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 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. 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.
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?
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.”
“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.
He shoulda thought of that sooner.
“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.
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.
Those four women aren’t free –period.
he noted dryly
“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.
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.
“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.
[…] J. F. Desmond Bishops & Bloggers: There Is a Way Out of This Impasse – The Catholic Hrld The Real Brutalism: A Critique of Jeffrey Tucker – Bonchamps, TACatholic Fisher-More College Being Sued Now – BigPulpit.com Bp. Egan: […]
Too much of modern libertarianism is fixated on economics,
—
And the drug laws.
“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.
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.
“…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/
Dale,
.
I was replying to MPS. I should have made that clear. I agree with your initial post.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I just took image of the top image:
What does Pussy Riot have to do with any of this???
“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.’
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.
“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.
“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.
“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.”
“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.
“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.”
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”
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?
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.”
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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?
Ernst Schreiber,
I would suggest a ‘surge’ of engagement.
I am SO Pat Buchanan. I only disagree with him on free trade. I’m for it; he isn’t.
Jack,
I do not claim that my utter disappointment with Tucker’s priorities refutes his arguments. His contradictions do that.
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.
“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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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’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.
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?
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?
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.