different people, the more they have to restrict living in their own ways in order to live in the same place as people with different ways. On the other hand, when the ways of people are very different, they can most fully live in their own ways without conflict with others if they live in different places.

No, that's not true. I've grown up around people with many differences, whether in language, culture, religion and we all get along and live together fine. No restrictions necessary.

Quote:
Furthermore, these differences in ways create more conflict the closer the people are to each other. It is by living further apart, in different houses, different neighborhoods, different school districts, and completely apart that people with different ways will be free to live their lives according to their own ways.


Ever heard of Little Italy? China Town? People can settle where they want without restricting others. And if they cluster around their family, friends and kin, who is harmed?

Where's the force? The conflict? The restriction?

I've lived in predominantly Jewish parts of Houston. I would regularly shop and dine at the Indian district down the street. And then a few miles away there are fabulous farmers markets, craft breweries, yoga shops and loft living with people of many different cultures interacting, buying and selling, and loving each other.

To hear you tell it, this would be impossible!

Quote:
You said that if people with one set of ways moved to a place of people with a different set of ways, they would still be living separately, even after they just moved to the place of the other people. So it's as if people moved from place A to place B, but somehow they are not in place B. It was conclusions that require such incoherence that I was saying I like to avoid.


Right, they would still be living separately, just a little closer now! That's still living in place B. We are coherent.

Quote:
If they think they have a right to live in a place of people only of their own ways and to use force to defend that right, force would have to be used to convince them they don't have that right and to make them stop using force to defend it.


That sounds like the initiation of force. No one has the right to violate the rights of others.

And when people initiate aggression, become violent or violate the rights of others, it is just to use force to stop them. That's the proper use of force.

Quote:
Again, the right to live in a place of people only of one's own ways is as much a right as the right to live in one's house and to keep others out. It is based solely on the belief that one has that right and one's ability to use force to defend that right.


No, that certainly does not follow.

No one has the right to control what other people do. Your rights ends where the rights of another begins.

Ergo you have the right to control your own house, but not your neighbors.

This a key blind spot about rights in your argument that undercuts the whole project.

Quote:
Furthermore, the concept of "in their lane," if construed broadly enough, could become quite authoritarian if force is used to enforce it. For example, one who wants to keep others out may want to refuse to do business with those others and otherwise to associate with them in order to make them leave. As we see in our own country, authoritarian force is used to make people associate with and do business with others they don't want to associate with.


I'm not a fan of forced accommodation but you weren't simply talking about not associating with people. You were talking about using force to remove them.

Defending people's right with force is not authoritarian. It's a response to authoritarianism- albeit at the individual level.
  

Open Trade, Open Borders, Taco Trucks on Every Corner

"It was the union of the anticapitalist forces of the Right and of the Left, the fusion of radical and conservative socialism, which drove out from Germany everything that was liberal.” F A Hayek
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TowardLiberty
LNF Speaker
LNF Bunker
*****
Online

anti-state, anti-war and
pro-market

Posts: 38,216
Location: Houston
Joined: Apr 6th, 2008
Gender: Male
Re: Just in case you missed it...
Reply #31 - Dec 2nd, 2019 at 11:57am
Print Post  
The D-Man wrote on Nov 30th, 2019 at 6:18pm:
And yet everyone still has to adopt that one policy, so it's one-size-fits-all. Some people may not like pluralism. They may think that the more different ways there are in the same place, the less they are able to fully live their own way, and that may be true.

No, the only they can't do under pluralism is hold a gun to someone's head and force them to live differently than they want to.

And it seems that's what you want to do...

Quote:
Some people may like a quite, serene, predictable, clean, orderly environment. And some people may like a loud, raucous, and wild environment. Under pluralism, people who like these different ways would live together and let everyone do things their own way. But those who like quiet will not be able to fully enjoy their own way with loud people around as much as they would if the quiet and loud people lived in separate places. So the quiet people may not like pluralism. It would be a shoe that would not fit them.


You could say the same thing about smog. Pluralism does not preclude the possibility of people coming together to agree on a local sound ordinance, or pollution standards.

These nuisance issues are common to any people living together. It's not limited to people of different cultures.

Quote:
No one would have to be forced to move. A place could simply be declared a place of people A rather than B, and polices that fit the ways of people A could be implemented. This would cause more of people A to move to that place of their own choice, and people B to move somewhere else of their own choice.


Okay but why go through that clumsy process? What's gained?

Is there such a thing as a people with static preferences, whom all generally see eye to eye? Where is such a people?

  

Open Trade, Open Borders, Taco Trucks on Every Corner

"It was the union of the anticapitalist forces of the Right and of the Left, the fusion of radical and conservative socialism, which drove out from Germany everything that was liberal.” F A Hayek
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TowardLiberty
LNF Speaker
LNF Bunker
*****
Online

anti-state, anti-war and
pro-market

Posts: 38,216
Location: Houston
Joined: Apr 6th, 2008
Gender: Male
Re: Just in case you missed it...
Reply #32 - Dec 2nd, 2019 at 12:00pm
Print Post  
The D-Man wrote on Nov 30th, 2019 at 6:21pm:
What is "private property" and what are your "rights" to it except those that you can defend by force, or that a government can defend by force?

What is it? A social norm.

Quote:
Without that force, what more "right" do you have to your "private property" than someone else who says that your "private property" is his?


The community tends to have judgements about how people interact with each other, and which kinds of actions are contrary to the liberties of a free people.

Quote:
I can't think of anything except force, either your own force or that of a government, that supports property rights.

Well, just because you don't know about something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist!

Look into customary law.
  

Open Trade, Open Borders, Taco Trucks on Every Corner

"It was the union of the anticapitalist forces of the Right and of the Left, the fusion of radical and conservative socialism, which drove out from Germany everything that was liberal.” F A Hayek
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TowardLiberty
LNF Speaker
LNF Bunker
*****
Online

anti-state, anti-war and
pro-market

Posts: 38,216
Location: Houston
Joined: Apr 6th, 2008
Gender: Male
Re: Just in case you missed it...
Reply #33 - Dec 2nd, 2019 at 12:03pm
Print Post  
The D-Man wrote on Nov 30th, 2019 at 7:04pm:
Say you're stranded on a deserted island with no weapons and you build a hut. Is that hut your private property? What rights do you have to it?


Nope, it's not. I would have no rights over it because rights are a social construct. Without other people, there is no room for rights, laws, norms, property, ethics, etc.
Quote:
Then say someone else washes up, and he has a gun. He says your hut is now his and you need to leave.

Do you have any right to the hut? What if the man with the gun says you don't? How can we tell who is right?

You might believe you have a right because of some notion of justice you carry in your head but without some 3rd party to share it, you're just two people fighting.
  

Open Trade, Open Borders, Taco Trucks on Every Corner

"It was the union of the anticapitalist forces of the Right and of the Left, the fusion of radical and conservative socialism, which drove out from Germany everything that was liberal.” F A Hayek
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Mojo-Jojo
LNF Representative3
***
Offline

The hobo fohmally known
as Jojo is no mo'.

Posts: 3,970
Location: Appalachia, USA
Joined: Jun 29th, 2011
Gender: Male
Re: Just in case you missed it...
Reply #34 - Dec 2nd, 2019 at 5:16pm
Print Post  
TowardLiberty wrote on Dec 2nd, 2019 at 12:03pm:
Nope, it's not. I would have no rights over it because rights are a social construct. Without other people, there is no room for rights, laws, norms, property, ethics, etc.
You might believe you have a right because of some notion of justice you carry in your head but without some 3rd party to share it, you're just two people fighting.


Thanks for this post, TL.

I'd concluded years ago that "rights" are an entirely human construct and are entirely reliant on humans to interpret and enforce. As you say, a social construct. 
  

If you are more fortunate than others, build a longer table, not a taller fence.

Oh noes! Virtue Signaling!!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TowardLiberty
LNF Speaker
LNF Bunker
*****
Online

anti-state, anti-war and
pro-market

Posts: 38,216
Location: Houston
Joined: Apr 6th, 2008
Gender: Male
Re: Just in case you missed it...
Reply #35 - Dec 2nd, 2019 at 6:57pm
Print Post  
Mojo-Jojo wrote on Dec 2nd, 2019 at 5:16pm:
Thanks for this post, TL.

I'd concluded years ago that "rights" are an entirely human construct and are entirely reliant on humans to interpret and enforce. As you say, a social construct. 

I started to move away from natural law or natural rights ideas a couple years ago. I agree rights are a social construct.

I still agree with people who want to see a natural rights moral framework. I consider them allies. But I also think their rational or logical deductions are great opinions about how things ought to be, but that's different from assigning them some sort of transhistorical or objective relevance.

This moral evolution dovetails with an evolution in which libertarian thinkers and organizations I draw influence from. In short, less Rothbard and Mises Institute, and more Hayek and GMU/Mercatus Center.
« Last Edit: Dec 2nd, 2019 at 7:21pm by TowardLiberty »  

Open Trade, Open Borders, Taco Trucks on Every Corner

"It was the union of the anticapitalist forces of the Right and of the Left, the fusion of radical and conservative socialism, which drove out from Germany everything that was liberal.” F A Hayek
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The D-Man
LNF Representative3
***
Online

I Love Liberty News Forum!

Posts: 3,012
Joined: Jul 20th, 2019
Re: Just in case you missed it...
Reply #36 - Dec 2nd, 2019 at 8:19pm
Print Post  
TowardLiberty wrote on Dec 2nd, 2019 at 12:00pm:
What is it? A social norm.


The community tends to have judgements about how people interact with each other, and which kinds of actions are contrary to the liberties of a free people.

Well, just because you don't know about something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist!

Look into customary law.


So private property is based on nothing except social norms. But are we to assume that all people agree with these norms?

Say some people agree with the norm of private property and others do not. What is it that decides who gets their way? Isn't it the use of force? If those who believe in private property have greater force, then their way of private property will prevail. But if those who do not believe in private property have greater force, then their way of no private property will prevail.

And if private property is nothing but a social construct, that makes private property no more real than a nation, which is also a social construct. And the rights people have to their private property are no more real than the rights a people have to their nation. The rights to both are just social constructs.

So if people have a right to use force to defend their private property, and this right is based on nothing more than a social construct, then why would people not similarly have the right to use force to defend their nation, that is, to say who can enter it and who cannot? The social construct of private property gives you the right to decide who can enter your house and who cannot and to use force to defend that right. Why does the social construct of a nation not similarly give a people the right to decide who can enter their nation and who cannot and to use force to defend that right?
  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The D-Man
LNF Representative3
***
Online

I Love Liberty News Forum!

Posts: 3,012
Joined: Jul 20th, 2019
Re: Just in case you missed it...
Reply #37 - Dec 2nd, 2019 at 8:26pm
Print Post  
TowardLiberty wrote on Dec 2nd, 2019 at 12:00pm:
Well, just because you don't know about something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist!

Look into customary law.


What is it about customary law, or any law for that matter, that allows it to hold sway? Isn't it the use of force to enforce it?

If so, then what we have is that the only things that support property rights are force and customary law, and customary law relies upon force to enforce it, and so that too comes down to force. Which leaves us with that the only thing that supports property rights is force.
  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The D-Man
LNF Representative3
***
Online

I Love Liberty News Forum!

Posts: 3,012
Joined: Jul 20th, 2019
Re: Just in case you missed it...
Reply #38 - Dec 2nd, 2019 at 8:40pm
Print Post  
TowardLiberty wrote on Dec 2nd, 2019 at 11:57am:
No, the only they can't do under pluralism is hold a gun to someone's head and force them to live differently than they want to.

And it seems that's what you want to do...


Another thing they can't do under pluralism is live in a place where everyone agrees with them on certain things, like religion, morals, and so forth. Perhaps some people would like to live like that, but pluralism forces them not to. Under the idea of separatism, people could live in a place like that if they wanted to, while others who like pluralism could live in a pluralistic place. That way everyone gets what they want, rather than the one-size-fits-all idea of pluralism for everyone.

And remember, there are differing amounts of disagreement. Methodists agree with Baptists more than either one agrees with Catholics, and all three agree with each other more than they agree with Muslims. So Muslims and Baptists may have little enough disagreement that they could live together, and maybe even with Catholics, but the amount of disagreement with Muslims may cause so much conflict that it is better if Christians have one place to live and Muslims another, while at the same time having a pluralistic place where they can all live together if they want to.

This plan allows more freedom for people to live how they want (which might be for everyone around them to agree on certain things) than for everyone to have to live in a pluralistic society.

TowardLiberty wrote on Dec 2nd, 2019 at 11:57am:
You could say the same thing about smog. Pluralism does not preclude the possibility of people coming together to agree on a local sound ordinance, or pollution standards.

These nuisance issues are common to any people living together. It's not limited to people of different cultures.


You call noise a nuisance, but some people like it. You say that an ordinance could be made that controlled noise, but then people who like noise could not live their lives fully as they wished to. One side, either the quiet people or the noisy people would have to get their way in a pluralistic society.

But under separatism, the quiet people could live in one place and the noisy people could live in another place, and then they each get to live their lives as they want, the quiet people without noise, and the noisy people without being forced to be quiet.

TowardLiberty wrote on Dec 2nd, 2019 at 11:57am:
Okay but why go through that clumsy process? What's gained?

Is there such a thing as a people with static preferences, whom all generally see eye to eye? Where is such a people?


What is gained would be up to people to decide for themselves. If they like the idea of living in a place where everyone is more or less like them, people will move to such a place. If they don't like it, such a place would not be able to lure enough residents to survive and would wither up and go away.

We see people self-segregating at a small scale within a city, so apparently people see some value in it and think there is something to be gained from living around others who share one's basic values, norms, ways, etc. Perhaps the same thing would be true at a larger scale of separatism at the state level or even regional level.
  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 
Send TopicPrint
 
Liberty News ForumLNF Forums HerePolitical Opinion Page - The Hot Seat › Just in case you missed it...

LNF Home - Political Opinion Page
LNF Forums

Christian Forum - Religion Forum - Sports Forum - Entertainment - House
Military, History - Cooking and Crafts - Creative Writing
Off the Wall News - Science Forum - Tech Gadgets - Financial News - Humor
Bunker - Page 2 - Page 3 - Page 4 - Chat Room





Drudge Report - News Max - Rush Limbaugh - FrontpageMag
Advertise on the LNF - Twitter LNF - LNF Archive - LNF News
LNF Blog
News and Political Links
Political Blogs
Add your website or blog
Political Columnists
Political Humor
A1 News Page
David Limbaugh
Political Frog
Conservatives Directory
President Trump Approval Poll
Presidential Party Election Poll
News forum posting, privacy policy and member rules