prof@chinet.UUCP (The Professor) (03/31/88)
In article <23359@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (James Wilbur Lewis) writes: >>Seriously, can anyone out their give some coherent explanation of what >>Libertarianism is that makes it "morally correct" for the Libertarian >>Party to dictate the opinions of their presidential candidate? > >Nobody is dictating anyone else's opinion. I'm sure Ron Paul hasn't >changed his mind about abortion (how could anyone *make* him change his >mind?), but it seems reasonable that he would choose to follow the >LP on this issue to gain the support of more Libertarians. In other words, Libertarians (capitalized and not) are no more individualists than the Objectivists (sic) or any other group claiming to be individualists. The pride these people proclaim in calling themselves individualists is mellowed out a little when they come face to face with the prospect of dealing directly with the rest of the world. Paul would rather be elected than fight for what he believes in, the hallmark of strict self-independent me-first individualism. So he "compromises." Yet in the eyes of his idolizers this doesn't erode his "individualism" one bit. This is "pragmatic individualism." (In other words, this is individual pragmatism.) >The defining characteristic of libertarianism is the non-coercion principle; >one should not initiate the use of force or fraud. Since I assume no one >put a gun to Ron Paul's head, or lied to him to get him to run, I can't >see how his decision to run on a platform he partially disagrees with >could be construed as a violation of the Libertarian Party's principles. Yes, no one "made him" change his mind. This is part of the error of reason in the libertarian/objectivist belief set: that coercion alone, the use of "force" (ill defined) and "fraud" (ditto) form the basis for concluding that an action is wrong. And if "coercion" is absent it's fine and dandy. This reminds me of the issue of "date rape" as discussed a while ago in the soc groups. Many people claimed that there was no such thing because no "coercion" was involved. No one "made" the women consent. So no "crime" was involved. Coercion by implication, by threat, by intimidation, by socialization expectations, don't count as "real" coercion. Personally, I'm not sure I would disagree with the claim that the person who engages in "non-coercive" date rape is more of a social criminal than the person who engages in coercive violent rape, because while the second person is using violent force, the first person is abusing the vulnerabilities of the victim in a most cowardly and shameful way. Doubtless many people see nothing wrong in doing that. After all, she "could" have just said no and stood firm. Now, I'm not saying that "libertarian/objectivist" = "date rapist," though I'm sure a significant number of date rapists would attempt to justify their acts on libertarian/objectivist grounds, with their rationalizing mentality that they have a right to "take what's theirs" as long as there's no "coercion." What I'm saying is that libertarians/objectivists conveniently define the word coercion to exclude the activities they engage in and find nothing wrong with, like cultural intimidation and abuse of those not as assertive as they are, which they see as OK. It is ironic that the success of libertarian and objectivist philosophies literally depends upon the existence and compliance of those they can intimidate (without "coercion" of course). Without people like that proverbial guard in Atlas Shrugged, libertarian/objectivists would have only other people like themselves to contend with, and the entire world would be destroyed within 2 weeks if all they had in the world was each other. No one "made" him change his mind. People used circumstances to influence him to change his mind, but they choose not to take responsibility for doing so.
jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (James Wilbur Lewis) (03/31/88)
In article <4346@chinet.UUCP> prof@chinet.UUCP (The Professor) writes: >In other words, Libertarians (capitalized and not) are no more individualists >than the Objectivists (sic) or any other group claiming to be individualists. You're probably right. So what? Has anyone claimed otherwise? (I'll go out on a limb here and characterize libertarianism as individualistic to the extent that it opposes statism, and the institutionalized violation of the Non-Coercion Principle which have historically been at the root of statist regimes. Various factions like anarchism, minarchism, and Objectivism may give more or less weight to this common, individualistic aspect of libertarian belief systems.) >This is part of the error of reason >in the libertarian/objectivist belief set: that coercion alone, the use of >"force" (ill defined) and "fraud" (ditto) form the basis for concluding that >an action is wrong. Just out of curiosity, why do you see a definitional problem with "force" or "fraud"? (My guess is that you've been hanging around with the likes of Tim Sevener, who enjoys ranting about how "private property is coercion". Probably not *him*, though, since you haven't gotten around to slagging off "Propertarians" yet...:-) >And if "coercion" is absent it's fine and dandy. This is a blatant misrepresentation of the non-coercion principle. It is intended to define a class of socially unacceptable behaviours; the fact that certain acts (like a restaurant refusing to serve blacks) do not run afoul of the NCP certainly does NOT imply that they are "fine and dandy". I'm sure most libertarians would agree that bigotry, sexism, and other sociopathic phenomena are scummy and reprehensible; we find the initiation of force to further someone's (even our own) social engineering agenda to be even *more* reprehensible. Besides, there are usually better ways to accomplish the same goals. Isaac Asimov wrote to the effect that "violence is the last resort of the incompetent". I'm inclined to believe that the threat or use of force is the FIRST resort of the incompetent. >This >reminds me of the issue of "date rape" as discussed a while ago in the soc >groups. Many people claimed that there was no such thing because no "coercion" >was involved. No one "made" the women consent. So no "crime" was involved. >Coercion by implication, by threat, by intimidation, by socialization >expectations, don't count as "real" coercion. You're confusing a number of issues that came up during that discussion. Let's examine these forms of "coercion" and see how _one_ libertarian individual (me) feels about them: Coercion by implication? Not sure what that means. By threat? If the threat involves force, it certainly counts as coercion. By intimidation? To the extent that this involves overt threats, it's coercion. A woman might find a 6'5" bodybuilder to be somewhat physically intimidating, but we don't need to blame *him* for that...you need to define your terms better before making assertions about how they'd be interpreted by libertarians. Coercion by socialization expectations? (I presume you're thinking of a girl who would sleep with a guy because he paid for a nice dinner, or whatever...) Who's doing the coercion here....any particular individual (like the poor sap who buys dinner hoping to get laid...is he any less a victim of societal expectations?), or "society"? How are you going to invoke sanctions against the aggressor(s) in this context? What about a person who says "if you don't have sex with me I'll go out with someone else"? Are you among the people from that discussion who would describe this scenario as coercion/rape? (Is that what you meant by "coercion by implication"?) If so, I'm afraid I don't buy this as a valid application of the NCP...it falls into the class of behaviours that are possibly scummy but don't warrant forceful intervention by the state. >Personally, I'm not sure I >would disagree with the claim that the person who engages in "non-coercive" >date rape is more of a social criminal than the person who engages in coercive >violent rape, because while the second person is using violent force, the >first person is abusing the vulnerabilities of the victim in a most cowardly >and shameful way. You must have a pretty twisted sense of priorities. I can't speak for rape survivors, but I can be pretty sure that I'd rather have someone "abuse my vulnerabilities" than point a gun or knife at me and force me to choose between submission and death. >Now, I'm not saying that "libertarian/objectivist" = "date rapist," though I'm >sure a significant number of date rapists would attempt to justify their acts >on libertarian/objectivist grounds, with their rationalizing mentality that >they have a right to "take what's theirs" as long as there's no "coercion." How many tyrants have committed atrocities in the name of religion? This sort of rationalization doesn't make them right...nor does it make religion *wrong*, in the sense you imply that the libertarian "justification" reflects on libertarianism per se. And once again, in the interest of clarity, "no coercion" implies "no rape", by any reasonable definition of "coercion" or "rape". (Concrete counterexamples solicited...) -- Jim Lewis U.C. Berkeley
soren@reed.UUCP (Girls, Girls, Girls) (04/02/88)
>>This >>reminds me of the issue of "date rape" as discussed a while ago in the soc >>groups. Many people claimed that there was no such thing because no "coercion" >>was involved. No one "made" the women consent. So no "crime" was involved. >>Coercion by implication, by threat, by intimidation, by socialization >>expectations, don't count as "real" coercion. >You're confusing a number of issues that came up during that discussion. Let's >examine these forms of "coercion" and see how _one_ libertarian individual (me) >feels about them: >>Personally, I'm not sure I >>would disagree with the claim that the person who engages in "non-coercive" >>date rape is more of a social criminal than the person who engages in coercive >>violent rape, because while the second person is using violent force, the >>first person is abusing the vulnerabilities of the victim in a most cowardly >>and shameful way. >You must have a pretty twisted sense of priorities. I can't speak for rape >survivors, but I can be pretty sure that I'd rather have someone "abuse >my vulnerabilities" than point a gun or knife at me and force me to choose >between submission and death. Date Rape was a big topic of discussion in soc.women recently, and the impression I've gotten is that what makes rape so awful is *exactly* the "abusing of vulnerabilities". The violent aspects of rape are certainly traumatic in and of themselves, but really aren't what defines a rape. Victims of both types of rape emphasize, more than anything else, the dehumanization of rape -- of being turned into an object for satisfying someone elses desire, without the least consideration for their own. As one date-rape victim of my acquaintance said "A lot of people have asked me how I could consider myself raped when I never said 'no'. But I never said 'yes'! I was never given the chance." (this is a paraphrase. I cannot remember the exact wording). Men discussing what it's like to be a rape victim is pretty stupid, though, don't you think... (I'm assuming James is Male. I know I am. I don't know about the professor. Apologies if I'm wrong about any of these.) --
laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) (04/03/88)
There have been mornings when I have woken up beside someone and thought, what am I doing here. It is not nice to wake up knowing that you have shown terrible judgement. However, it is nothing like having your nose and cheekbone broken for refusing to hand over your wallet, and held down while somebody wrenches your wallet from you pocket and goes through your backpack looking for other valuables. -- The universe is expanding, but I still can't find a parking space. Laura Creighton uunet!hoptoad!laura utzoo!hoptoad!laura sun!hoptoad!laura toad@toad.com