100

The Real Brutalism: A Critique of Jeffrey Tucker

If you haven’t heard, the libertarian Catholic Jeffrey Tucker has launched a salvo against libertarians he classifies as “brutalist.” What does he mean by this? In his words:

In the libertarian world, however, brutalism is rooted in the pure theory of the rights of individuals to live their values whatever they may be. The core truth is there and indisputable, but the application is made raw to push a point. Thus do the brutalists assert the right to be racist, the right to be a misogynist, the right to hate Jews or foreigners, the right to ignore civil standards of social engagement, the right to be uncivilized, to be rude and crude…

This, in contrast to the libertarian “humanitarians” among whom Tucker counts himself, who believe that:

Liberty allows peaceful human cooperation. It inspires the creative service of others. It keeps violence at bay. It allows for capital formation and prosperity. It protects human rights of all against invasion. It allows human associations of all sorts to flourish on their own terms. It socializes people with rewards toward getting along rather than tearing each other apart, and leads to a world in which people are valued as ends in themselves rather than fodder in the central plan.

It would be difficult to deny that there are libertarians who enjoy crudeness its own sake. But it appears that Tucker doesn’t really know what he wants. How can one favor the flourishing of “human associations of all sorts” and then complain about the ones that aren’t sufficiently polite? Take this muddle of contradictions from the same piece:

So let’s say you have a town that is taken over by a fundamentalist sect that excludes all peoples not of the faith, forces women into burka-like clothing, imposes a theocratic legal code, and ostracizes gays and lesbians. You might say that everyone is there voluntarily, but, even so, there is no liberalism present in this social arrangement at all. The brutalists will be on the front lines to defend such a microtyranny on grounds of decentralization, rights of property, and the right to discriminate and exclude—completely dismissing the larger picture here that, after all, people’s core aspirations to live a full and free life are being denied on a daily basis.

Is this town not a “sort” of “human association” that is operating “on its own terms”?

Moreover, how can everyone be there voluntarily, that is by their own free choice, and also have their “core aspirations to live a full and free life… denied on a daily basis?” Words matter, Mr. Tucker. If people are free to leave, they are being denied nothing. If they aren’t free to leave then they are not “there voluntarily.” If a person voluntarily gives up their right to live the kind of life that a 21st century Western liberal thinks is an ideal life in favor of something more traditional, who the heck is anyone to say that they aren’t living a “full and free” life?

Perhaps even more importantly, if one isn’t willing to defend the liberties of people one disapproves of, what exactly is  their worth to the cause of liberty? With all of the enthusiasm of Al Bundy helping a woman find a pair of shoes, Tucker acknowledges the natural right of people to live in homogeneous and exclusionary communities, but his rhetoric suggests he wouldn’t lift a finger to help them. In this era of HHS mandates, lawsuits against business owners of conscience who refuse to participate in same-sex “weddings” (and who knows where he stands on these cases, exactly), persecution of home-schoolers, and the villification of religion and traditional natural law morality in general by the whole mainstream establishment, should not the frontlines of the struggle for liberty be here, in these places If Tucker would say that those resisting the mandates and the lawsuits aren’t examples of “brutalism”, how exactly would he differentiate them those who are?

His comrades on the anarchist and libertarian left are clear on this question. We’re all denizens of one big reactionary and bigoted swamp. But at what point in this professing Catholic’s opinion do we who defend positions that the left and much of the mainstream labels sexist, homophobic, racist, reactionary, etc. become “brutalists”? From the very beginning due to the inherent “bigotry” of our positions, or just when we seem like jerks about it?

For example, consider the overt “brutalism” of gay pride parades, in which nude men strut past young girls dragged to the event by their morally-stunted parents. Do we not have a right to protect our children from this Satantic filth? Do we not have a right to be outraged at this obscene transgression of natural moral law and all standards of social decency? Should we not expect a professing Catholic to enthusiastically join us in this condemnation instead of implying that it is we who are in the wrong?

The truth here, and it is almost unbelievable that Tucker misses it, is that his description of brutalism applies a thousand times more to the libertine left than it does to the traditionalist right. Gay pride parades, “slut walks“, tampon earringskiss-inspublic fornication with frozen poultry – the list could go on indefinitely – this is anti-social behavior, this is the ignoring of “civic standards of public engagement”, this is the exercise of “the right to be uncivilized, to be rude and crude” in the name of personal liberty. Meanwhile most of the people he is complaining about want nothing more than what Justice Brandeis called “the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men”, the right to be let alone. 

Who does not see this, sees nothing.

Tucker says that “everyone needs to decide” if their libertarianism will be brutalist or humanitarian. I say that everyone needs to decide if they will use their liberty to proclaim and defend the natural moral law, the right of individuals to associate in communities that explicitly acknowledge that law, to resist the totalitarian ideology and unjust mandates of the Christophobes and egalitarian collectivists in positions of power, and to do it with all of the force and zeal of the prophets of the Old Testament; or, alternatively, to twiddle our bow-ties on the sidelines and maybe even lend a helping hand to the enemies of civilization.

It is my sincere hope that Mr. Tucker clarifies his position.

Share With Friends
  •  
  • 13
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    13
    Shares

Bonchamps

100 Comments

  1. Tucker evidently does not see boorishness in siccing lawyers on people.

    I think you or he have conflated libertarian concerns (which encompass property rights and freedom of contract for private parties), with decentralist concers (which encompass local discretion over the legal regime).


    A municipal government is a public authority and people have an investment in their property which functionally limits their discretion in exercising their freedom of association. One can conceive of people who bought property in a locus under one set of circumstances facing dramatically altered circumstances due to novel municipal ordinances. There was a rural township in Oregon which faced this problem in 1982 when the established municipal council was ejected from office in favor of delegates of a con man who called himself “Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh”. What mechanisms can their be and should there be to partition or disincorporate such a municipality? Can a property holder have claims against the authorities (as Richard Epstein has argued re the effect of planning and zoning on property values) derived from the effects of municipal ordinances (e.g. burkas required) on the resale value of his property?

    Conventionally, the regulatory authority of municipal government has been circumscribed, has generally operated in the realm of nuisance abatement, and has been limited to fines for penalties. To what extent are these conventions correct?

  2. Tucker’s remarks about a “fundamentalist sect reminds one of the traditional suspicion and hostility of classical liberalism towards corporations of any kind: churches, guilds, universities, orders of chivalry and the rest.

    Witness the French National Assembly’s famous declaration of August 18, 1792: “A State that is truly free ought not to suffer within its bosom any corporation, not even such as, being dedicated to public instruction, have merited well of the country.” As with the corporations, so also with the communes, the towns and villages. Village property—there was a great deal of village property in France—was exposed to the dilemma: it belongs to the State, or else it belongs to the now existing villagers. So too of voluntary associations of all kinds.

    The only type of association that aroused no suspicion was the trading partnership or company. F W Maitland has noted the paradox that the liberal state, “saw no harm in the selfish people who wanted dividends, while it had an intense dread of the comparatively unselfish people who would combine with some religious, charitable, literary, scientific, artistic purpose in view” and subjected them to a strict regime of licensing and surveillance, when it did not suppress them altogether.

    As Lord Acton explains, “It condemns, as a State within the State, every inner group and community, class or corporation, administering its own affairs; and, by proclaiming the abolition of privileges, it emancipates the subjects of every such authority in order to transfer them exclusively to its own.”

    Thus, Le Chapelier, in proposing his law of 14 July 1792 abolishing guilds, said “The guild no longer exists in the state. There exist only the particular interests of each individual and the general interest. No one is permitted to encourage an intermediate interest that separates citizens from the common interest through a corporate spirit”

    That is the authentic voice of liberalism; “no intermediary body can stand between the individual –armed with his natural rights – and the nation –the guarantor of those natural rights.”

  3. “For example, consider the overt ”brutalism” of gay pride parades, in which nude men strut past young girls dragged to the event by their morally-stunted parents. Do we not have a right to protect our children from this Satantic filth? Do we not have a right to be outraged at this obscene transgression of natural moral law and all standards of social decency? Should we not expect a professing Catholic to enthusiastically join us in this condemnation instead of implying that it is we who are in the wrong? ”
    .
    Precisely because our minor children and our yet to be brought into mankind, our constitutional posterity, are created in perfect moral and legal innocence and virginity is the citizen obligated “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity”, our (constitutional) posterity. This is from the Preamble to our constitution which spells out the state’s obligation, responsibilities and duties to the communities of its citizens who have constituted the government; people who look to the government to maintain their values, human rights and founding principles. Enjoying liberty may only be accomplished by defending, respecting and founding freedom for each and every person who is citizen.
    .
    It appears that Jeffrey Tucker has forgotten our constitution, our founding fathers and our founding principles. Tucker’s writing is inciting to riot, disturbing the peace, violating modesty, slandering every good citizen and impugning the virtue of Justice. Peace keeping officers with armed force may be required to quell the insurrection of such undisguised double standard; hypocrisy.
    .
    Jeffery Tucker may be free to say these things but Tucker is not free to escape the consequences; reaping the whirlwind.

  4. “No one is permitted to encourage an intermediate interest that separates citizens from the common interest through a corporate spirit””
    .
    Why does he assume an intermediate interest would separate citizens from the common interest through corporate spirit when it is precisely these guilds, churches, confraternities and corporate interests that grow, or are established to and ought to grow the common good.
    .
    “That is the authentic voice of liberalism; “no intermediary body can stand between the individual –armed with his natural rights – and the nation –the guarantor of those natural rights.”
    .
    Are we to be denied free association in a church or guild? If the intermediary body is the church, then this is atheism imposed, total disintegration of liberty. Denial of reason.

  5. Those four people in the above picture are not free to trample upon the purpose of the church, or upon the First Amendment by preventing freedom of worship in thought, word and deed, a person’s response to Faith and his relationship with our Creator. These people are prohibited from “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” They are not free to intrude into the parishioner’s need for privacy, inject their secularism and otherwise cause a disturbance. Appropriating another person’s time and attention without their informed consent is stealing.The openness of the church is for open persons. The welcome of the church is for people who welcome. Halloween, rather picket night is for individuals who destroy others’ peace of mind.

  6. “Those four women aren’t free –period. he noted dryly”
    .
    One is a kumquat head, one is a grape, one is a gooseberry and the last is a blueberry. All executioners of a fruit salad.

  7. Too much of modern libertarianism is fixated on economics, and to the extent it draws its attention away from economics, examines social questions through a (very incoherent) prism of “consent.” Associational freedom is acknowledged, but outside of business transactions, it is viewed like zoo patrons goggling at a particularly strange specimen or exhibit.

    In short, they have a stunted notion of civil society. Too few have any idea of the importance of mediating institutions (especially churches, but also the classic civic and charitable organizations) and the restraints imposed by such institutions. Consequently, they’re left with a rather atomized understanding of liberty. Tucker has a better understanding than most, but he has his blind spots, as here. “Liberty” without the right to be disagreeable, even in big associations, is something right out of Orwell.

  8. “That is the authentic voice of liberalism; “no intermediary body can stand between the individual –armed with his natural rights – and the nation –the guarantor of those natural rights.”

    This is not the authentic voice of liberalism – it is the voice of Jacobinism. The Anglo-American classical liberal tradition has always recognized the vital social role of family, church and community.

    Of course you were referring to guilds and trade unions, which are fine when they are limited to collective bargaining on behalf of voluntary participants but which SHOULD be dismantled when they attempt to irrationally restrict trade and labor for the sake of a narrow and privileged class of laborers. An economy that serves the poor cannot tolerate a regime of special privileges for workers or businesses.

  9. “Of course you were referring to guilds and trade unions,”

    Actually, I was thinking of neither. I was thinking more along the lines of Kiwanas, Jaycees, KofC, the American Legion, the Boy Scouts (at least before the zeitgeist completes their destruction). Even Elks and Moose organizations, Shriners, etc.

    All of which are more or less exclusive, but are also more or less civically-minded and active. They also seem to be fading some, which says a lot about the atomization of society.

  10. I was thinking more along the lines of Kiwanas, Jaycees, KofC, the American Legion, the Boy Scouts (at least before the zeitgeist completes their destruction). Even Elks and Moose organizations, Shriners, etc.

    To some extent, I think it’s temporal variation in tastes. However, I have been told by old timers that you began to see the decay fifty-odd years ago with the advance of home-entertainment. He was telling me a story (this in 1988) of encountering a contemporary he’d known for some time who was collecting a Democratic Party petition around the corner from him. The man complained “will you look at this, they’ve got me doing this [at my age]”. The people who showed up for committee meetings skewed old, and there were not many. He offered a guess that monthly attendance of county committeemen (in a city with 240,000 residents) did not make it out of two digits.

    Not too many years later, a shirt-tail relation was telling me someone was trying to get him to join the Kiwanis Club before the actuarial tables chewed that chapter to pieces (he was 28 at the time; the recruiter was an elderly neighbor). The local Rotary tried to recruit me in 1995; I did not own my own business and it was rather embarrassing sitting their eating their food and listening to the retiree who ran it read jokes out of the International’s magazine. Real bad jokes. I begged off. I think Rotary, Lions, and Kiwanis might be less injured by these processes if they had a more distinct institutional mission and some bond that maintained esprit de corps (partially frayed by co-ed membership). It seems to me that the volunteer fire company and volunteer ambulance corps in my area were healthy.

  11. “…it appears that Tucker doesn’t really know what he wants. How can one favor the flourishing of ‘human associations of all sorts’ and then complain about the ones that aren’t sufficiently polite?”

    I’m afraid that you are missing the point, Mr. Bonchamps.

    Brutalism isn’t about being impolite. It’s about relishing one’s right to be impolite.

    Conversely, Libertarian Humanism isn’t about being polite all of the time: it’s about striving to minimize social discord to the full extent possible.

    The Brutalist embraces bigotry and revels in the right to expound his bigotry.

    The Humanist seeks social discourse and an ethic that abandons bigotry.

    http://www.libertysetsquare.com/libertarian-brutalists/

  12. I want to know what you and Tucker consider “bigotry”, first of all; secondly Tucker states that “humanitarians” want to see “human associations of all sorts” flourishing. That ought to be revised, at least, since there are clearly some associations you’d rather see dead.

  13. To them, what’s impressive about liberty is that it allows people to assert their individual preferences,

    People do that in markets.

    ==
    to form homogeneous tribes,

    Few associations of any size are completely homogeneous. However, where there are boundary conditions, the tribe in question will homgeneously display those conditions.
    ==
    to work out their biases in action,

    We all have biases, which are manifest in what we patronize and with whom we spend time. A generation ago, Wm. F. Buckley offered he was outraged at the insistence that he justify every inclination. Leon Wieseltier replied that if he were a true intellectual he would give rational reasons for everything. Of course, Wieseltier could never adhere to such a standard (and did not have an editor willing to tell him to not be a pompous hypocrite in print).
    ==
    to ostracize people based on “politically incorrect” standards,

    If you have standards, some people do not meet them. Your implicitly criticizing the standard without saying what it is and how you critique it.
    ==
    to hate to their heart’s content so long as no violence is used as a means,

    Yeah, Stormfront has wide appeal among soi-disant ‘libertarians’
    ==
    to shout down people based on their demographics or political opinions,

    Since when is the ‘heckler’s veto’ a cause of soi-disant ‘libertarians’?
    ==
    to be openly racist

    What is the boundary of that? You do realize that it’s the contention of partisan Democrats that Republican politicians are ‘racist’ when they breathe in and out (because their breathing creates ‘dog whistles’)?
    ==
    and sexist,

    And you do realize that the term is so elastic as to be meaningless? And that it would certainly be applied to any Catholic who asserts the complementarity of man and woman? Someone’s going to be excluded. Why me?
    ==
    to exclude and isolate and be generally malcontented with modernity,

    Because it’s been such a great trip I could not possibly be discontented with it?
    ==
    and to reject civil standards of values and etiquette in favor of antisocial norms.

    Did it occur to you that self-appointed guardians of ‘civility’ often offer ‘standards’ which are shambolic?

    ==

    You chaps have just not worked this out.

  14. Bigot:

    a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

    – Merriam-Webster

    The term “unfairly” is key. In the bigot’s case, the hate or refusal to accept a person or group does not follow logically from rationally sound premises.

    When you have consenting adults engaging in voluntary behavior, not obstructing or infringing on other people’s rights to do the same, and not destroying others’ property or endangering the lives of others, they are in accord with the Non Aggression Axiom.

    The bigot will nonetheless condemn the respective consensual and voluntary behavior, based upon premises that are not derived objectively and rationally, but subjectively, e.g. a religious text or demagogue proclaims the behavior to be immoral, and so it is so.

    The Libertarian Brutalist will expound their bigotry but, distinct from the non-Libertarian Brutalist, also assert their natural right to do based upon how any attempt to curtail their freedom to be bigoted is an infringement of the Non Aggression Axiom.

    So, the main thing that makes Libertarian Brutalism unappealing is not the bigotry per se, but the appeal to the Principle of Non Aggression with the aim of going after those operating according to the Principle of Non Aggression.

    This is inherently contradictory. Thus, it undermines the objectivity and rationalism of libertarian philosophy and projects an image of selective-rationality and subjectivity. This just gives ammunition to the enemies of individual liberty, and reinforces the perceived “validity” of collectivist, illiberal paradigms.

  15. A question we must all ask ourselves:

    When you have determined that you hate something, why do you hate it?

    Is the hate based on objective analysis of the problem, and a conclusion that the respective persons/behavior is destructive to Liberty? Or is it based on a subjective opinion?

    Liberalism, in the classical sense, stemming from the Enlightenment seeks to construct a system of ethics and social organization based upon objective axioms, formed from reason and evidence.

    Illiberalism, by contrast, utilizes emotion, appeal to authority, might over right, and fiat dictates.

    To defend illiberal conclusions and modes of conduct by utilizing the classical liberal scheme of natural rights theory is self-defeating and leads to….what?

  16. “Tucker states that “humanitarians” want to see “human associations of all sorts” flourishing. That ought to be revised, at least, since there are clearly some associations you’d rather see dead.”

    News to me. Tell me, exactly, what associations I’d want to ‘see dead.’

  17. Whew. I can read Mr Tucker and easily get his point even if he is not perfect in his way of saying it.
    There must be just as wide a range of libertarians within their own framework as there are of any other classifications on the socio political continuum.
    Disclosure: I get Chant Cafe in my daily mail and may not be so angry as Mr Bonchamps because I already like what I read of Jeffrey Tucker.

  18. “What does Pussy Riot have to do with any of this???”

    People who screw frozen chickens in public are the real brutalists. That’s kinda the point of the whole thing. Sorry you didn’t get that.

  19. “The term “unfairly” is key. In the bigot’s case, the hate or refusal to accept a person or group does not follow logically from rationally sound premises.”

    The whole reason we need to use the language of rights and invoke rights to begin with is because there are ALWAYS going to be different understandings of what is logical, rational, etc. even IF – as I believe – that there is, objectively, a true position. If we know our position is true and our enemies equally believe it to be false, and no argument can persuade them otherwise, then we can ONLY appeal to rights as we defend ourselves in the court of law and public opinion. If you don’t get this, you’ve missed the entire point of classical liberalism altogether.

  20. “The whole reason we need to use the language of rights and invoke rights to begin with is because there are ALWAYS going to be different understandings of what is logical, rational, etc. even IF – as I believe – that there is, objectively, a true position.”
    —-
    Of course there will always be people who reject reason and evidence: that’s what allows for the Brutalism. The above quote of yours doesn’t speak to the main issue raised by Tucker. The issue is not whether people will always be logically consistent, it is that we should pursue consistency in our philosophy; that is what defines the Libertarian Humanist. The Libertarian Brutalist is one who is logically inconsistent with the philosophy.
    —-
    Someone who acknowledges the Non Aggression Axiom, and then uses it to demonstrate the soundness of Freedom of Association is logically consistent.

    If that same person then fails to recognize that something like say, being atheist, is also permitted under the Non Aggression Axiom, then they are being logically inconsistent.

    Further, if they go on to say that they wish to establish their society on the principles of Liberty and of Non Aggression, but with the proviso that atheism should not be allowed in this society, then they are also being logically inconsistent.
    ——-
    “If we know our position is true and our enemies equally believe it to be false, and no argument can persuade them otherwise, then we can ONLY appeal to rights as we defend ourselves in the court of law and public opinion. If you don’t get this, you’ve missed the entire point of classical liberalism altogether.”</b"

    —–
    Well the entire idea with classical liberalism was that human beings could discover objective truth.

    Just because an enemy of the truth chooses to claim that no such thing exists, that doesn't make it so, it just means those of us who embrace liberalism have to strive that much harder to make the positions unassailable, hence the Humanism.
    ——
    For example, people in the Liberty camp are going to maintain that property rights are self evident and objectively valid, based on the first self evident truth that we exist, and we are self owners of our bodies. From there you get the Lockean property rights, which I am sure you are familiar with.

    Now, a Marxist may come along and claim that private property is merely an "invention" or "institution."
    ——
    Based on the Marxist's assertion, do we then just scrap the whole idea of the self evident, objective validity of self ownership? No, we demonstrate to him how he is being logically inconsistent. We might do this via something like Hans Hoppe's Argumentation Ethic.

    In the face of inconsistency in logic, and of subjectivity in ethics, we as libertarians strive to make our own arguments ever more logically consistent and objectively irrefutable with evidence, we don’t just give up and say “well, I guess some people don’t acknowledge objective truth, and they use subjective fiat, so we will start being subjective as well.”

  21. “People who screw frozen chickens in public are the real brutalists. That’s kinda the point of the whole thing. Sorry you didn’t get that.”
    —–
    I wasn’t aware that Pussy riot was screwing chickens in public. To my knowledge, they were singing some harsh lyrics that condemned the Putin regime, nothing more.
    ——
    Even if they were screwing frozen chickens, this might be off putting to some people, but the problem is not with the action, it’s with the space where the action is taking place.
    ——
    Since they were in a “public” space (open square and national heritage church, i.e. public property), this means that no one passerby or group of passersby have the legal right to tell them to stop what they are doing, unless of course a “public law” is passed.

    —–

    The solution to stopping behaviors being performed in public that people do not wish to see is to privatize property, and to get rid of the artificial distinction between public and private law. Also, to adopt actual Law, as opposed to Legislation.

  22. “The truth here, and it is almost unbelievable that Tucker misses it, is that his description of brutalism applies a thousand times more to the libertine left than it does to the traditionalist right. Gay pride parades, “slut walks“, tampon earrings, kiss-ins, public fornication with frozen poultry – the list could go on indefinitely – this is anti-social behavior, this is the ignoring of “civic standards of public engagement”, this is the exercise of “the right to be uncivilized, to be rude and crude” in the name of personal liberty.

    I would agree with you completely that most all of that behavior is rude and crude.
    ——
    Where I have to disagree with you is in your argument that this somehow refutes Tucker.

    ——
    Tucker never said those types of things are what we want to promote. He never said that you have to like them, and he never said that you don’t have the right to be left alone.

    —–
    What he did articulate was that we shouldn’t be forming “homogeneous tribes” and citing Freedom of Association with the ulterior motive of expounding hate on others who are not doing anything to us.

    In a lot ways, you are going after a strawman with this article.
    ——-
    Tucker’s piece isn’t about telling you what you must and must not approve of as social norms; it’s about reminding us that we should strive for logically consistent ethics and that we should use Liberty to allow us to act to our highest aspirations, not our base impulses. In that sense, I think he would agree with you that something like a public orgy or whatever is socially disruptive and profane.

    ——-
    To me, the idea of Libertarian Humanism is basically the Golden Rule: do unto others, Love thy Neighbor, and so forth.
    —–
    Saying “go forth and sin no more” is a lot different than saying “we need to kill the fuckers.”

  23. Jack wrote, “the first self evident truth that we exist, and we are self owners of our bodies.”

    Is self-ownership of our bodies really self-evident?

    Dominus membrorum suorum nemo videtur: No one is to be regarded as the owner of his own limbs, says Ulpian in D.9.2.13. pr.

    To the Roman jurists and the later Civilians, the notion that the body of a free man could be owned seemed absurd, for only things in commerce can be owned. There is the further problem that the relationship between the individual and his body is rather one of identity than control.

    Modern civil codes reflect this. Thus, the French Civil Code provides in Article 16 “The human body, its elements and its products may not form the subject of a patrimonial right,” and “Agreements that have the effect of bestowing a patrimonial value to the human body, its elements or products are void”

  24. The people in the picture above are in a church. The church is the only place they can, but ought not do that. In our Preamble to our Constitution the purpose is written: “to secure the Blessings of Liberty”, the “Blessings of Liberty” are one concept, not “Blessings” and “Liberty” but the “Blessings of Liberty”. Is there a difference of desecration of a church from the right or from the left?

  25. Michael Paterson-Seymour: “Thus, the French Civil Code provides in Article 16 “The human body, its elements and its products may not form the subject of a patrimonial right,” and “Agreements that have the effect of bestowing a patrimonial value to the human body, its elements or products are void”
    .
    Abraham Lincoln: “One person cannot own another person.”

  26. Michael Paterson-Seymour: “Thus, the French Civil Code provides in Article 16 “The human body, its elements and its products may not form the subject of a patrimonial right,” and “Agreements that have the effect of bestowing a patrimonial value to the human body, its elements or products are void” .
    .
    Compare that with Roe v. Wade.

  27. The Libertarian Brutalist is one who is logically inconsistent with the philosophy.

    You keep evading the problem. “Libertarian brutalist” is not a term that defines a coherent concept.

  28. Since they were in a “public” space (open square and national heritage church, i.e. public property), this means that no one passerby or group of passersby have the legal right to tell them to stop what they are doing, unless of course a “public law” is passed.

    The land tenure regime really makes scarcely a whit if difference, most particularly in loci with a long history of state seizure of property.

  29. “The solution to stopping behaviors being performed in public that people do not wish to see is to privatize property, and to get rid of the artificial distinction between public and private law.”

    Another solution is to arrest and prosecute the offenders for a breach of the peace. Insulting language, accompanied by protracted annoyance is a breach of the peace. Again, in one old case, where a person repeatedly and wilfully left a church in a noisy manner during service, thereby annoying and disturbing the minister and congregation, a verdict finding him guilty of breach of the peace, but negativing malice, was sustained.

  30. Somebody help me out here. Jack and Bonchamps have me confused. Which one is Michael Novak and which one is Pat Buchanan?
    .
    And does anybody have an exit strategy in the event that the brutes suck us into a quagmire?

  31. More for Jack:

    “Someone who acknowledges the Non Aggression Axiom, and then uses it to demonstrate the soundness of Freedom of Association is logically consistent. If that same person then fails to recognize that something like say, being atheist, is also permitted under the Non Aggression Axiom, then they are being logically inconsistent. Further, if they go on to say that they wish to establish their society on the principles of Liberty and of Non Aggression, but with the proviso that atheism should not be allowed in this society, then they are also being logically inconsistent.”

    The problem with this whole statement is that not even Tucker claims to be addressing people who inconsistent in this way. His fundamentalism example clearly establishes that the people are in this community VOL-UN-TAR-IL-Y. It means they are free to enter and exit of their own free will, and to submit to the rules of the community once they have FREELY chosen to enter it. This has to be the third time I’ve pointed this out to you. Read the paragraph again. I quoted it in this very blog post! Tucker is attacking voluntary societies. He is acknowledging their right to exist but deriding them for existing, and making it rather clear – to me anyway – that he wouldn’t do anything to help them continue existing.
    .
    “Well the entire idea with classical liberalism was that human beings could discover objective truth.”
    .
    No. You’re completely wrong. That idea had existed for centuries before classical liberalism, the pagan philosophers and Christian scholastics all believed in objective truth. Read Thomas Aquinas sometime. Classical liberalism challenges the idea that objective truths, beyond a few basic axioms required for a peaceful society, can ever be dictated by the state, precisely BECAUSE people who are convinced that they have the truth will justify anything and everything they do to those who they cannot convince. Classical liberalism is about asserting the individual’s right to dissent; individuals also have the right to associate, to from communities, to establish laws and norms of conduct. As long as people are FREE TO LEAVE a community, it does NOT violate the NAP. Tucker’s hypothetical fundamentalist town, he says in his own words, IS a voluntary community. It’s just one that he doesn’t want to defend beyond a cursory mentioning of natural rights, one that he would clearly only defend with reluctance. Only we “brutalists” will be on “the front line” of defense. Read it again. Read it until you get it.

  32. “The problem with this whole statement is that not even Tucker claims to be addressing people who inconsistent in this way. His fundamentalism example clearly establishes that the people are in this community VOL-UN-TAR-IL-Y. It means they are free to enter and exit of their own free will, and to submit to the rules of the community once they have FREELY chosen to enter it. This has to be the third time I’ve pointed this out to you.”

    I’m well aware of this. Have you seen how many times I have used the term Freedom of Association in the posts?
    ——–
    “Tucker is attacking voluntary societies. He is acknowledging their right to exist but deriding them for existing…”
    —–
    No, that is just simply not correct. He is deriding those societies which exist based upon principles of intolerance. He is not saying that they do not have the right to be intolerant: he is bemoaning that they are intolerant to begin with. It really is that simple. The Humanist is the one who wishes to abandon the intolerance that is based upon logically inconsistent “proofs,” and/or appeals to emotion, and the Brutalist is one who embraces, relishes and perpetuates this type of intolerance.
    ——
    “No. You’re completely wrong. That idea had existed for centuries before classical liberalism, the pagan philosophers and Christian scholastics all believed in objective truth. Read Thomas Aquinas sometime.”
    ——–
    Where did I say that Classical Liberalism was the origin point for objective philosophy? I merely said that that was the ideal behind Classical Liberalism, not that they created the ideal. You are going after more strawmen.
    ——-
    “As long as people are FREE TO LEAVE a community, it does NOT violate the NAP. Tucker’s hypothetical fundamentalist town, he says in his own words, IS a voluntary community. It’s just one that he doesn’t want to defend beyond a cursory mentioning of natural rights, one that he would clearly only defend with reluctance. Only we “brutalists” will be on “the front line” of defense.</b"
    ——–
    Of course this doesn't violate NAP; who said otherwise? Again, I will say that all Tucker is doing is saying that just because you have the right to be intolerant of certain behaviors doesn't follow logically from any proof that these behaviors are themselves contrary to individual Liberty. Again, let me be clear:
    Tucker is simply bemoaning the existence of intolerance based upon logically inconsistent application of the philosophy of individual Liberty, which he describes as Brutalism.
    ——-
    To put it another way, the whole thesis of Tucker’s essay is: Why do you value individual Liberty? Is it because it gives you and your group the ability to hate, accost and be inconsistently intolerant to your hearts’ content; or is it because you see in Liberty the possibility of everyone’s opportunity for peaceful and civil development to be enlarged? If the former, you are a “Brutalist.” If the later, you are a “Humanist.”

  33. Art Deco:

    “The Libertarian Brutalist is one who is logically inconsistent with the philosophy.


    You keep evading the problem. “Libertarian brutalist” is not a term that defines a coherent concept.”

    The sentence of mine that you just quoted did define the concept. So let me get this straight…you post a quote of mine where I am defining the concept, then right beneath it tell me the quote is invalidated because no one has defined the concept.
    ——-
    If this is the type of reasoning you guys employ, I think I have done all the work I can do here.
    ——
    In the end, I don’t need to convince you, and you don’t need to convince me. I think both sides have said pretty much everything that can be said, and we are starting to go in circles. We just have to wait for others to come by and read the articles, read the comments, and then see what they decide makes the most sense. So, may the best arguments win.

  34. Mary de Voe:
    —-
    “The people in the picture above are in a church. The church is the only place they can, but ought not do that. In our Preamble to our Constitution the purpose is written: “to secure the Blessings of Liberty”, the “Blessings of Liberty” are one concept, not “Blessings” and “Liberty” but the “Blessings of Liberty”. Is there a difference of desecration of a church from the right or from the left?”

    The reason the Pussy Riot incident is troublesome, legally speaking, is because that church was not just any old Orthodox church.
    ——
    It was in a public square and listed as the Russian equivalent of a “national heritage site.” It was totally open to the public: people routinely stream through there and take pictures. They also routinely set up music or play instruments.
    —–
    Pussy Riot got into hot water with the authorities not because they played music at the site, which other groups had done, but because of the nature of their music.

  35. Micahel Patterson-Seymour:
    —-
    “Is self-ownership of our bodies really self-evident?”
    —-
    If you do not own your own body, then who does? If you are not privy to your own thoughts, then who is?
    ——
    Like I said, I am growing weary of this blog. It’s one thing to debate the points of Tucker’s essay, or to work together for explanation of nuances. But it is getting a little ludicrous around here now.

  36. Jack,
    .
    No one is asking you to stay. You seem to have a hard time with voluntarism. If you don’t like posting here, leave.
    .
    “I’m well aware of this.”
    .
    No, I don’t think you are. You keep insisting that these communities are “logically inconsistent” because they violate the NAP. A voluntary community does NOT violate the NAP. If a voluntary community says “we do not allow atheists here”, it is not a violation of the NAP because no one has to stay there.
    .
    “He is not saying that they do not have the right to be intolerant”
    .
    You have some serious reading comprehension problems. I JUST said, and said a million times, that Tucker acknowledges their right to exist as they like. You even quoted me saying it! What’s wrong with you?
    .
    “Where did I say that Classical Liberalism was the origin point for objective philosophy?”
    .
    You said it was the main idea behind classical liberalism. It isn’t. If it were, then classical liberalism would not exist as a distinct philosophy. Classical liberalism SHARES a belief in objective reality with Christianity. It’s main idea, it’s main contribution, or at least one of them, is that objective reality should not be dictated by the state, but rather left to individuals and communities to discover and proclaim on their own.
    .
    Of course this doesn’t violate NAP; who said otherwise?
    .
    You, repeatedly.
    .
    This is you: “If that same person then fails to recognize that something like say, being atheist, is also permitted under the Non Aggression Axiom, then they are being logically inconsistent.”
    .
    A voluntary community, by DEFINITION, recognizes that atheism is permitted under the NAP, because it recognizes that anyone is free to leave their community and be an atheist somewhere else. So when you set up these strawmen communities that supposedly don’t recognize the NAP, you’re not even talking about the kind of community that Tucker was criticizing. All that is required for a community to acknowledge the NAP is voluntary exit. That’s it. They don’t have to allow or permit anything else.

  37. I am SO Pat Buchanan. I only disagree with him on free trade. I’m for it; he isn’t.

    So you’re position then is let the brutes be as brutal to each other as they want, so long as they aren’t brutal to us, correct?

    And does that make Jack Michael Novak?

  38. If you do not own your own body, then who does?

    I’m not a lawyer, Jack, so the term I’m looking for doesn’t come immediately to mind, but I think the point was that we don’t own ourselves free and clear, so to speak. Meaning that we can’t do whatever we want, however much we want, with/to our bodies whenever the fancy takes us.

    My wife has claims on me* My children have claims on me. My parents and siblings have claims on me.

    *In Antipodosis Bishop Luitprand of Cremona has a great anecdote illustrating this point: Some feudal magnate or another has won a battle and intends to castrate the survivors prior to selling them into slavery. One fortunate captive’s wife show up on the scene to tell the magnate he doesn’t have the right to castrate her husband because his testicles belong to her. She means it literally rather than in the metaphorical sense we’ve come to associate with the “the ol’ ball-n-chain” –to substitute one euphemism for another.

  39. Bonchamps:

    —–
    “A voluntary community, by DEFINITION, recognizes that atheism is permitted under the NAP, because it recognizes that anyone is free to leave their community and be an atheist somewhere else.”
    —–
    Of course. But the question is why not tolerate the atheist in the community? Where does the intolerance come from?

  40. Schreiber:
    —–
    “So you’re position then is let the brutes be as brutal to each other as they want, so long as they aren’t brutal to us, correct?

    And does that make Jack Michael Novak?”
    —-
    I think it just makes you someone that shoehorns every viewpoint into that of two individuals. What’s that about?

  41. Bonchamps:
    —-
    “No one is asking you to stay. You seem to have a hard time with voluntarism. If you don’t like posting here, leave.”
    ——–
    It’s not that I don’t like posting, it’s that I have a hard time keeping my patience when people deliberately obfuscate, or come up with inane rhetoricals like: ‘But are we really in control of our own bodies?’ I get the impression that few people on this blog are actually interested in expanding their thinking about this issue.
    ———-
    Oh well. Maybe I’ll write Tucker’s thoughts in a book, bury it in the sand and 650 years later everyone will not only say he was right, but if you don’t agree with my testament, then you are going to burn for it. Or maybe not. Time will tell.

  42. Bonchamps:
    —-
    “You keep insisting that these communities are “logically inconsistent” because they violate the NAP. A voluntary community does NOT violate the NAP. If a voluntary community says “we do not allow atheists here”, it is not a violation of the NAP because no one has to stay there.”
    —–

    I totally agree. As does Tucker. What he and I are saying is that intolerance of atheists can’t be based on any logical proof that cites the NAP, because just being an atheist does not, in fact, violate the NAP. The intolerance would have to be based on something else, subjectively derived: like, “my minister said atheists are of the devil, so I don’t talk to them.”
    ——–
    It’s the rationale behind the exclusion I’m concerned with, not the exclusion itself. Is the rationale of the intolerance logically consistent with Liberalism or not? That question is irrespective of if the right to exclude is consistent with Liberalism (which it is, as you keep highlighting).
    —–
    “You said it [objective knowledge] was the main idea behind classical liberalism. It isn’t. If it were, then classical liberalism would not exist as a distinct philosophy. Classical liberalism SHARES a belief in objective reality with Christianity. It’s main idea, it’s main contribution, or at least one of them, is that objective reality should not be dictated by the state, but rather left to individuals and communities to discover and proclaim on their own.”
    —–
    Ok, two things. First, the reason the classical liberals were concerned with any state authority dictating what did and did not constitute knowledge was because this replaced objective knowledge, or the subjective views of the populace, with the subjective dictate of the ruler. Hence Liberty of Conscience, Freedom of Association and all that. So we should be in agreement here.
    —-
    Second, Christianity is not an exponent of “objective reality.” It’s a system of *faith*. People choose to put their faith into a revelation made to them through the scriptures of a testament. This is not objective, self-evidence. It’s subjective choice. You choose to be a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Hindu or none of them. No one can logically prove to you that Mohammed’s revelation is reality, or that Jesus walked on water. You take these things on faith.
    ——-
    I feel that Thomas Paine’s The Age of Reason, Part One does a better job than I’ll ever be able to do in expounding on this. So I’ll stop there.

  43. Bonchamps:
    ——
    “Classical liberalism SHARES a belief in objective reality with Christianity.”
    —–

    What about Genesis? If Christians are after objective knowledge, why is the Fall of Man about disobeying a directive from a higher entity and ‘eating of the fruit of knowledge’? Why were Man and Woman in grace when they followed orders and were ignorant, and then fell into sin when they sought knowledge?
    ——-

  44. What’s that about?

    Thank you for asking Jack. It’s about trying to understand what you two are arguing over by way of using the neo-con vs. paleo-con arguments on the Iraq war as an analogy. Because it seems to me that you’re both deep in the weeds over who the “real” libertarians are. Or who the real brutalists are. It’s all very subjective.

  45. I’m willing to come at it from the other end, too. For example:

    Resolved, that Captain James T. Kirk is the paragon of the ideal of a humanitarian libertarianism.

    I’ll leave it to you two to decide who’s arguing in the affirmative and who’s arguing in the negative.

  46. “Second, Christianity is not an exponent of “objective reality.””

    Yes. It. Is. Catholic Christianity is, for certain. Again, familiarize yourself with Thomas Aquinas. It is a central tenant of Christian philosophy that there is an objective reality independent of the human mind, and that this reality can be understood through the use of reason.

  47. It seems to me that any American community which has gay pride parades also have laws against public nudity, so to me, if people are not arrested and made to answer to that statute, it is the authorities who have failed society. I think it is the police bowing to the majority at the parade, while the true majority (not in attendance) are not being served as is their right. Also, I’m pretty sure Jeff Tucker has never advocated public nudity in any circumstances! His sense of style, if nothing else, would preclude it!

  48. If Christians are after objective knowledge, why is the Fall of Man about disobeying a directive from a higher entity and ‘eating of the fruit of knowledge’? Why were Man and Woman in grace when they followed orders and were ignorant, and then fell into sin when they sought knowledge?

    Umm that might have something to do with the fact that the objective knowledge they sought in eating the fruit was the objective knowledge of good and evil.

    To say nothing of the fact that did so as to be as gods.

  49. Ed,
    .
    “Also, I’m pretty sure Jeff Tucker has never advocated public nudity in any circumstances!”
    .
    I’m pretty sure I never said he did. I just think that those who do march around nude are better representatives of “brutalism” than the traditionalists and reactionaries that Tucker maligned repeatedly in his piece.

  50. Bonchamps:
    —–
    “A voluntary community, by DEFINITION, recognizes that atheism is permitted under the NAP, because it recognizes that anyone is free to leave their community and be an atheist somewhere else.”
    —–
    Of course. But the question is why not tolerate the atheist in the community? Where does the intolerance come from?

    .
    Because the atheist is a brute?

  51. Schreiber:
    ——
    “Umm that might have something to do with the fact that the objective knowledge they sought in eating the fruit was the objective knowledge of good and evil.

    To say nothing of the fact that did so as to be as gods.”

    This doesn’t address my question.

    You still have failed to show how Original Sin consisting in disobeying a directive, out of yearning for knowledge, and the partaking of knowledge, somehow demonstrates fidelity to a search for objective knowledge.
    ———
    The bottom line is that Genesis demonstrates the primacy of subjectivism in the scripture: a subjective dictate to not eat of the fruit of knowledge that is subjectively determined to be good or evil by a party aside from the one seeking the knowledge.

  52. Bonchamps:
    —–
    “Yes. It. Is. Catholic Christianity is, for certain. Again, familiarize yourself with Thomas Aquinas. It is a central tenant of Christian philosophy that there is an objective reality independent of the human mind, and that this reality can be understood through the use of reason.”

    ———
    Do you honestly think I haven’t read Acquinas? It’s because I have that I make the argument that I do.
    ——
    Christianity is not Acquinas. Acquinas is Acquinas.
    —–
    When you go into a Roman church, you aren’t being asked to take sacrament on Acquinas or his words. So you still haven’t addressed my original point concerning faith vs. objective knowledge:
    ——
    Christianity is not an exponent of “objective reality.” It’s a system of *faith*. People choose to put their faith into a revelation made to them through the scriptures of a testament. This is not objective, self-evidence. It’s subjective choice. You choose to be a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Hindu or none of them. No one can logically prove to you that Mohammed’s revelation is reality, or that Jesus walked on water. You take these things on faith.

  53. Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    .
    “the right of the people…to peaceably to assemble…”
    .
    “Free association” is not, I repeat, is not peaceable assembly. The peoples’ constitutional right to peaceable assembly does not allow indecent behavior or nakedness or any behavior that would distress an innocent child who has not reached the age of reason expected at seven years and informed consent at the age of emancipation, when the person is capable of caring for himself and defending himself against the brutality and rapaciousness enjoyed and the scandal given by law breakers.
    .

    The Church in the photo above was subsumed into the state as a museum. The church can never be made into public property because as a church, the church is public property. The church belongs to the parishioners and is held in trust for all future generations…held in trust for all future generations, our constitutional posterity. So, it is: In God We Trust.
    .
    God is our objective truth.
    .
    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” …from the Declaration of Independence.
    .
    Only an infinite God, The Supreme Sovereign Being can and does endow unalienable rights. Rights that never end are unalienable because they are rights that belong to an infinite God, bestowed on an immortal human soul by “our Creator.” These unalienable human rights are endowed into man’s immortal soul for all eternity. The person’s sovereignty, personhood, identity; the person’s being, once brought into existence, exists forever, for eternity.
    .
    “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
    .
    “Rights that the state gives the state can take away”…Thomas Jefferson
    .
    The state is finite, constituted by “the consent of the governed”. Any rights the state may endow are finite even if they are the most just and most generous. The rights the state gives are finite. They will end. “…deriving the just powers…” not unjust powers, not tyranny, nor totalitarianism, nor communism, nor fascism, nor brutalism, nor license outside of morality, decency or truth.
    .
    The human being is composed of human body and rational, immortal human soul. The atheist, embracing atheism, denies “our Creator”, denies our rational, immortal human soul, and the truth about our unalienable human rights endowed by God. What is secular and human is of God. Without God there is only what the atheist chooses to relinquish to another person who is a citizen.
    .
    Atheism is unconstitutional for the reason of denying constitutional rights to all men.
    .
    Freedom of Religion must remain absolute for the time when the atheist must change his mind and accept God, for the time when the atheist has a relationship with God in the sacrifice of praise and worship in speech, press and peaceable assembly.
    .
    These are America’s founding principles in Truth and Justice. If anyone wishes to deny these, our founding principles to another person, that individual forfeits his own civil rights.
    .
    The human being is an individual substance of a rational nature, of the species Homo Sapiens. Existence is the criterion for the objective ordering of human rights. All persons are created in moral and legal innocence and virginity. It is the duty of the state “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our (constitutional) posterity”, to protect and provide for the innocent and deliver JUSTICE.

  54. “Jesus walked on water”.Matthew, Mark, Luke and John gave first hand testimony to the life and works of Jesus Christ and all of the books written cannot hold this testimony.

  55. How is the atheist a brute? When the aetheist doesn’t reciprocate the tolerance he demands, instead prefering to insist that the rest of the community tolerate his intolerance for their beliefs,* he’s acting brutishly, is he not?
    .
    *do I really need to list any of the examples everybody ought already know?

  56. And you’re right, I misunderstood your question about Genesis. Thanks for expounding. But I fail to see how your objective knowledge/faith-based subjective knowledge distinction is determinative of anything.
    .
    After all, saying a truth is self-evident is just another way of saying everybody should have the same faith in it that you do; whether that self evident truth is that all men are created equal, or that if I should step out of a window on the 20th floor I’ll fall at an accelerating velocity of 32ft per second per second until I reach terminal velocity*.
    .
    *whatever that is –memory of high school physics fails.

  57. Jack referred to “inane rhetoricals like: ‘But are we really in control of our own bodies?’”

    Nevertheless, the principle that we do not is embedded in the legal system that governs most of Europe, Central and South America and that has been adopted in cultures as diverse as South Africa, Turkey and Japan.

    I find it difficult airily to dismiss two thousand years of civilised jurisprudence and its underlying ethical principles as “inane rhetoric.”

    Do you really support the proposition that the law should recognise and enforce contracts for the sale and purchase of human gametes, children conceived under contract with a view to their abandonment by their mother or kidneys for transplantation? That creditors should be able to seize and sell a debtor’s remains to the anatomists in satisfaction of a debt? That potential conscripts may mutilate themselves to evade military service? In short, that concepts of ownership applicable to articles of commerce can be applied to free persons?

  58. Bonchamps wrote, “people who are convinced that they have the truth will justify anything and everything they do to those who they cannot convince.”

    Jacques Maritain refuted this fallacy, which he rightly declared a barbarous and erroneous assumption: “If it were true that whoever knows or claims to know truth or justice cannot admit the possibility of a view different from his own, and is bound to impose his true view on other people by violence, the rational animal would be the most dangerous of beasts. In reality it is through rational means, that is, through persuasion, not through coercion, that the rational animal is bound by his very nature to try to induce his fellow man to share in what it knows or claims to know as true or just. And the metaphysician, because he trusts human reason; and the believer, because he trusts divine grace, and knows that “a forced faith is a hypocrisy hateful to God and man”, as Cardinal Manning put it, do not use holy war to make their “eternal truth” accessible to other people, they appeal to the inner freedom of other people by offering them either their demonstrations or the testimony of their love. And we do not call upon the people to decide because we are aware of our ignorance of what is the good, but because we know this truth, and this good, that the people have a right to self-government.”

  59. Mary de Voe:
    —-
    “Atheism is unconstitutional for the reason of denying constitutional rights to all men.”
    ——
    That would be valid for a an atheist who seeks to impose atheism by force upon others, or presumes to tell others that they cannot be theists. But for the atheist that adheres to the NAP, it is not valid. The atheist in accord with NAP is not violating anyone’s rights.
    —-
    “But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” – Thomas Jefferson

  60. Ernest Schreiber:

    “And you’re right, I misunderstood your question about Genesis. Thanks for expounding. But I fail to see how your objective knowledge/faith-based subjective knowledge distinction is determinative of anything.”
    —–
    You’re very welcome. Thanks for staying civil about this.
    ——
    I am not attempting to be determinative about anything. I was replying to Bonchamps assertion that Christian philosophy is in alignment with the philosophy of objective truth.
    —–
    All I am highlighting is that ANY system of faith, Christian or otherwise, is just that, “a system of FAITH.” Whenever faith is arrived at through the testaments of others, then, as Paine put it, you are essentially putting your faith in hearsay. This is subjective by definition. I am not determining to say anymore or less than that about it. I am just asking people like Bonchamps to not confuse subjective beliefs with objective knowledge.

  61. Ernest Schreiber:
    —-
    “How is the atheist a brute? When the aetheist doesn’t reciprocate the tolerance he demands, instead prefering to insist that the rest of the community tolerate his intolerance for their beliefs,* he’s acting brutishly, is he not?”
    ——
    Well, if the atheist attempts to force other people to give up their theism, or he is intolerant of theists, I am in complete agreement with you.
    —-
    But, I am talking about an atheist who is not intolerant. I am asking: why not extend tolerance to an atheist who is himself tolerant?

  62. Mary de Voe:
    —-
    “God is our objective truth.”

    I personally agree with you. I feel that the evidence is sufficient to prove as irrefutable that there is a higher power, Supreme Being, First Cause or whatever you want to call it behind the origins of the universe. I also believe that insofar as this entity lays behind time before time, matter before matter, i.e. beyond the realm of knowledge into the unknowable realm of pre-Big Bang, then it would be correct to call this entity our Creator or the Architect of all that is.
    —–
    All I am concerned about is trying to build a society here on earth where our fellow men and women do not abuse or shun those who choose to not recognize such a Creator, or to do so in their own way, which may lay at odds with our own divergent interpretations. Tolerance must surely be in accord with the laws of the universe, and of the Creator.

  63. Art Deco:
    —-
    “Jack, you’ve spun your wheels to the tune of 3,600 words.”
    —–
    I am sad you see it that way. I feel that I’ve profited from interacting with the people on this thread. They have required me to see issues from other vantage points, and I have tried to do the same.
    ——

  64. “The atheist in accord with NAP is not violating anyone’s rights.”
    .
    Faith is a gift from God. Religion is man’s response to the gift from God. The atheist rejects the gift of faith from God; the atheist rejects God; and God’s gift of man’s immortal soul. In doing so the atheist rejects every man’s immortal soul.
    .
    —- “But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” – Thomas Jefferson
    .
    It does violate the minor child’s uninformed conscience to be told by the very existence of the atheist that he has no immortal soul, no unalienable human rights, no God given love and adoption by God as a child of God.
    .
    What is more brutal than not being prayed for by people who choose to not pray for one?
    Thomas Jefferson lived in a culture of freedom. With the ACLU, atheism has become the cultural norm.

  65. Jack: You agree with everybody as long as your atheist is more equal then the rest of the atheists. Sorry Jack, the atheist is not better or above any other sovereign person created by our Creator, simply by virtue of his choice of atheism.

  66. “Do you honestly think I haven’t read Acquinas?”
    .
    Since you can’t even seem to spell “Aquinas”, yeah, I’m pretty sure you don’t know what you’re talking about here.
    .
    “No one can logically prove to you that Mohammed’s revelation is reality, or that Jesus walked on water.”
    .
    That doesn’t mean that Christianity rejects objective reality. It asks to have faith that certain things which cannot be proven empirically are in fact true – objectively true, not just subjectively true. Everything we believe to be true is a choice, even if it meets standards of proof you consider reliable. No one has to do anything. We are all free. But Christianity holds that there is a reality that exists independent of the human mind – objective reality. That is a fact.

    Your argument is completely wrong. Just about everything you’ve argued, stated, written, claimed, etc. has been completely wrong.

  67. Bonchamps:
    —–
    “Since you can’t even seem to spell “Aquinas”, yeah, I’m pretty sure you don’t know what you’re talking about here.”
    —-

    If a slip of the keyboard is all you’ve got on my argument, I am sorry, I think that means you lose by default.
    ——
    If I said your argument was inane, or inaine….does it really matter?

  68. Mary de Voe:
    —–
    “Sorry Jack, the atheist is not better or above any other sovereign person created by our Creator, simply by virtue of his choice of atheism.”
    —–
    How on earth did you get that out of my argument?

  69. Mary de Voe:
    —–
    “It does violate the minor child’s uninformed conscience to be told by the very existence of the atheist that he has no immortal soul, no unalienable human rights, no God given love and adoption by God as a child of God.”
    ——
    Yes. That is why I asked why the atheist who is in accord with the NAP cannot be tolerated. I am not talking about an atheist who is busting into people’s houses sermonizing.
    —–
    In the same way, hopefully the theists won’t go door to door shoving their faith in other people’s faces.

  70. Bonchamps:
    —–
    “But Christianity holds that there is a reality that exists independent of the human mind – objective reality. That is a fact.”
    —-
    Holding that there is an objective reality is a fact for everyone who is not schizophrenic. So this doesn’t establish anything.
    —–
    Objective Philosophy and Objective Truth are different from accepting objective reality.
    —–
    I can hold that there is an objective reality, and even say I know the objective truth…but if that truth is *arrived at subjectively*, then I am ascribed to subjective truth, not objective.
    ——-
    If a sandwich is sitting on a plate on a table, you and I are both going to recognize that the plate, table and sandwich exists. We are both going to say that we live in an objective reality. Lets assume that neither of us has eaten of the sandwich yet, and cannot see from where we stand what lays between the bread.
    ——
    If you say that the sandwhich is baloney and cheese, because your friend told you yesterday that the sandwich you will find on you table the next day is going to be baloney and cheese, because it came to him in a dream he had had the night before, then you go on to tell me: “I know what’s in it: baloney and cheese.” You are imparting subjective knowledge to me.

    —–
    If I say, “that’s subjective, lets taste it,” I’m after the objective truth of the matter. If I eat of it, and find it’s actually PB&J, we are going to have a disconnect.

  71. Bonchamps”
    —-
    “Since you can’t even seem to spell “Aquinas”, yeah, I’m pretty sure you don’t know what you’re talking about here.”
    —–
    As an aside on this, you would know if you had looked at various texts that uniformity wasn’t exactly the order of the day in the middle ages. There is a lot of difference between Germano-Latin and Frankish-Latin, for example. Sometimes the same author would spell a term three different ways in one book, e.g. Ceasare Cesare and Ceasar.
    ——

  72. “a slip of the keyboard”
    .
    You did it three times. It just undermines your credibility, that’s all.
    .
    “Holding that there is an objective reality is a fact for everyone who is not schizophrenic.”
    .
    Well, again, you’re wrong. It isn’t a given in philosophy that there is a mind-independent reality, or that it is knowable through the use of reason. These are distinct positions that Christianity takes up, especially in the Middle Ages. It forms the philosophical foundation for the scientific revolution.

  73. Bonchamps:
    —–
    “You did it three times. It just undermines your credibility, that’s all.”
    —-
    It’s called misspelling: it happens, especially in English. Like I said, depending on where you are getting your Latin from, you are going to see various spellings, particularly with proper nouns. How’s “Aquino” work for you? But again, the only one who is undermining their credibility is you: if that is what you have to resort to, i.e. spelling errors, to demonstrate that someone’s argument is not consistent, then you might as well forget about it.
    ——-
    The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, http://www.deism.com/images/theageofreason1794.pdf

  74. Bonchamps:
    —–
    “Well, again, you’re wrong. It isn’t a given in philosophy that there is a mind-independent reality, or that it is knowable through the use of reason. These are distinct positions that Christianity takes up, especially in the Middle Ages. It forms the philosophical foundation for the scientific revolution.”
    ——
    “Christianity” can’t “take up” any questions: because it is an inanimate ideology. *Christians* can philosophize, “Christianity” cannot do it. Christianity is not personified.
    —-
    Unless, you are now telling me that any time a professed Christian wrote or spoke, then “Christianity” was also writing or speaking. If that is what you mean, have you adopted collectivism now as well? I can’t believe I am even having to explain this, honestly.
    ——-
    “It forms the philosophical foundation for the scientific revolution.”
    ——-
    It was a significant portion of the cultural fabric at the time; a part of the social condition within which science reemerged from the Dark Age. So what? I could say that Islam was the ‘philosophical foundation for the scientific revolution’ of Eurasia (and actually, Muslim scholars were engaging in scientific inquiry and advanced mathematics long before anyone in Christendom): this statement contributes nothing, it refutes nothing, it advances nothing.
    —–
    Having said that, please explain to me how men were threatened with execution for splitting light in a prism, and suggesting that rainbows were formed from the refraction of light. How did this type of environment come about? Does putting a man to death for demonstrating how rainbows form part of the “foundation” that allowed for objective knowledge?
    ——
    And so long as we are talking of St. Aquino, what about his consultation of Aristotle? The thing that set Tomas Equinos apart was his use of the Aristotilean method. Aristotileanism is not Christian, seeing as how it predates the religion by about 350 years.

  75. A man is endowed with sovereign personhood by the Supreme Sovereign Being at the creation of his rational, immortal human soul and the conception of his human body. Atheism denies the Supreme Sovereign Being and man’s sovereign personhood. God is three Persons in the Blessed Trinity. Man’s existence is proof of God’s existence. The atheist bears witness to a lie. The atheist is tolerated. The atheist’s lie is prosecuted.
    .
    Pornography is a lie about the human being. The pornographer is tolerated. The pornographer’s lie is prosecuted.
    .
    Abortion is a lie about the existence of man’s rational, immortal human soul and his sovereign personhood. Abortion must be prosecuted.
    .
    Every lie must be prosecuted. Only the truth has freedom.

  76. Mary de Voe:
    ——
    “A man is endowed with sovereign personhood by the Supreme Sovereign Being at the creation of his rational, immortal human soul and the conception of his human body.”
    ——
    Couldn’t agree more. The idea with liberalism, Libertarian “Humanism” or whatever you wish to call it is to use that rational part of the soul you speak of to its’ fullest.
    ——-
    “The atheist is tolerated. The atheist’s lie is prosecuted.”
    ——–
    So long as by “prosectued” you mean within the realm of discourse, non-violent persuasion, even condmenation, that’s all well and good. No problem with the NAP. But running the athiest out of town on a rail is something else. The Humanist simply asks that we observe the same codes of treatment we would wish on ourselves. I.e., I don’t want atheists running me out of the community on a rail, so I am not about to do it to them. Likewise, if I live in a fundamentalist community, and I am a fundamentalist, but my son decides he is going to be an atheist, I would hope that the Community Leaders aren’t going to tell both of us that he has to leave. So long as he remains civil and observes the laws of the community, why should he not be tolerated, and be allowed to habitate there?
    ——

  77. “Couldn’t agree more. The idea with liberalism, Libertarian “Humanism” or whatever you wish to call it is to use that rational part of the soul you speak of to its’ fullest.”
    .
    Sorry Jack. Rejecting our Creator, our unalienable rights, our freedom of peaceable association is not using our rational soul to the fullest. It is contrary to reason.
    .
    “But running the athiest out of town on a rail is something else.”
    .
    Sorry Jack. The nation has the power to exile any person who causes a call to treason or riot or denies another person his civil rights. The state has a right to ostracize any person who calls to treason or rejects another person’s God-given unalienable civil rights, for in denying another person his unalienable civil rights, he forfeits his own. See Article One, Section Three of the Constitution. for Bills of Attainder.

  78. Mary de Voe:
    —-
    “Sorry Jack. Rejecting our Creator, our unalienable rights, our freedom of peaceable association is not using our rational soul to the fullest. It is contrary to reason.”
    —–
    Yes. I agree with you. As I’ve said before, the evidence is overwhelming for the existence of a Supreme Being. I think the atheist is guilty of an intellectual hubris and indeed, as you highlight, NOT taking reason to its full conclusions when we examine the nature of the universe. All I’m saying is I’m not going to run the atheist out of town for that. He/she has the liberty to have an atheist mindset, even if they have to deny reason to get there. To reference Jefferson again, the atheist ‘neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg’ by being an atheist. Therefore, I’m going to advocate for tolerance and say he/she should be allowed to stay in the community, even if I think they are off base. Of course, if the atheist starts accosting me, or getting his friends together and saying the theists need to be exiled, then that is another matter.
    ——-
    “Sorry Jack. The nation has the power to exile any person who causes a call to treason or riot or denies another person his civil rights. The state has a right to ostracize any person who calls to treason or rejects another person’s God-given unalienable civil rights.”
    —–
    Well both examples deal in the idea of the collective as the fundamental, not the individual. Personally, I’m an anarchist. I would like to see property rights protected by private firms that people voluntarily contract with. The problem with both the State and the “nation” is that you are born into both as a matter of circumstance. If I am born into a area of the world that practices strict Wahabi Islam, I don’t want to be subjected to their “power to exile” me. Same thing with a nation of atheists, Mormons, Baptists or whatever.
    —–
    Now, as for inalienable rights, the State aggresses against these same rights it claims to protect: right to property, to fruits of your labor, right to refuse service, etc. etc.
    ——
    The U.S. constitutional republic has done a comparatively better job of safeguarding our rights than other States, but I think we could do even better within the context of a Private Law Society aka Free Society. I.e., private firms for defense of life and property, combined with private arbitration firms that utilize a system of polycentric law to settle disputes.
    —–
    Thanks for the constructive dialogue.

  79. Mary, I thought I acknowledged our ‘constitutional posterity’ when I wrote how “The U.S. constitutional republic has done a comparatively better job of safeguarding our rights than other States.”
    ——-
    “You did not address…the duty of the state to deliver truth and Justice.”
    ——-
    Well, as a Libertarian, I cannot assent to the idea that any state/government can deliver truth and justice. Human beings can seek the Truth and discover the laws that will approach Justice, but no group of humans should be invested with the power to claim they and they alone will deliver Truth and Justice. That includes a constitutional republic.
    ——–
    Justice is to be arrived at through those who are held to be objective and wise in judgement in light of Law. Truth is for everyone to seek, and the ‘deliverance’ of such to be via the realm of peaceful discourse.
    —–
    But giving authority to a corporate entity like the State to presume what is Justice and Truth is very dangerous. This is a dangerous power that no society has ever been able to cede to anybody without suffering for it in the end. This is because once the State has such power, it does not allow anyone to question, much less challenge it, and the State makes its’ decisions binding on everyone.

  80. George Washington’s constitutional posterity are being aborted at 4,200 per day and the taxpayer is paying for their murder.
    .
    “Justice is to be arrived at through those who are held to be objective and wise in judgement in light of Law. ”
    .
    Human existence is the criterion for the objective ordering of human rights. Fransisco Suarez from Aquinas.

  81. Mary de Voe:
    —-
    “George Washington’s constitutional posterity are being aborted at 4,200 per day and the taxpayer is paying for their murder.”
    —–
    yes…that’s why I said: “The U.S. constitutional republic has done a comparatively better job of safeguarding our rights than other States, but I think we could do even better within the context of a Private Law Society aka Free Society.”
    ——-
    “Human existence is the criterion for the objective ordering of human rights. Fransisco Suarez from Aquinas.”
    ——
    Yes. The foundation for natural law. Was this supposed to run in opposition to something I had said? I think, once again, we are in agreement, even if you do not realize it.

  82. “within the context of a Private Law Society aka Free Society.”
    Lenin promised his followers, useful idiots as they were, FREEDOM, that is, before he laughed them out of his office. Free association is not peaceable assembly. Peaceable assembly is implemented in the service and sacrifice of praise to God.
    .
    “”Human existence is the criterion for the objective ordering of human rights. Fransisco Suarez from Aquinas.” —— Yes. The foundation for natural law. Was this supposed to run in opposition to something I had said? I think, once again, we are in agreement, even if you do not realize it.”

    .
    What I do not realize is an acknowledgement of the human being’s immortal soul as the creation of God and an acknowledgement of The Supreme Sovereign Being. Worshiping natural law instead of natural law’s Creator leaves me with a very hollow ringing in my being.

  83. Mary de Voe:
    ——
    “What I do not realize is an acknowledgement of the human being’s immortal soul as the creation of God and an acknowledgement of The Supreme Sovereign Being. Worshiping natural law instead of natural law’s Creator leaves me with a very hollow ringing in my being.”
    ——
    If people actually respected natural law, then the worship of the Creator would never be in jeoporady. It shouldn’t be an either-or scenario.
    —–
    On that note, I am not sure if anyone actually “worships” natural law. Insofar as natural law is not personified, how would anyone worship it? And again, a zealous, fervent respect and observance for natural rights is not going to in any way endanger theism; rather it ensures that true theism can exist and flourish.

  84. Mary de Voe:
    —-
    ” Free association is not peaceable assembly. Peaceable assembly is implemented in the service and sacrifice of praise to God.”
    ——
    I don’t understand what you mean by this: it could be taken to at least 4 different conclusions.

  85. Jack: “On that note, I am not sure if anyone actually “worships” natural law. Insofar as natural law is not personified, how would anyone worship it? And again, a zealous, fervent respect and observance for natural rights is not going to in any way endanger theism; rather it ensures that true theism can exist and flourish.”
    .
    You have confused natural law with natural rights. Natural law is what it is. Natural rights are endowed by our Creator to the sovereign person’s immortal, human soul by virtue of his being in existence as a human being.
    .
    You, Jack, exist. Your existence as a human being is proof that God exists.
    .
    “” Free association is not peaceable assembly. Peaceable assembly is implemented in the service and sacrifice of praise to God.”
    .
    The First Amendment is freedom of religion, man’s sacrifice of praise to almighty God which is expressed in thought, (conscience), word (speech) and deed (Press and peaceable assembly) invoking Divine Providence on our nation. (as opposed to mob mentality, inciting to riot, spreading ignorance, perjury, slander, fomenting rebellion, desecration of God and man and property, heresy, their name is legion.)

Comments are closed.