Libertarian Outreach and Slavethinkers

Home Forums Coffee Shop Libertarian Outreach and Slavethinkers

This topic contains 5 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by  Im1wthu11 7 months, 2 weeks ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #60

    Hogeye
    Participant

    Here’s my latest article. Maybe you can tell me where I went wrong talking with these guys. Or maybe that’s where I went wrong: talking to those guys!
    Libertarian Outreach and Slavethinkers

    Government is violence

    • This topic was modified 9 months, 1 week ago by  Hogeye.
    • This topic was modified 9 months, 1 week ago by  Hogeye.
    • This topic was modified 9 months, 1 week ago by  Hogeye.
    • This topic was modified 9 months, 1 week ago by  Hogeye.
  • #249

    Im1wthu11
    Participant

    #1 If it weren’t for order followers none of it could have happened. Politicians can write words on paper and call it law. Those words are still nothing more than ink on paper without order followers.

  • #67

    Jacob
    Keymaster

    Good article! I find it interesting that Brian wouldn’t answer the question you asked, (“Do you agree that Jews in Nazi Germany had a right to shoot brownshirts coming to haul them away?”), and I’m curious what reaction the online group would have had if you had started with that question.

    I haven’t yet figured out exactly how to go about outreach. But our forum at the library seemed to be a success, in that our audience seemed to get something out of it.

    I also note, regarding your article, that you draw an analogy between a nazi in the act of kidnapping a jew and a politician voting for a particular law. The difference in nationality, (Nazi Germany vs. U.S.), is not the only difference, there’s also the immediacy of the effects of an act. Someone who would defend themselves when it came down to the actual raid on their home might still hold back after the vote is cast but before the raid. I’d be curious if those in the freethought group would have the same intuitions regardless of which part of the chain of actions one pointed to. Would any of them accept self-defense against the police officers making the arrest?

    I guess if you were banned it’s hard to know.

  • #68

    Hogeye
    Participant

    My impression is that they would be too emotional about the question and refuse to discuss it. Since the original comment was an offhand remark in a different topic, there was not a chance to prepare the thesis.

    You are right that the incremental approach may take several steps (like Nozick’s story.) E.g.
    1) Do you agree that it is morally permissible for Jews in Nazi Germany to kill SS agents coming for them?
    2) Do you agree that it is permissible for them to kill the officer who ordered the SS to do the kidnapping?
    3) Do you agree that it is permissible to kill the ruler who ordered his army/police officers to do it?
    4) Do you agree that is is permissible to kill ruling politicians who voted for the kidnapping?

  • #100

    Hogeye
    Participant

    I think that a Jonathan Haidt type explanation is appropriate. People freak out, their minds turning to mush, due to a high level of the sanctity/disgust value. Mentioning killing a agent of their Holy State is sacriligious to a certain type. Put another way, the whole notion that it may be permissible to shoot pigs is too disgusting for them to appraise rationally. It’s like telling a “moral conservative” that Jesus was a cannabis cult leader. It may be true, but their minds flip out with disgust. Or like telling a flaghumper that, if someone joins a murder gang and goes to a foreign land to kill people on order, then when they die it is “Good Riddance.” Their disgust response overides their brain. They flip out instead of responding rationally.

    I’ve been kicked off a neighborhood listserve simply for calling policemen “pigs!” Someone with a very low disgust threshold flipped out and had me ousted. So I’m thinking it is mainly a disgust thing.

  • #103

    Jacob
    Keymaster

    Makes sense to me. You know I’m sympathetic to Haidt style explanations, of course.

    I’m not sure I could get all the way to #4 myself. I’m not sure if I’m just too close to pacifism or what, but I guess I’m averse to doing harm even against aggressors, sort of odd for libertarians perhaps. In a case where someone was actually physically attacking me or a loved one, I could probably fight back, but changing the situation to one where I have to go find the person and where they only voted rather than directly participating in the violence themselves, I’m not sure.

    In the first case killing them could be necessary to save the life of an innocent, while in the second case killing could more probably be avoided while still finding a way to stop the harm done. I think that’s probably the place where I draw the line.

    Either way, we’re still left with the need to protect each other from harm, whatever that means in practice.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.