CDR: Re: Shunning, lesbians and liberty

[Gil Hamilton]

Sampo Syreeni writes:
>On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Gil Hamilton wrote:

> >This certainly gives one good reason not to piss off one's neighbors, eh?
>
>And if your neighbours are simply malignant? Since when did people need a
>reason to harm each other?

Then, too bad.  They haven't *done* anything to you.


> >This is of course the whole point of shunning.  It is a way of getting
> >people to behave in ways that are approved of by their community.
>
>Yep. That would be my point. This sounds deceptively like holding someone 
>at
>a gunpoint. It has little to do with liberty.

It has everything to do with liberty.  The kind of society you
envision is nightmarish: where everyone is required by law to act
in certain defined ways (not merely to refrain from acts which harm
others).


> >>becomes precisely as 'violent' as physical violence. Even if psychology
> >>isn't the hardest of sciences, it does suggest that isolation does
> >>significantly more than simply 'bug' people.
> >
> >Complete bullshit.  In other words, "Violence is whatever I say it is."
>
>Well, just debunk it. The point was, really, that even while I do have 
>great
>reservations about treating shunning and physical violence as equivalent, I
>do not accept the notion of specific liberties being absolute, either.

Indeed, you seem to be quite comfortable with police-state tactics so
long as the particular set of rules being enforced are those that you
approve of.


> >>I doubt that. Besides, that someone can be offended all s/he wants, s/he
> >>just shouldn't be allowed to do anything about it. (Except, of course, 
>what
> >>the freedoms of expression/thought/association/whatever guarantee.)
> >
> >So, people should be allowed the freedom of expression, thought and
> >association, yet they are prohibited from shunning?  You simply can't
> >have it both ways.
>
>Nor do I intend to. The point about shunning is simply about laying out 
>some
>of the well known problems of thorough libertarianism. I do not think such 
>a
>wide application of basic freedoms is automatically the best alternative.

It seems that you're really not at all interested in freedom of any
kind.  Indeed, you share much with the so-called "liberal" elements
of US society.  Lots of lip service to compassion for other people,
equality and brotherhood, all enforced at the point of a gun.


> >Either one is free to not associate with someone or they are not (in 
>which
> >case, their "freedom of expression and association" are nothing but lip
> >service).
>
>There is no essential reason why those freedoms couldn't be defined in some
>more limited form. It's not like these concepts are black and white.

Go to a dictionary and look up the several meanings of "freedom".
Then come back and tell me which one of those squares with your
notion of people being forced to do things they don't wish to do.


> >>I don't see it quite like that. In order to have meaningful freedoms one
> >>needs to have the possibility of enjoying them.
> >
> >Even if it requires *forcing other people* to do things they don't want
> >to do.
>
>Perhaps. Just as we force people not to do some things, like engage in
>physical violence. If we give people full control over all aspects of their
>association and on any conduct on their property, as you would probably
>like, you will most likely end up with the same restrictions (or even 
>more),
>only this time enforced by way of lynch mobs.

A complete non sequitur.  Indeed diametrically opposed to anything
I have said.  A lynch mob, almost by definition, is an imposition of
brute force against others.  (It must have been a tortured mental path
indeed that led from the exercising of one's rights to association and
enjoyment of one's own property to lynch mobs.  Someday maybe you'll
take the rest of us along for the ride, eh?)


>Look at it this way: if for some reason the survival of each and every 
>human
>being is conditioned on some part of the population doing thing x, wouldn't
>you say it is fair to demand that x be done even if the individuals would
>not want to? It's not a huge leap from this to limiting such 'inalienable'
>rights as the right to property.

I reject the premise as ridiculous and contrived.  But in a word, no,
I wouldn't say it is fair.  (Nor am I interested in striving for
"fairness", about which more below.)


> >People must behave exactly as you define "playing nice".  Otherwise, you
> >think they must be forced to "play nice".  Clearly, you're right and
> >everyone else is wrong and everyone else must be forced to do things your
> >way.
>
>Not really. I have no essential trouble giving certain parts of my freedoms
>away if that gains me the actual possibility of applying the remaining
>parts. And yes, this is the point where you cue in the talk about expanding
>governments, Big Brothers and whatnot.

It's quite apparent you have no trouble giving up your freedoms.
Worse, you have no trouble giving up mine too.


> >"Oh, but if they'll just 'play nice' then everyone is free to do as
> >they please!"
>
>Free as in having certain freedoms, which in this case have been more
>narrowly tailored. Besides, I've not quite committed to actually advocating
>such a model, yet. I'm just asking questions.

"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean.  Neither
more, nor less." said Humpty Dumpty.

However, for the rest of us, "freedom" has a certain meaning which
you are not "free" to redefine.  In Sampo's Orwellian world, "freedom"
apparently means something else.


> >Except somehow merely refusing to associate with someone is categorized
> >by you as physical violence.  And apparently as a shop-owner I cannot
> >exercise rights over *my own property* if what I choose to do is
> >inconvenient for someone else.
>
>If we, for some reason, have an (in)action, some damage and a strong proof
>of causality, it is difficult to justify differential treatment based on
>whether the damage comes from action or inaction.

Absent a clearly established obligation or responsibility to perform
some action, it is quite easy to justify differential treatment.  And
our legal system at least has always done so.


>                                                   And as for *your own
>property*, it simply isn't given that 1) all things can/should be privately
>owned (scarce resources, like the radio spectrum, are a classical
>example) or 2) owning certain things or using them in certain ways 
>shouldn't
>perhaps come with extra obligations (like using RF communication with extra
>responsibilities to minimize interference).

I don't consider the radio spectrum to be particularly scarce, nor
do I support the necessity for it to be government-controlled.
Nonetheless, such a shared resource is not at all the subject that
was being discussed.


> >The shop owner must be *forced* to tolerate behavior he doesn't approve
> >of?  What happened to his right to his own property?  Must he also
> >allow people to have sex in his shop?  Or masturbate?  Or curse?  Or
> >insult his customers?  Or slander the shopkeeper?  Or sing loudly?
>
>Some of the above, perhaps. If people are indeed dependent on shopping for
>their survival, I do think their right to live sort of preempts the shop
>owner's property rights.

In other words, the shop owner *has* no rights.  Only responsibilities.
And if he behaves well, Sampo's world will let him keep some of the
benefits of his property and his labor.  (Not too much though!  He
might start to think he has a right to it!)


> >Which set of things must he be forced to accept?  And if he throws
> >someone out for engaging in one of these behaviors, which things will
> >cause the Men With Guns to come and arrest *him* for "violating their
> >right of expression"?
>
>Those are particulars of the social contract in effect in the corresponding
>society. They need not be universal.

"Er, I really don't like to get too specific."


> >Since food and the like are necessities of life, isn't anyone free to
> >come in and just take whatever they like from the shop?  After all,
> >"What if you do not have the means? You just die?"  No, clearly the
> >shopkeeper would be "doing violence" to me if he tried to prevent me
> >from taking what I need to live.
>
>That is an extremely good question. In fact a central one to liberal 
>theory.
>I most certainly do not have an answer.

Your answer is already quite clear.


> >Life is unfair.  Get over it.  Those that depend on others for their
> >well-being or continued survival would do well to be more polite to
> >them.
>
>So, essentially, if somebody can oppress others, why not? Especially if
>there's profit or fun to it? Again this has little to do with liberty as I
>understand the concept.

"Oppress"?  Where did that come from?  Again, your words are slippery
and seem to mean whatever you want them to mean from moment to moment.
I don't consider my failure to do as you wish I would "oppression".


> >If you live at home with Mommy and Daddy, then you'd better
> >behave as they specify.  Likewise, if you must rely on commerce with
> >others for your survival, you'd better think twice about offending them.
>
>But even when you're *real* nice to them, they still have the incentive to
>exploit you. If you go this way, all the nice talk about liberties and
>freedom don't matter squat.

First "oppress", now "exploit".  You've been reading your Marx again,
haven't you?  Again, my failure to satisfy your every whim does not
constitute "exploitation".


>                             Could you explain how this differs from 
>fascism?

Fascism?  I don't see the relationship.  Indeed, it is your notion
that people must be forced to act in certain ways by an all-powerful
government, not mine.


> >In Sampo's world, it's okay to force someone to provide service to
> >those who insult them or offend them.  I wonder whatever happened to
> >*their* liberties.
>
>They got limited. That is what happens when you live in a society. Whoever 
>said life is fair?

Certainly not I.  Liberty is another word you could stand to look up.

Liberty does not equal equality.  Nor is equality a goal I would
espouse for the kind of society I believe in, since that inevitably
means taking from those who have more and giving to those who have
less (without regard to whether they "deserve" it or not).


- GH


_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.