CDR: Re: Shunning, lesbians and liberty

[Sampo A Syreeni]

On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Gil Hamilton wrote:

>>I do not agree. I think shunning harms you regardless, if it is organized
>>well enough. Say, you do something which causes your whole town to shun
>>you. Where do you suppose you get food, shelter, whatever from there
>>on? You'd say 'just leave', here, right? What if you do not have the
>>means? You just die?
>
>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?

>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>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.

>>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.

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.

>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.

>"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.

>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. 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).

>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.

>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.

>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.

>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.

>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. Could you explain how this differs from fascism?

>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?

Sampo Syreeni <decoy at iki.fi>, aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university