This is the libertarian mantra. But sometimes people engage in human rights abuses in the bedroom. To the libertarians, we don't seem to have the right to prevent such a thing. But that is not the point. In order to explain a few things, I have to give some theoretical background. Please bear with me as this is vital for understanding my position on human rights with regard to polygamous cultures.

There is such a thing as "negative" duties. The most well-known of these is the called the "harm principle." It was elaborated by John Stuart Mill, but it's something that seems to come quite natural to human beings. It's pretty simple on the face of it. It is simply the moral imperative to do no harm. Technically speaking, if a moral duty involves refraining from doing something, it is a negative duty. This is just a technicality, but it clears up a lot of muddy areas so that we can proceed in our quest for wisdom.

A libertarian political theory is, technically speaking, a theory that recognizes the harm principle, but says that our duties end there. No exceptions. But there is a logical error in the assumption that if everyone simply does no harm, there will never be any harm. In the stricter, more right-wing versions of libertarianism, this is rigidly observed. But often taking no action at all causes INDIRECT harms. In order to be consistent as a libertarian, these indirect harms should also be avoided. One very nasty example of indirect harm is in the concept of "blood diamonds." Since the world diamond market is bringing considerable harm to the poor countries where diamonds are mined, the very act of purchasing diamonds, as innocent as it may seem, could be lining the pockets of people who engage in hideous human rights abuses. For example, genocide and child soldiers. But the diamond merchants don't discriminate between blood diamonds and all of the rest. So one never knows what human rights abuses were the cost of the diamond on ones finger.

In order to be consistent with the principle to do no harm, one must refrain from buying diamonds. And indeed, many people do precisely this. In US society, the diamond is considered a symbol of love. In reality, they symbolize death for large numbers of people.

We can break down libertarianism into right and left wing varieties. Libertarians who consider indirect harms and avoid anything that causes them are called "left libertarians." Libertarians who simply refrain from direct harm, but don't take into consideration indirect harms are called "right libertarians." If you ask me, there is nothing philosophically consistent about right libertarianism. So I have no problem calling it an unenlightened position. This is something that has troubled me for years, so I went to great lengths to be able to fully understand it. The problem we have is that right libertarianism is pervasive in the US. It's a kind of moral anarchy; yet those who promote it are frequently the most morally opinionated people of all!

This is very much on topic because libertarians are keeping Mormon-based polygamy in existence. They take a live-and-let-live attitude, even if it means live and let die. And too frequently this is exactly what it means.

Simply doing the bare minimum in society is nothing to be praised for. It is only the bare minimum. If you do less than that, we will put you in prison.

Another kind of duty, the one that libertarians regard as anathema, is positive duty. Technically, the duty to go above the bare minimum and give something extra is called a positive duty. These are duties that involve "doing," as opposed to "not doing," as in the case of negative duties. If we perform positive duties, then we can enjoy corresponding positive rights, like the right to an education and medical care. Now you can see what I mean when I say that libertarians fight against these positive duties with everything they've got. Most libertarians believe that public education is a violation of their right to do nothing more than refrain from harming people. This system has nothing praiseworthy about it at all, and it is built upon the incorrect assumption that government is the bad guy who is always trying to take away people's rights. But this is not a correct understanding of government under the US Constitution. Correctly speaking, our government is by the people and for the people. To think of them as the enemy is contrary to the American ideal. It's a mistaken assumption and a misunderstanding that has millions of people refusing to lift a finger to give aid to the needy, whoever they may be. Libertarians are obsessed with doing no harm, and absolutely nothing else.

Libertarians do not deny the value of charity. In fact, if a libertarian theory didn't address the needs of the poor and the concept of charity, I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole, for then it would be right libertarianism which is nothing but glorified selfishness.

One of the biggest differences between a "liberal" and a "libertarian" is that liberals see government as OUR tool. Not a tool of tyranny. Government may be highly corrupt, but government is US; not THEM. If it is corrupt, that's our fault and it's something we have the moral duty to fix. To a liberal, government is potentially a very powerful tool for doing good. I can't educate myself on my own, but if we all pool our resources and our labor together, we can all enjoy a good education--and good health care. Government is the tool by which we seek to achieve these goals. Government is not the enemy; it IS us. Libertarians typically despise this attitude. If you ask me, that's because they are two centuries behind in theoretical progress. They are still clinging to the mentality that government is the oppressor, even though this country is, by its very nature, a grand experiment in which government is by the people and for the people. If you cling to the misunderstanding that government is the oppressor, it's no wonder that liberalism seems like a threat.

In contrast to libertarianism, to liberals, justice is the grand ruling principle in public morality. Without justice, there is no liberty. With too much liberty concentrated in the hands of the few, there is no justice. So justice must hold priority over human rights, like the right to liberty. Justice is the principle that holds liberty in balance so that we can all have a chance at enjoying it.

This is getting very political, obviously, but it is so fundamental to the problem of polygamy and its inherent abuses of human rights, that I have to go into it to make my point.

Under a system that holds justice to be the ruling principle, the right to freedom of religion is equal for everyone. But we must remember that as one of the fundamental human rights, liberty has to remain in balance with other human rights, like the right to life, for example. The right to be free from bodily harm of any kind is part of the right to life. Taking too much liberty at the expense of someone's right to life is, by definition, murder. So you can see that this theory of human rights operates quite nicely in the background of the US Constitution. We all have the right to be free to practice religion according to our own beliefs right up to the point where the exercise of this fundamental human right comes at the cost of another fundamental human right. So if polygamists think they have a fundamental right to practice polygamy, they'd better think again. The whole system of Mormon fundamentalism is a threat to human rights, all in the name of religious rights. The contradictions are now easy to see.

Mormon fundamentalists have the right to practice their religion according to their own consciences, but not if doing so compromises the basic rights of anyone else. So they do not have the right to mandate polgyamy (polygyny), since doing so makes women scarce and turns them into the means by which the men can seek their "promotion to godhood." Women are not equal to men, which is contrary to what we stand for in this country. In every polygamous society I've ever examined, women are in shortage and are therefore forced into duress, which compromises their right to make proper consent. This is a violation of their own right to liberty. We have freedom of religion, but I think we can all agree that freedom of religion is no excuse for putting people into a position in which their rights are compromised.

Consent is not such a clear concept as many seem to believe. It has to be "informed consent" or it isn't consent at all. But informed consent is hardly an option to someone who has been deprived of a decent education. I've already told my story about how hard I had to work to get an education. In order to become an academic philosopher, there was no question in my mind that I had to leave the society in which I grew up. I didn't have the freedom of education that everyone else in the country is supposedly entitled to. What was more important than anything else in my life as a child was denied to me, systematically. But I'm actually an extremely fortunate person. I had the talents and ambitions I needed to rise above what was holding me in mediocrity. My parents could not hold me down; but not all children are that fortunate.

Some may argue that there are polygamists in Mormon fundamentalist culture who do not marry underage brides and these people are entirely correct. But it is inherent to their system of living that women will inevitably become scarce. So while one polygamist marries only adult women (whose consent is deeply compromised, as I've explained) the result is that there are fewer women to go around and, as we've all seen, this results in pressure on underage girls to fill in the gaps. So even the polygamists who don't marry underage brides are still guilty of putting underage girls into this situation. And underage people do not have the ability to make proper consent. I think we can almost all agree on that. Those who don't agree, to put it bluntly, don't have an opinion that is worth considering under our system of government. Live and let live is not so noble after all, since the libertarian formula, with respect to Mormon fundamentalism is, in reality, live and let abuse.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2010 07:56PM by Troy.

But Libertarian thought is that if nobody's rights are being violated, the government should stay out of it.
It's that simple.

Human rights are systematically violated. You've taken two sentences to describe it. This is called a "minimalist" approach to moral reasoning. But humanity is vastly complicated and a minimalistic approach is a limit to further wisdom on the matter. Theories about decent living as human beings need to be rich and full of conceptual opportunities, not minimalistic.

What I've described above is the correct academic understanding of philosophical libertarianism as it has been laid out by libertarian philosophers. The only thing I've added to this theoretical background is the complications relating to Mormon fundamentalism. The way I've described libertarianism above, as a system that denies positive duties, is the accepted view. This can change of course; nothing is static in philosophy. But in order to change the conception I've described above, it will take a compelling theory. But then we will simply call it something else, not libertarianism.

The laws simply need to be enforced.
In this country, you can't outlaw a religion or ban certain kinds of thinking. The ignorant will be with us always.

I'm just reminding everyone that religious liberties do have their limitations. There are some things that some religious people want to do in the name of religion that violate the rights of others. We can't allow this as it is an injustice. This is where we should draw the line.

Exactly. I couldn't agree more. My human rights theory ends with the conclusion that polygamy should remain illegal, and that we must enforce the law. It's really pretty hard to argue against this, but plenty of people do, hence the need for my theory.

Some people have accused me of being overly aggressive. I really want to have this discussion with libertarians. If they can prove me wrong, my commitments as a philosopher compel me to change my view. If I held this view simply because I found it personally satisfying, I would not have the right to call myself a philosopher. In the beginning, I took a strong libertarian position myself. But after a few years of academic peer review, I had to revise my position at great cost to my own personal comforts. Getting to the position I hold came at tremendous personal cost to me. But it was worth it, since as a philosopher I'm simply a lover of wisdom and I'll take whatever path is necessary to achieve it.

If anyone has no place in the bedroom, it's some church that I don't even believe in. But by God they can't stay out. They are too perverted to look away.

that forces its way into your bedroom.
Leave. People have to think for themselves and act for themselves.

Are you willing to agree with this?

One of my life's biggest goals is to teach as many people I can about the reality of your statement. It's funny how the moral anarchists are the ones who often have the most pushy, moralistic attitudes of all!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2010 08:23PM by Troy.

The thing that makes libertarianism so popular is that it gives people a reason to be proud of themselves for not lifting a finger except to help themselves.

People can truly help each other without the government forcing them to do it in a certain way.
I think you are truly ignorant about what "libertarian" means.
And arrogant as all hell.

None of this depends on how I think of myself. It is right or wrong regardless of how people perceive my personality. With how I really feel about libertarianism, I've actually been very polite and patient and I've taken a lot of time out of my busy day to explain this very carefully.

If I didn't have enormous self-confidence, I'd just be another ineffective drone laboring under the mercy of anyone who intimidates me intellectually. With what I think I need to accomplish, my confidence is not something I can afford to lose.

Who cares if I can qualify for MENSA or some other badge of intellectual honor. Genius is only a concept relating to someone's potential. As a competent and experienced political philosopher, I have deliberately cultivated an imposing intellectual presence. It's the most powerful tool I possess. I'm not going to whimper about and pretend I'm not extremely brilliant if that's what it means to be polite. But my own personal abilities have nothing to do with whether my theory sinks or floats. It can stand on its own.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2010 04:02AM by Troy.

Are you willing to defend your theory of libertarianism in front of 100 philosophy undergraduates? That's what I do.

The problem, as I see it, is that it makes no difference that the FLDS a participating in a belief system that causes the effect of a shortage of marriageable females and they solve that problem by breaking the law. They *could* solve the problem by trying to recruit single adult women from outside the sect instead. But they *choose* to break the law. For that, they should pay the consequence.

As far as your being denied an education, we have laws that are designed to provide a basic level of education to children in the US. The fact that they break those laws is a choice they make as well. The solution is for enforcement of the laws that exist.

Additionally, you were *free* in many ways as an adult to pursue your education. It was not ideal, but you are doing it. And Bravo to you!!!

My point is that it's not the marriage of several adults that is the problem here and therefore, banning it is maybe not the solution. The problem is abusing children and there are laws in place to address those crimes. Those in charge of enforcing laws need to step up and address it!

"They *could* solve the problem by trying to recruit single adult women from outside the sect instead. But they *choose* to break the law. For that, they should pay the consequence."
_______________________________________

But then they are only transferring that shortage of women to society at large. What happens if they become a very large society themselves, which could very well happen if polygamy is legalized? There is still the problem of only enough women to allow monogamy, not polygamy. Preventing polygamy is the only answer. We can't exercise our liberties at the expense of the rest of society. If we do that, we might as well have no liberties at all.

Certainly we need to enforce laws against abuse, but part of the fight against human rights abuse is in making laws that don't allow systems like this to exist in the first place. What if everyone did it? In philosophy, this is called a universalization test. One of the things that make human rights so powerful, conceptually speaking, is the idea that if everyone did it, the idea itself would collapse in contradiction. If everyone did it, not everyone could do it. See the contradiction? Immanuel Kant came up with this and it is one of the most powerful principles in the business of human rights philosophy.

Think of our typical human rights, those of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. With these rights, everyone can exercise them equally. Not so with polygamy. The right to freedom of religion depends on this principle only as long as everyone has equal rights in every other way. There is no right to practice polygamy, not if we want to call it a fundamental human right.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2010 01:12AM by Troy.

I think your argument has a similar fallacy as the gay marriage argument. Namely that by legalizing it the majority of people would choose that form of marriage over traditional marriage. I personally doubt that even if polygamy was legal that there would be a dramatic or significant increase in polygamous marriages. There may be a few more people who try out alternative marriages, but I highly doubt it would become the norm. Besides, what is to prevent several men from being married to one woman?

"I think your argument has a similar fallacy as the gay marriage argument. Namely that by legalizing it the majority of people would choose that form of marriage over traditional marriage."
________________________________-

This is not at all what I claim. Of course I think that most people will stick with monogamy. I am merely acknowledging that if we legalize polygamy, there is a good chance that we will end up with more polygamists. It isn't an argument of logical proof, it's an argument of probability. Do you wish to argue the contrary? That legalizing polygamy will never increase the number of polygamists? I don't envy you for trying to defend that claim, but that is the actual contrary to what I claim.
_______________________________________

"I personally doubt that even if polygamy was legal that there would be a dramatic or significant increase in polygamous marriages. There may be a few more people who try out alternative marriages, but I highly doubt it would become the norm. Besides, what is to prevent several men from being married to one woman?"

I hope you're right, but my experience tells me to expect other possibilities. What is to prevent polyandry? Well, since it is a form of polygamy, it too is illegal. But practically speaking, it is almost nonexistent. The danger we face is the male-dominated form. Making polygamy legal by reasoning that polyandry would then be legal and therefore there would be equality is just unrealistic. I hope you're not headed in that direction, but to answer your question, Mormon fundamentalists themselves prevent several men from being married to one woman so if allowing polyandry is any kind of solution, it doesn't solve the problems that polygamy is creating right now in the actual, practical world.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2010 03:23AM by Troy.

If we are considering whether some liberty should be given human rights status, we have to consider what would happen if everyone did it. If the answer results in a contradiction, then we can't give the liberty in question human rights status. It's really pretty simple. If everyone practiced polygamy, not everyone could practice polygamy. Don't make the mistake of thinking that by performing this thought experiment I am claiming that if we legalize polygamy, everyone will try to be a polygamist. It is merely a thought experiment and it helps us to visualize a contradiction in our choice of action.

If a human rights theory fails this universalization test, I guarantee it is not going to hold up under academic scrutiny. I'll be the first one to shoot it down. And if it doesn't pass academic scrutiny, it's going into the trash.

As for allowing gay marriage, it's only a question of allowing another kind of monogamy. If everyone was gay and got married, it wouldn't be conceptually contradictive. We may not procreate as a species, but that is another matter up for debate. The point is that it doesn't result in a contradiction the way polygamy does when put under this analysis.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2010 03:47AM by Troy.

You assume a lot when you claim that the society *could* become very large. Should be ban something because it could potentially grow?

Additionally, there's very little attraction to becoming FLDS and so I think it would be a very tough sell to try to get a lot of converts. I just don't think it justifies keeping consenting adults from forming families of their own choosing on the risk that the FLDS could become a large percentage of the population.

I assume no such thing. I simply allow for the possibility. As it is, there is a certain level of deterrence. Plenty of people do not practice polygamy simply because it is illegal. What would these people do if it became legal? Well, they wouldn't be doing anything to preserve equality and human rights if they became Mormon fundamentalists.

Inequality is not a human right. If it was, there would be no rights. It's that ugly libertarian contradiction again. The strict protection of equality of human rights is the best defense we have against totalitarianism. We can't give an inch here.

"Simply doing the bare minimum in society is nothing to be praised for. It is only the bare minimum. If you do less than that, we will put you in prison."

Who is "we" that will put a person in prison? And why have a minimum if its is, in fact, not enough?

"If we perform positive duties, then we can enjoy corresponding positive rights, like the right to an education and medical care."

This statement shows that you don't understand what a right is. Rights are the things we don't have to ask permission for; they are the things we have inherently, they aren't bestowed upon us by a government, or king, or "society," or group. Like the right to wave my arms around like this. (You can't see me, but trust me, I'm waving.) The right to say whatever I want to. (I just said "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.") I don't need to perform positive duties in order to earn the priveledge of speaking or moving my arms. Rights originate from within ME. Right don't come from outside entities.

The problem with thinking that education and medical care are rights, is that these services must be provided by OTHER people. Therefore, to claim you have a right to medical care is to claim that you have the right to force someone else to provide you with a service. In libertarian philosophy, it's wrong to force someone else to serve you. That's called slavery.

"This system has nothing praiseworthy about it at all, and it is built upon the incorrect assumption that government is the bad guy who is always trying to take away people's rights."

No, actually, it is built on the fact that the default actions of government violate citizens rights. Taxes are not voluntary; the government takes a portion of your earnings without your consent. This is called theft. With this stolen money, they build schools, that they then force your children to attend. This in no way represents the "right to an education." This is theft and conscription, nothing more.

"One of the biggest differences between a "liberal" and a "libertarian" is that liberals see government as OUR tool. Not a tool of tyranny. Government may be highly corrupt, but government is US; not THEM. If it is corrupt, that's our fault and it's something we have the moral duty to fix. To a liberal, government is potentially a very powerful tool for doing good. I can't educate myself on my own, but if we all pool our resources and our labor together, we can all enjoy a good education--and good health care. Government is the tool by which we seek to achieve these goals. Government is not the enemy; it IS us. Libertarians typically despise this attitude. If you ask me, that's because they are two centuries behind in theoretical progress. They are still clinging to the mentality that government is the oppressor, even though this country is, by its very nature, a grand experiment in which government is by the people and for the people. If you cling to the misunderstanding that government is the oppressor, it's no wonder that liberalism seems like a threat."

To a libertarian who values personal freedom, government IS an oppressor. And to anyone with one eye open, changing this fact is impossible. Voting for this candidate or that candidate will not change the system, and that is the only avenue we are given to "initiate change." The "grand experiment" in limited government has failed, and failed miserably. Government spies on its citizens, jails people for smoking the wrong type of plant, spends trillions of dollars on foreign occupations, on secret prisons, and on deals with its wealthy friends. It murders innocent civilians, it buys off drug lords, it props up foreign dictators, it asserts full monopolistic control over the money supply, it controls licensing for hundreds of industries and imprisons both those who prefer not to get a government license, as well as those who prefer to patronize businesses that don't have government licenses. Having too much water in your toilet tank is against federal law. Saying certain words on TV at certain times of day is against federal regulation. The idea that, oh, hey, this is America and the boys in Washington work for me, is an illusion.

"In contrast to libertarianism, to liberals, justice is the grand ruling principle in public morality. Without justice, there is no liberty. With too much liberty concentrated in the hands of the few, there is no justice. So justice must hold priority over human rights, like the right to liberty. Justice is the principle that holds liberty in balance so that we can all have a chance at enjoying it."

You're confusing justice with fairness.

"Mormon fundamentalists have the right to practice their religion according to their own consciences, but not if doing so compromises the basic rights of anyone else. So they do not have the right to mandate polgyamy (polygyny), since doing so makes women scarce and turns them into the means by which the men can seek their "promotion to godhood." Women are not equal to men, which is contrary to what we stand for in this country. In every polygamous society I've ever examined, women are in shortage and are therefore forced into duress, which compromises their right to make proper consent. This is a violation of their own right to liberty. We have freedom of religion, but I think we can all agree that freedom of religion is no excuse for putting people into a position in which their rights are compromised."

I completely agree; however, this is totally counter to your above statements. If you believe that polygamy is wrong because subjugates women and forces them to do things against their will to serve others, then it stands to reason that what you call "the right to medical care" is wrong by the same logic. It's just as wrong to subjugate Wife #12 as it is to subjugate Dr. Jones at County General. Why? Because it violates the rights of these individuals.

"Consent is not such a clear concept as many seem to believe. It has to be "informed consent" or it isn't consent at all."

This is a point worth debating, for sure; however, NOTHING about government's actions fall into the category of consent. I did not give my consent for the government to rack up $13 T in debt that it expects me to repay through taxes and inflation. I did not give my consent to have 34% of my pay whisked away with the income tax. I did not consent to paying into Social Security. I did not consent to invading Iraq. I did not consent to the PATRIOT Act, or to the bailouts. I didn't consent to any of it, and the majority of laws passed in this country are not up for a public vote. My consent is not only not given, it's never asked for.

With all due respect, your arguments against polygamy are drastically inconsistent with your arguments FOR government-provided public services. You seem to be in favor of the government violating individual rights, but not in favor of any other person or group doing so. And worse, you see government as YOU (not THEM). Which basically means, you're in favor of violating other people's rights to achieve the things you want (health care, education), but you're not in favor of others violating YOUR rights to achieve what they want.

Which is it -- are rights inviolable, or are they up for grabs as long as you have a government seal of approval?

Perfect.

"Simply doing the bare minimum in society is nothing to be praised for. It is only the bare minimum. If you do less than that, we will put you in prison."

Who is "we" that will put a person in prison? And why have a minimum if its is, in fact, not enough?
__________________________________________

Who is "we?" I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. It is "we the people of the United States." I didn't want to make it that formal, but that's the reality. If you fail to do the bare minimum, which is to do no harm, we will put you in prison because what you've done is violate someone's human rights in not refraining from doing them harm. You pick the violation, I'll give you a list: Murder, robbery, rape, larceny, forgery, embezzlement, polygamy, sexual conduct with a minor, etc.

Criminals are people who have failed to do the bare minimum.

"If we perform positive duties, then we can enjoy corresponding positive rights, like the right to an education and medical care."

This statement shows that you don't understand what a right is. Rights are the things we don't have to ask permission for; they are the things we have inherently, they aren't bestowed upon us by a government, or king, or "society," or group. Like the right to wave my arms around like this. (You can't see me, but trust me, I'm waving.) The right to say whatever I want to. (I just said "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.") I don't need to perform positive duties in order to earn the priveledge of speaking or moving my arms. Rights originate from within ME. Right don't come from outside entities.
_______________________________________

I'm sorry, but it is you who does not understand. It's all a matter of how deep I choose to go into detail. If you don't think I understand human rights, please contact the philosophy department at the University of Utah. After all, I'm sure they don't want to award someone a PhD who isn't up to snuff on this stuff.

The theoretical underpinning of human rights is largely based on social contract theory. This comes in two varieties. Social contract theory is not something we agree to in writing, it's an unwritten and usually unspoken kind of agreement between people. The negative variety of social contract theory is what libertarians espouse. It holds that we all have a duty to do no harm. In exchange for recognizing that we must not harm, we have a corresponding right to be free from harm. This is about as fundamental as it gets, but I can go into equisite detail if you wish. But simply put, if I recognize that I must not harm anyone, and our society is somewhat built on this assumption, then I can reasonably expect nobody to harm me. If they do, we have laws against it.

If you don't like this, please tell me what part I don't understand. Better yet, tell me what you don't understand.

A positive social contract is a bit more complicated, but not on the human level. It is more community-oriented in that we have an unwritten agreement among ourselves that we will all pool our resources and talents together and create something that lifts our society as a whole and makes life better for everyone. Positive duties are more charity-related in that they go beyond the bare minimum and we all share the wealth, to some extent. This is more common in Asian societies and as I've stated already, this is what the libertarians reject. I don't know what is controversial about any of this. It is mere technicality. To bring it to the individual level, libertarians are most critical of this pooling of resources when government is employed as the medium by which we coordinate our resources and services. Again, this is just technicality. I think anyone here who considers themselves libertarian would agree.

Libertarians only want a negative social contract; not a positive social contract. My disagreement with them is because I see government as the most powerful tool we have for performing the positive duties I've mentioned and maximizing the benefit of the rights that correspond to these duties. Libertarians, if they want to be charitable, want to do it themselves and not through government. Is that fair to say? This is not to say that the concept of positive rights does not exist. Libertarians simply reject the concept if it involves government.

"The problem with thinking that education and medical care are rights, is that these services must be provided by OTHER people. Therefore, to claim you have a right to medical care is to claim that you have the right to force someone else to provide you with a service. In libertarian philosophy, it's wrong to force someone else to serve you. That's called slavery."
________________________________________

This is where we disagree. I do not see it as force for us to utilize our government to maximize our effectiveness as a society. This includes providing public education and, I would argue, public health care. If you think you are being forced, you are under a completely different paradigm from me. I consider it voluntary, and I consider it the professional interest of people like me to keep government in the hands of the people. It is our own responsibility to keep it from getting out of control.

The problem with libertarianism is it has no future. The problems of consumerism and excess always come at the cost of the weaker members of society and libertarianism has nothing to offer minorities who don't have equal opportunities, simply because the affluence and consumerism has come at their expense! It's a philosophy of affluence and consumerism and as I've mentioned already, the emphasis on liberty comes at the expense of justice. How much more detail do you want?

"No, actually, it is built on the fact that the default actions of government violate citizens rights. Taxes are not voluntary; the government takes a portion of your earnings without your consent. This is called theft. With this stolen money, they build schools, that they then force your children to attend. This in no way represents the "right to an education." This is theft and conscription, nothing more."
_____________________________________

This is 18th Century thinking if you ask me.

"To a libertarian who values personal freedom, government IS an oppressor. And to anyone with one eye open, changing this fact is impossible. Voting for this candidate or that candidate will not change the system, and that is the only avenue we are given to "initiate change." The "grand experiment" in limited government has failed, and failed miserably. Government spies on its citizens, jails people for smoking the wrong type of plant, spends trillions of dollars on foreign occupations, on secret prisons, and on deals with its wealthy friends. It murders innocent civilians, it buys off drug lords, it props up foreign dictators, it asserts full monopolistic control over the money supply, it controls licensing for hundreds of industries and imprisons both those who prefer not to get a government license, as well as those who prefer to patronize businesses that don't have government licenses. Having too much water in your toilet tank is against federal law. Saying certain words on TV at certain times of day is against federal regulation. The idea that, oh, hey, this is America and the boys in Washington work for me, is an illusion.
__________________________________________

Under the libertarian way of thinking, you are no doubt correct about it being an illusion. Sort of like the illusion that if nobody keeps a check on liberties in an effort to keep them in balance, justice will magically appear. But if you're going to throw your hands in the air and not try to take control, I can't force you to do anything. You have the liberty to not lift a finger for anyone else. But you are being vastly outnumbered in your philosophy. We have a whole world to think about. We have to learn to share, just like children.

"You're confusing justice with fairness."
__________________________________________

That's the irony of the evening. Justice is the principle of applying fairness, to put it in a nutshell.

"I completely agree; however, this is totally counter to your above statements. If you believe that polygamy is wrong because subjugates women and forces them to do things against their will to serve others, then it stands to reason that what you call "the right to medical care" is wrong by the same logic. It's just as wrong to subjugate Wife #12 as it is to subjugate Dr. Jones at County General. Why? Because it violates the rights of these individuals."
_____________________________________________

It's not at all inconsistent with my underlying principle, that government is by the people. We have to have a supreme institution to enforce the fairness you mentioned, which I use the term "justice" to describe. If we don't enforce justice, people will take more liberties than they are rightfully entitled, like the liberty to kill someone in cold blood. We don't allow that and we put people in prison for it.

"Consent is not such a clear concept as many seem to believe. It has to be "informed consent" or it isn't consent at all."

This is a point worth debating, for sure; however, NOTHING about government's actions fall into the category of consent. I did not give my consent for the government to rack up $13 T in debt that it expects me to repay through taxes and inflation. I did not give my consent to have 34% of my pay whisked away with the income tax. I did not consent to paying into Social Security. I did not consent to invading Iraq. I did not consent to the PATRIOT Act, or to the bailouts. I didn't consent to any of it, and the majority of laws passed in this country are not up for a public vote. My consent is not only not given, it's never asked for."
__________________________________________

That must be what it's like to be female and living in a polygamous society. But I haven't given up my right to take part in government. When I give a speech to a bunch of loser politicians, I have the ability to motivate them because they can't defend their inconsistencies. In this way, I can be even more imposing than they are and indeed, that's the strategy. I don't envy anyone who thinks this kind of citizen participation is alien and unreal. It's no wonder libertarians are constantly complaining about being enslaved by the government.

"With all due respect, your arguments against polygamy are drastically inconsistent with your arguments FOR government-provided public services. You seem to be in favor of the government violating individual rights, but not in favor of any other person or group doing so. And worse, you see government as YOU (not THEM). Which basically means, you're in favor of violating other people's rights to achieve the things you want (health care, education), but you're not in favor of others violating YOUR rights to achieve what they want."
____________________________________________________

My rights? I don't have the right to achieve what anyone else wants. That's ludicrous. I'm in the business of working on behalf of people who can't get the government to protect them. You see taxes as a violation of your rights and I see them as a way of taking our own responsibility for things. So there is nothing at all inconsistent the way I see things. Of course it seems inconsistent under your prevailing assumptions, but you are the one laboring under slave morality, not me. I'm taking control of government on behalf of us, the people who the government is working for. Your taxes help pay for a lot of positive rights already, like public education. If you think that makes you a slave, I feel sorry for you. The way I see things, it makes me feel empowered and highly effective.

"Which is it -- are rights inviolable, or are they up for grabs as long as you have a government seal of approval?"
____________________________________

That's an easy one. We are all entitled to basic human rights, like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But we are unable to ensure those rights for ourselves on our own. If that be the case, we have no rights and it's pointless to claim that we do. We have to put our resources together to provide equal protection for everyone's rights. We call this justice and the tool we use to administer this justice is what we call the United States Government.

I haven't thrown away the tool. I've learned how to use it. This is what I teach to political philosophy students at the university. Some of them may run for political office later. If they learn anything from me, it will be how to use their power effectively and in the name of the people.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2010 04:08AM by Troy.

Polygamy violates the social compact. It not relevant whether it is right or wrong in what ever manner it is practice.

The social compact is that every man, with few exceptions, has a right to a mate. Polygamy would allow, a minority of more affluent and/or attractive males to have multiple mates, thus many average and below average males would be left without mates. When young male men have not access to mates in large numbers this creates social unrest and upheaval.

Face it guys, your wife or gf is with you because she could not find someone more attractive or richer. Polygamy would allow more women to find the man they really wanted.

"Every man has a right to a mate"???
That's insane. Nobody has a right to another person.
And what about women? Your remark is very weird.

"Face it guys, your wife or gf is with you because she could not find someone more attractive or richer. Polygamy would allow more women to find the man they really wanted."

Or maybe you simply despise your fellow humans. Do you HONESTLY believe that women only choose their partners based on looks and money? That's the stupidest, most sexist and insulting thing I've read here in ages.

And BadGirl has an excellent point -- what about the women. Women have just as much "right" to a "mate" as men do. With men like you around I'm sure more women will be looking into the option of a female for a mate too.

But moral anarchy, due to its inherent contradictions, is actually a form of moralism itself. The moral anarchists are never short of their own form of moral imperialism. Sociopaths.

when it aligned itself with the republican party .... you know, that party which wants to control what you do in your bedroom and what you do with your own body and what religion gets your tax dollars.

Gee, it sure sounds like socialism to me.

Wow-I could have sworn you were talking about the Democrats! They are the ones that want to get into your bedroom and control every aspect of your life.

I started this thread as a discussion of political philosphy. If the discussion is going to degenerate into one of political partisanship, I'm finished with what I'm doing here. I don't endorse any political party. What I'm talking about is the moral system that is going on in the background. I hope that people can learn something from this when they do engage in discussions of a partisan nature. But that's where I'm drawing the line in this forum.

I would like to note that a topic that is worthy of its own academic emphasis is the phenomenon relating to how exmormons carry themselves into postmormonism and how well they are prepared to deal with public reasoning on a grander scale than what Mormonism has afforded them.

EDIT: Discussions of a partisan nature are like an addictive drug to me. I can't get enough. But if we're going to do that, let's all get together at a nice coffeeshop or pub and do it right. I can hardly think of anything I enjoy more than that sort of thing! Libertarians are invited too!!!!!!!!!! I have a philosophy of inclusion, not exclusion. I want to talk to people of all persuasions and if it gets lively, so much the better! But let's not make things difficult for Susan.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2010 02:47AM by Troy.

So, even if the Browns (of Sister Wives fame) are actually fully informed consenting adults (and I'm not convinced of that at all) they are still morally wrong because their actions help to harm those who are coerced into this behavior underage.

I don't really think much more needs to be said. :)

And you used a hell of a lot fewer words than I did!