Posted on 03/20/2007 10:09:46 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
TAKE ANY early American politics or history class and you will easily learn that freedom was once widely considered a gift from the Creator, something to be tended and respected with limits and boundaries.
...
In contrast with a lofty vision of freedom, our idea of freedom is an absence of boundaries.
...
Humans cannot live properly without boundaries. In fact, a child who grows up without boundaries can be vicious, excessive, spoiled and intolerant of any reprimand. By promoting excessive individualism and a perverted sense of freedom we have become limitless, spoiled children.
...
Of course these matters are private and not to be regulated by our impersonal, gargantuan government. We must look to why and how limits have been lost in this society. Important institutions that place boundaries on individual excess, such as the strong traditional family unit and religious institutions, have all but been obliterated by modern man's proclivity to see himself as an individual first.
...
If what we clamor for is primarily the freedom to allow our basest passions and desires to flourish, we do not now, nor never will, deserve our liberty.
(Excerpt) Read more at cavalierdaily.com ...
A very well written article. Well done, Christa. Someone gave this young woman a good dose of sense along the way. Would that academe could do the same.
This is well worth reading. It is especially refreshing to note that this comes from an American university student in today's times.
Exactly. Down with libertarianism!
Seriously though, excessive, radical individualism is as dangerous to our liberties as excessive government. Your neighbour who won't restrain his own behaviour is as oppressive as a government that won't restrain itself. The commonwealth exists to preserve the liberties of its constituent citizens, and by engaging in behaviours which undermine the commonwealth as a whole, an individual really is making an attack upon the liberty of each and every other individual in the commonwealth.
Oh really, and how are you going to do that? If your neighbour is doing something like trashing up your yard, etc. and refuses to stop despite being asked to, what are you going to do, shoot him? Or start a feud by returning it in kind to him? THAT'S the nonsense.
That's what the commonwealth is for - to arbitrate between individual citizens, instead of forcing them to return back to the "might makes right" state of nature.
Virtually everyone is already a criminal and for sure all CEOs and business owners are. An average 3,000 new federal laws and regulations each year ensures it. Yet better than 95% of the populace doesn't initiate force, threat of force or fraud against any person or their property.
Objective law. When a person thinks they have been harmed they can take the suspect to court and do their best to convince an impartial jury that they have been harmed and to what extent so that you may gain restitution for your loss.
ping
Exactly. An intrusive neighbor is a peer. Intrusive government is a master.
Right on...you said it much better than I did!
On a lighter note, I do love how libertarians assume that if a person isn't a stark raving anarchist, then they must be a communist. It must be great to not actually have to think about the implications of libertarian ideology.
Sure there are. But how many of them don't involve reverting to a "state of nature" where you just end up creating some sort of feud between him and yourself. Or, if you're a true libertarian, there's always the "private arbitration" route - with its absolute lack of guarantees that one or the other party will submit to the decision of the arbitrator.
See, this is why I rejected libertarianism. When it moves beyond being just a bunch of bumper sticker slogans tossed out to sound good, when you actually start thinking through many of the implications of the more radical libertarian arguments, you see that they just don't hold any water.
Enlist government agents to act on your behalf to initiate force/harm against persons that are minding there own business without initiating force against anyone.
If you will remember, the example I used, and the whole basis of my argument, was that of the commonwealth acting as a check on the excesses of individuals when their actions harm other members of the commonwealth. Hence, your whole argument here is completely moot. By definition, I'nm discussing instances where the offender in question most certainly is not "minding their own business".
Objective law. When a person thinks they have been harmed they can take the suspect to court and do their best to convince an impartial jury that they have been harmed and to what extent so that you may gain restitution for your loss.
Oddly enough, that makes my point exactly. If my neighbour is acting oppressively - doing something to harm my person, property, etc. - then I can take them to court to gain restitution and/or injunction against their behaviour. But guess what? That means *drum roll please* government, now doesn't it? That means the commonwealth as a whole, through the delegated power of the court and the jury, acting to restrain my neighbour from an objectionable behaviour that is harming me and my property. I don't have to shoot him, or start a tit-for-tat feud, all I have to do is enlist the power of the commonwealth to which we are both citizens, and utilise its power to protect my person and property. Get it?
As for the rest of what you wrote, it's just bilious grandstanding that has nothing to do with my original proposition. Merely a straw man argument.
communitarian: of or relating to social organization in small cooperative partially collectivist
So one has to be a "newbie" to be opposed to libertarianism? What sort of idiotic argument is that?
I note you didn't deny anything I wrote.
"As for the rest of what you wrote, it's just bilious grandstanding that has nothing to do with my original proposition. Merely a straw man argument" doesn't count as a denial of what you wrote? I think you need to start reading more closely....
BTW, I said nothing about communists. You may want to use a dictionary. communitarian: of or relating to social organization in small cooperative partially collectivist
Nope, I was merely responding to the implicit thrust of your argument, which had little to nothing to with communitarianism, per se, not even that provided by yourself in the definition above. Shoot, by the definition you provided, America's early Republican society would be communitarian, and the groups of people who opened up the west to settlement definitely would be, as would Locke, de Tocqueville, and Burke, depending on the particular definitions applied to the terms used.
But guess what? That means *drum roll please* government, now doesn't it?
As obvious as the nose on your face. You're so ignorant you thought I was unaware that when I said "take the suspect to court" that you thought of some alien court or court I have no idea that exists outside of government. So Apparently you coated a really juvenile straw man for the sole reason of kicking the stuffing out of it. Very lame.
That means the commonwealth as a whole, through the delegated power of the court and the jury, acting to restrain my neighbour from an objectionable behaviour that is harming me and my property.
It means a civil court deciding if you suffered a loss and what amount of restitution you are due. Criminal court is a different issue -- I bring it up only to acknowledge it. The zoning laws your neighbor broke are what was supposed to restrain him. But as we see it didn't work for you or him. But most people don't violate another person's property so you two are the exception rather than the rule. As it should be.
I don't have to shoot him, or start a tit-for-tat feud, all I have to do is enlist the power of the commonwealth to which we are both citizens, and utilise its power to protect my person and property. Get it?
You've got that all wrapped up nice and neat in your communitarian cloak. The persons that make up a community, as they are, better than 95% of them anyways, doesn't initiate force, threat of force or fraud against persons or their property.
As for the rest of what you wrote, it's just bilious grandstanding that has nothing to do with my original proposition. Merely a straw man argument.
You might as well just say no comment, or that you don't understand. Ignorance isn't your best suit. Curiously what acts by a person do you want to enlist government agents to act on your behalf to initiate force against persons that commit said acts?
So one has to be a "newbie" to be opposed to libertarianism? What sort of idiotic argument is that?
Another straw-man from you. I stated two facts. You turn it into you being almost a victim. Hey, you're the one that assumed wrong. So far about all you've done is pi$$ on your own foot.12
TQC: To 8 As for the rest of what you wrote, it's just bilious grandstanding that has nothing to do with my original proposition. Merely a straw man argument" doesn't count as a denial of what you wrote? I think you need to start reading more closely.... 14
As you no doubt know very well the post you quote of yourself came after my post. My 15 post was a response to your 12 post. Thus I had not read your 14 post. You assert that what you wrote above (highlighted in red) was in your 12 post. It wasn't, isn't. It was in your 14 post. Just as obvious is that the time span between my 15 post and your 14 posts is 1 minute 27 seconds. So unless I was really fast -- which I'm not -- in reading and thinking/forming a response, writing it and posting it, I wouldn't be able to have read your post at 14 and done all that in just1 minute 27 seconds. So what ever game you're playing it sure isn't honest. See my tagline.
Nope, I was merely responding to the implicit thrust of your argument, which had little to nothing to with communitarianism, per se, not even that provided by yourself in the definition above.
Fine with me, It's your choice. So in your 12 post you make yourself an almost victim when you wrote: "I do love how libertarians assume that if a person isn't a stark raving anarchist, then they must be a communist." A victim of your own making. What I wrote has nothing to do with communism, rather, it has everything to do with inalienable rights, individual rights and their protection; and the corollary that many people enlist government agents to act on their behalf to initiate force/harm against persons and their property.
What are you blathering about? I mean, in your first post in this discussion, you showed a complete lack of understanding/cognizance of what I had even written. I argued that individuals can often be just as oppressive to other individuals as government is, and therefore some government is in fact needed to arbitrate disputes and/or conflicts between individuals rather than resorting to the sort of "state of nature" shootouts or blood feuds that you would have in an anarchic situation. You then yammered at me about "enlisting government agents to act on my behalf to initiate force/harm against persons that are minding there own business without initiating force against anyone", which had absolutely nothing to do with what I had written. Then, when I called you on it, instead of giving a rational defence, you started complaining about the "newbie bias" in my tagline.
Let me ask you Zon - are you, or are you not, in favour of having government arbitration of disputes between individuals when problems arise between them, or when one individual begins to act in a way that is detrimental to the life or property of the other? That's the important question because THAT is the crux of my point.
It means a civil court deciding if you suffered a loss and what amount of restitution you are due. Criminal court is a different issue -- I bring it up only to acknowledge it. The zoning laws your neighbor broke are what was supposed to restrain him. But as we see it didn't work for you or him. But most people don't violate another person's property so you two are the exception rather than the rule. As it should be.
You *are* aware that civil courts are part of the government too, right? The term "civil" does not refer to their composition, but to their jurisdiction..... Likewise, the zoning laws which you mention are ALSO instituted by government (though they have nothing to do with my example, per se, since a zoning law does not serve as a regulation on one individual damaging the life/property of another).
As for your argument, "But most people don't violate another person's property", it is perhaps true, but also meaningless. I'm using the point as an *example*.
You've got that all wrapped up nice and neat in your communitarian cloak. The persons that make up a community, as they are, better than 95% of them anyways, doesn't initiate force, threat of force or fraud against persons or their property.
Ah, but did it ever occur to you that the *reason* 95% of them don't initiate force or fraud is *because* of the fact that there is the threat of "community enforcement"? That's the argument Locke would make, at least. Again, there's that commonwealth ideology which says that government - i.e., "the commonwealth" - acts as a means to provide arbitration and protection to each member of the community. If that's "communitarian", then I'm guilty as charged, as are John Locke, the Founding Fathers, and pretty much anyone else who is in the mainstream of classical liberal political philosophy.
You might as well just say no comment, or that you don't understand. Ignorance isn't your best suit. Curiously what acts by a person do you want to enlist government agents to act on your behalf to initiate force against persons that commit said acts?
I didn't address the rest of your arguments for the same reason that I didn't bother posting and responding to today's weather report - it had absolutely nothing to do with what I had actually written.
I mean, my argument, in a nutshell, is that individuals can be as dangerous to each others' liberty as excessive government, and therefore the commonwealth is necessary to arbitrate between individuals when one begins to infringe upon the liberty, life, or property of another. I would think that this would be self-evident. After all, if you start dumping your household garbage onto my property, and refuse to cease even after I ask you to stop, then you are infringing on my right to enjoy my property as I see fit and unhindered, even though you are another individual rather than a government. Now, I could just shoot you, I suppose, which might well be the typical libertarian solution to the problem, but you and I would probably both prefer that I simply call the police and have them tell you to stop, and if you continue, then file trespassing or some other charges against you and take you to court. I fail to see how any of this is unreasonable, and indeed, I would think it was tautological.
Yet, your response to the argument was to rant about "legislating morality" and "criminalising CEOs" and "3000 new federal laws and regulations a year" and "private contracts be d***ed" (contracts which, by the way, are also only enforceable, ultimately, because the government ensures compliance between the parties to the contract). None of this has a single blessed thing to do with what I had actually written, so why would I waste time addressing each specifically?
Another straw-man from you. I stated two facts.
Ahem. Talk abotu dishonest argumentation. I assume your statement doesn't exist in a void (though, from seeing your other argumentation, I may be incorrect in that assumption), so your saying "Your newbie bias is right there in you tag line" obviously meant something. And since my tagline openly states that I am an anti-libertarian, the most rational assumption is that your statement was intended to suggest that being a "newbie" somehow has something to do with being anti-libertarian. How you figure this, however, I'm not too sure.
(BTW, I'm not actually a newbie. I've been around FR for better than three years, but recently changed my username to bring my FR name into line with the rest of my online "nom de cyber" uses of Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus)
In short, however, I think what is going on here is that you either didn't understand what I originally wrote, or didn't bother to read it fully and/or closely. Instead, you saw the "anti-libertarian" in my tagline, got your knickers into a knot about it, and flew off into a pre-programmed libertarian rant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.