You and me Monkeys! Libertarianism or bust...!

[_mormonmistress]

I was saying that smacking has nothing to do with the special case of children and libertarian thought. If a parent hurts a child then the state may step in. Right?

Not sure you are all aware of this, but we have an anti-smacking law here. it was passed back in May this year. Very interesting in light of your discussion. by the way, this article was written just before the law was passed.

Most Extreme Anti-Smacking Law in World" - Expert
Monday, 14 May 2007, 9:39 am
Press Release: Family First
13 MAY 2007
MP's to Vote on "Most Extreme Anti-Smacking Law in World" - Expert

Politicians will vote this week on the world's most extreme anti-smacking law in the world, according to Dr Robert E Larzelere, Associate Professor of Human Development and Family Science at the Oklahoma State University, who was brought to New Zealand by Family First NZ as a scientific expert on child correction for the debate on Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill.

In a commentary written after his week in NZ earlier this month speaking with politicians and media, he says ".the imminent New Zealand smacking ban is more extreme than Sweden's ban in three ways. Using force to correct children will be subject to full criminal penalties ..

Sweden's ban had no criminal penalty. In addition, New Zealand's bill bans the mildest use of force to correct children, not just smacking. This removes most disciplinary enforcements parents have used for generations, especially for the most defiant youngsters. Finally, the required change in disciplinary enforcements will be the biggest change ever imposed on parents."

Dr Larzelere also highlights concerns of immigrants to NZ with the law and says "The New Zealand bill's proponents claim that missionaries were responsible for introducing smacking and bashing to the Maori and other South Pacific peoples. The irony is that they are doing the same thing they accuse missionaries of - imposing a European philosophy of child correction on native ethnic groups - this time enforced with criminal penalties."

He warns that the law to be voted on this Wednesday by Parliament ".runs counter to scientific evidence, previous experiences with similar bans, and the wisdom of previous generations as far back as we can remember. It illustrates the world's increasing inability to work out well-reasoned balanced positions rather than forcing people to choose between polarized extremes."

Dr Larzelere compares our politicians' efforts to ban smacking with US President George W Bush's decision to invade Iraq and says Bush ".had an overly optimistic view about invading Iraq because they heard only one optimistic side of the scenarios. Now our country is in a quagmire with no good way out. For the sake of New Zealand's children and future, I hope they have a better exit strategy than George Bush."

Dr Larzelere's full warning can be read at http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/Dr_Larzelere

[/quote]

[_Ren]

Ahhhhh.
Monk - now I understand what was going on in the 'other' thread. Sorry I wasn't up, but I was dead tired...

OK - hmm, my thoughts on this... (I'm hoping I can be straight up and honest without causing offense or annoying you...!)

Well, there are several points in your posts where you say 'I wouldn't say a word'. Well, saying words doesn't force anything on anybody - their just words.

It's one thing to force someone to stay home. It's another thing to say "I WANT (or NEED) you to stay home".
The first action contradicts Libertarianism. The second one doesn't.

...so we move on to the related thought: What is force? You say you never wanted to 'exert' some form of control over the situation. Is that perhaps a strong way to state it? Couldn't you also describe it as 'exerting some influence over the situation'? I don't see wanting to 'influence' a situation to be the same as 'controlling' it. Force is actually a VERY strong word - and that's the only point where I see immorality. But there is all kinds of grey that leads up to that point.

Odd, no?

I don't think it's that odd. You wanna see odd, spend a few days in my life for a bit...! I can take the art of screwing myself up over things that don't 'really' matter to all new heights sometimes... ;)

Where am I wrong here?

If I'd pick out a point where I think you may have it 'wrong', it'd be where you seem to decide that Libertarianism means we can't even think about influencing others too much at all. Or at least that's how I'm reading you.
If we are denying ourselves the right to even 'influence' others and the world around us, we've pretty much just denied ourselves the right to even exist...!

It's about reaching the point where you are FORCING someone else to do something. THAT'S the boundary line - for me.

I said earlier in the thread that I considered Ghandi to be the greatest Libertarian in history. And I think he's a perfect case in point.
He pushed for non-violent non-compliance. The non-compliance part is JUST AS IMPORTANT as the non-violent part. We Brits being there and occupying that land was only of any benefit to us if we had control of the people. Ghandi knew that once that was lost, we'd piss off.

He was called 'passive' by some. Actually, I think he was anything but... He didn't believe in forcing anything on anybody, and yet he was fairly central in changing the course of history for not only the entire state of India (/ Pakistan) and the British Empire but also - to some extent - the entire world.

Not bad for a humble little Indian in glasses and a simple white robe. That wouldn't hurt a fly...

My first marriage my husband would leave and ask if he could leave for days. My reply would be, "I'm not going to tell you not to." I couldn't force my will upon him! My second marriage I refused to try to 'control' my husband.... although he was EXTREMELY manipulative and controlling.

Referring back to above - I'd say the point where you thought you couldn't even ask someone to do something, or say 'If you don't do X, I'll do Y' - or something of this nature is where I think you had (have?) been holding on to a pretty extreme idea of the concept...

[Guest]

Okay Ren, you're not annoying me! Or causing my any offense. Sheesh -WHY oh WHY does everyone think they cause me offense? ;)

My bad. The only reason was because of the 'other' thread.
...normally, I'd have just thrown it at ya. But I thought I'd just better check this time...

Can't reply properly now - I'm off to a Halloween Fancy Dress party down in London. :) Haven't actually sorted out what I'm gonna go as yet though - eeek...
...I'll get back to you on this stuff though...

EDIT: Actually, a very quick answer before I go:

I can tell them that I would 'wish' they would do something. I think that is OFTEN taken as tactic consent by the men I'm in relationships with - and of course why wouldn't it be?

I personally think the trick here is considering your own liberty as well as the other persons.
No - you can't and shouldn't 'force' a partner to do anything.

But you CAN say 'If you do / do not do this, than I will / will not do that'. So it's not a request. It's a statement - a statement that a certain action on their part will result in a certain reaction on your part. (Not an action that would violite their liberty of course -that wouldn't be allowed...!)
That's not affecting their liberty, it's only accepting that you also have your own. And THEY have to accept that. A consensual relationship is an agreement. Hopefully it's well defined from the off - but if it's not, or things change - then it's up to both partners to let the other know what the deal is. And that includes the fact that while they have their agency, YOU have yours too. And there is NOTHING WRONG with you using it, if needed...

Okay - but can't force also be verbal? I mean I can FORCE my children to do something by counting to a number. I can FORCE my husband to do something by verbally lashing out at him - okay not really! but some wives can!?

No. I don't accept any of that as 'force'. (Well, the 'counting' thing probably works because the THREAT of force is known - right?)
Saying things isn't force. I don't accept that. Not to say there isn't such a thing as verbal 'abuse', but I don't think that's the same thing. That's not necessarily about control...

Knowing how to 'push someone's buttons' isn't force either.

Grabbing. Locking up. Restraining orders! That's all force.
Saying: "I want / need you to do X" isn't.

Wouldn't the principle of free speech be a little dubious if it was?

[_Ren]

This was posted in the other thread, but I thought I'd bring it here...

Well of course you're absolutely correct Ren! And I think I hashed out why this makes me uncomfortable in our Libertarianism thread... and perhaps it should stay in that thread?

The thing about it is unless everyone is self regulating it all falls apart, no?

Let me ask you this; how do we maximize others pleasure? Does this mean we decide what is pleasurable for the other person? How do we go about doing that?

What if our pleasure is opposite of their pleasurable desires? Seems that there would be an impasse.

Well, this is the problem I have with almost all other moral systems - they don't specifically avoid the problem of wanting to force 'good' onto others. And I see SO much evil in this world having that motivation at it's heart. So it's a high priority for me...

If we take 'equality' as the moral standard, does that mean we get to force equality onto all - in the name of good?
If we take 'pleasure' as the moral standard, does that mean we get to force pleasure onto others? And yes - as part of that - decide what pleasure means on behalf of others? Do we declare those that don't seek pleasure 'immoral' in some way? Who actively deny themselves pleasure - for reasons that don't make sense to others?

The nice thing about Libertarianism is, you don't need to go analyzing underlying motives and drives to any deep degree. It really doesn't matter why anybody wants to do anything. You don't have to define 'pleasure' to some silly degree. You don't have to decide what is 'equal', or even how you would possibly go about achieving such an unachievable aim as making everybody 'equal'.

No - you just say that people want to do what they want to do. Doesn't matter why they do - they just do.
So the most moral outcome is to let people do what they want to do REGARDLESS of the reason, as long as those actions don't impinge on others to do what THEY want to do.

But of course the real reason I say I'm a Libertarian is that practically every situation that I apply it to, I come out with a solution that FEELS right to me. That's probably why any of us choose a moral system in the first place I suppose...

[_barrelomonkeys]

I'll reply later I'm making witch finger Halloween cookies! I just want to state for the record, "OH “F” ME!"

OMG! What a nutball I am. For real. Ack! Ack!

Oh hell.

BBL

[Guest]

<edited cause I got a lil snippy and ugly>

[Guest]

Hope you had fun at your party. I went to one last night too - but I was the hired help. I had lots of fun though!

What did you go as?

I can tell them that I would 'wish' they would do something. I think that is OFTEN taken as tactic consent by the men I'm in relationships with - and of course why wouldn't it be?

I personally think the trick here is considering your own liberty as well as the other persons.
No - you can't and shouldn't 'force' a partner to do anything.

But you CAN say 'If you do / do not do this, than I will / will not do that'. So it's not a request. It's a statement - a statement that a certain action on their part will result in a certain reaction on your part. (Not an action that would violite their liberty of course -that wouldn't be allowed...!)
That's not affecting their liberty, it's only accepting that you also have your own. And THEY have to accept that. A consensual relationship is an agreement. Hopefully it's well defined from the off - but if it's not, or things change - then it's up to both partners to let the other know what the deal is. And that includes the fact that while they have their agency, YOU have yours too. And there is NOTHING WRONG with you using it, if needed...

Well I think the thing is that I've been SOOO liberal in my relationships with other people that the idea that I would make an issue with what they were doing somehow made me judgmental. Hopefully that makes sense to you.

I did have my own liberty! I could choose to do as I willed as well. But when someone else does something is it appropriate to hold them hostage with threats? That seems odd.

For instance, my first husband would like to leave for a few days and go on road trips. Now sometimes I went with him, but later on I just stayed home because I wasn't that much into the 'scene' anymore. Now I had NO problem really with him going - but I would have rather he stayed home. But I would NEVER say do not go. If I had he would have without a doubt just stayed home. I didn't want to CONTROL him. My words could have welded power - if I told him NO he would have never gone. I know this, he knew this. But I would never desire to control him or make his choices for him.

Does that make sense?

Another thing - if I'm in a relationship with a man I have NO desire to control them. Many people use manipulation in their relationships to get what they want. I just can't do it Ren. I know how women can get their way... by bargaining etc... I just can not do it at this point in my life. Now no doubt I DO know how to manipulate a man if I so choose - but I've gotten to where I choose not to.

My choice to be an honest person that is not cruel should not be confused with my inability to be dis-honest and cruel. I can do it - I work hard at NOT doing it.

No. I don't accept any of that as 'force'. (Well, the 'counting' thing probably works because the THREAT of force is known - right?)
Saying things isn't force. I don't accept that. Not to say there isn't such a thing as verbal 'abuse', but I don't think that's the same thing. That's not necessarily about control...

Knowing how to 'push someone's buttons' isn't force either.

Grabbing. Locking up. Restraining orders! That's all force.
Saying: "I want / need you to do X" isn't.

Wouldn't the principle of free speech be a little dubious if it was?

Ahh.. but speech can be VERY persuasive. Speech also can be propaganda. Speech can also rouse people to commit horrid acts... Ren speech is a VERY powerful tool.

[_barrelomonkeys]

This was posted in the other thread, but I thought I'd bring it here...

Well of course you're absolutely correct Ren! And I think I hashed out why this makes me uncomfortable in our Libertarianism thread... and perhaps it should stay in that thread?

The thing about it is unless everyone is self regulating it all falls apart, no?

Let me ask you this; how do we maximize others pleasure? Does this mean we decide what is pleasurable for the other person? How do we go about doing that?

What if our pleasure is opposite of their pleasurable desires? Seems that there would be an impasse.

Well, this is the problem I have with almost all other moral systems - they don't specifically avoid the problem of wanting to force 'good' onto others. And I see SO much evil in this world having that motivation at it's heart. So it's a high priority for me...

If we take 'equality' as the moral standard, does that mean we get to force equality onto all - in the name of good?
If we take 'pleasure' as the moral standard, does that mean we get to force pleasure onto others? And yes - as part of that - decide what pleasure means on behalf of others? Do we declare those that don't seek pleasure 'immoral' in some way? Who actively deny themselves pleasure - for reasons that don't make sense to others?

Well I would say we could not force 'pleasure' or 'good' onto others... Now, as a philosophy I understand that. Of course in the real world there are times that we must use force for the good of all. When individual vs. public rights conflict it is a difficult thing to determine which preempts. Of course without the individual there are no public rights either. Yanno Ren, I've told you this before I have GREAT difficulty hashing this out in my mind because I did latch onto the libertarian philosophy for quite a while and see it as not realistic. Now I hope you know I'm talking the philosophy at this point - not the political. The philosophy would say I could NEVER force an individual to relenquish any rights for the public good. Of course politically this is different as it is necessary in a society to do this to some extent - to find a happy medium or balance. It's a difficult task!

The nice thing about Libertarianism is, you don't need to go analyzing underlying motives and drives to any deep degree. It really doesn't matter why anybody wants to do anything. You don't have to define 'pleasure' to some silly degree. You don't have to decide what is 'equal', or even how you would possibly go about achieving such an unachievable aim as making everybody 'equal'.

Absolutely! Everyone chooses for themselves! Although I've gotten to the point in my life where I recognize that very little of what we do does not impact others... So there's the problem for me! If we were all in a self contained vacuum I could see this working - of course our actions impact others.

Now also I've escaped from the philosophy understanding that I see such absurd contrasts between the haves and have nots in our society (in the United States and worldwide) that I WOULD want opportunity equalized as well as protections placed for help in the economic sphere as well.

No - you just say that people want to do what they want to do. Doesn't matter why they do - they just do.
So the most moral outcome is to let people do what they want to do REGARDLESS of the reason, as long as those actions don't impinge on others to do what THEY want to do.

And yet we do not live in a vacuum. Almost every choice we make impacts another. No? The philosophy SOUNDS good but when put into the real world it seems absurdly naïve to me!

But of course the real reason I say I'm a Libertarian is that practically every situation that I apply it to, I come out with a solution that FEELS right to me. That's probably why any of us choose a moral system in the first place I suppose...

And I'm the opposite of that! But you use political Libertarian when you make the above statement. I am not an American Libertarian - they've been hijacked by the radical right in our country. I would have been a little 'l' libertarian - close to anarchist.