A brilliant lecture, and one that showcases both what is attractive about libertarianism and what is flawed and anti-human about it. We absolutely are evolved for feeling that other people [in our small tribal community] are not merely our business but our very life, and if they're f**king up they're wasting resources at best and betraying us at worst. What Mencken describes as puritanical is a central part of the programming for any creature so socially-evolved as we are. Is there a way in the current year to implement this in a way that serves human flourishing? No of course not -- we're far past that now, maybe 20,000 years past it. But that doesn't mean libertarianism isn't itself a revolt against human nature, not so much blasphemy against God but against the gods of the copybook headings (in some more archetypical sense than Kipling meant).
I can't tell which side of this issue you're on, but telling somebody not to analyze whether or not just wanting to be left alone is actually productive for members of a society sounds like the kind of thing a libertarian would say. It's a rhetorical dodge to make it sound like a position is the simple commonsensical one, when actually it is an innovation.
To reduce confusion with the many other George Smith's -- George H. Smith.
His book, Atheism: The Case Against God, which I read in 1985, is still one of the very best. I would put it up there with J.L. Mackie's The Miracle of Theism. I used to chat with George in the late 1980s and early 90s and agree that he had a remarkable brain and was fun to talk with. I'm sad that he wasn't cryopreserved.
Guys like this got what they wanted. Drugs have been legalized de jure or defacto. The sexual revolution has only advanced. People are less religious than ever.
So where's all the human flourishing this was supposed to bring about. Seems like it all had the effects that Moynihan or Murray predicted instead.
I remember when the drug legalization crowd hounded on pot full time, finally got what it wanted, and the problems with drugs didn't go away. At least South Park can admit pot makes you a dumb layabout.
Opioids were so legal you got a prescription for them and your doctor fell over himself to get you to take them. This has led into the fentanyl problem.
And I don't know if you've noticed, but it's very easy to get drugs in this country. Even things that are illegal are cheap and available without much hassle. We have open air drug markets where people go unharassed by the law.
You know who doesn't have a problem with drugs, Singapore. Turns out the war on drugs can be a success.
But let's forget the law for a second. If all drugs were legal that wouldn't be enough. We also couldn't judge people for doing drugs either, that would be puritanical. And when their drug use predictably harmed themselves and their loved ones and society well that's just the price of freedom I guess.
"People are no less religious."
If we are going to define religion as "anyone who believes in anything" then this is an unfalsifiable claim.
People stopped going to church. They stopped believing in tradition church teachings. What happened. They got married less. Had fewer children. Used more drugs. Became less attached to work. Etc
It's almost like this religion that preached moderation, family, fecundity, industry, thrift, kindness, and self improvement had like a positive effect on those things versus "do whatever the fuck you want."
Pot makes you a dumb layabout. The War on Drugs makes you a felon with a record, who can't work even when you decide you want to - and makes you cost the rest of us a fortune in incarceration costs. And that's if you're not dead. Dumb layabout is a better result.
I'm deeply puzzled by the idea that executing people for possessing drugs is a better, more conservative idea than letting them experience the consequences of using the drugs. Many - most - people who experiment with drugs get over the thrill and go on to live productive lives; why not let them? And some people who experiment with drugs destroy their lives; that's why a kind conservative advises them not to do that. But a conservative does not impose a moral vision through violence.
What is the need to judge people? "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" and, of course, "Judge not, lest you be judged."
Yes, people get married less. Marriage imposes extraordinary financial penalties on anyone who marries someone who earns less than they do; in practice, the penalties are generally only imposed on men. Not surprisingly, it's harder than ever to find men who want to sign up for it; look at any dating website that tracks interest in marriage/kids and look at the male/female split. Marriage - like society - is no patriarchy and hasn't been for 60+ years. Modern marriage is a legal - not religious - institution that responds to the needs of an era long, long gone - if it ever existed. It needs to change or disappear. It will change, but it's a conservative institution so it will take time - and it will fade as it waits.
Yes, people have fewer children. Children used to benefit the family, but because we as a community care about children, we prohibit them from working and generating income. Heck, we won't even let their parents take their eyes off them until they're over 14 these days. We value children as a public benefit but impose the vast majority of the cost on their parents, to whom they increasingly look like incredibly expensive pets. Visit a vet's office and listen to all the single women there talk about the "fur babies" and understand: if we make child-raising really expensive, people will substitute human pets with (much cheaper) animal substitutes. If we, as a society, need more children, we need to pay for them; we can't rely on nature and lust to provide them anymore. That's a consequence of technology and economics, not loss of religious faith.
If the old religions are dying, whose fault is that? Like any other dying business, they have failed to keep up with the needs of their customers. New religions are emerging before our eyes. Old religions will claim the new religions aren't "real religions" - as they always have. New religions tend to be nutty at first, and wind up as old religions, because the only way a religion - or a country - can long prosper is if its members practice reasonable moderation, family, fecundity, industry, thrift, kindness and self improvement.
Finally, on "do whatever the fuck you want"... That's what people have ALWAYS done. What's changed is a willingness to let people discover better behaviors by accepting that some experiments will not be better and will have natural consequences, rather than simply condemning people with unusual lifestyles as heretics and witches. And if you don't understand the connection between that and the wonders that make life so much better, you haven't been paying attention.
"The War on Drugs makes you a felon with a record"
The concept of the "non violent drug offender felon" is basically propaganda. Nearly everyone in prison is a violent felon, even when in on a drug charge plea down (the statistics are clear on this and just go talk to a DA or sit on a jury in Baltimore). People who smoke pot (and only smoke pot, not violent criminals who also do drugs) very rarely get prosecuted and it counts as a misdemeanor. I've known people who smoke pot and none have ever had a problem with the law.
Libertarians embrace this myth because they don't really want to get tough on crime. If crime is because of the war on drugs rather then say low IQ black youths doing their natural thing in the absence of authority then the state of our inner cities isn't something they have to get down and dirty dealing with (and pissing off their liberal colleagues with such mean talk).
In general the pot contingent of the libertarian party is a huge liability. Back in 2016 there was big talk about it being the libertarian moment when they could break through vs Trump and Hillary, instead people at the convention spent their time talking about what kind of pot they smoked and acting like a bunch of pot heads.
"Many - most - people who experiment with drugs get over the thrill and go on to live productive lives; why not let them? "
It depends on the person and the drug. If you mean that someone smokes pot once at a party and moves on then yeah. If you mean meth then yeah it fucks up your live really fast. That's why different drugs get treated different ways. Even legal drugs can have contexts where they can cause problems and are thus regulated.
Marriage and children are a superior good necessary for civilization, this is an objective fact. I'm sorry that your butt hurt and choose to die off. I agree that we could reform family law and dramatically increase child subsidies to recognize the cost to the parent and value to society. These are technocratic changes that are possible once we recognize the superior good.
People often don't accept the consequences of their actions. They do what they can to get theirs at the expense of whoever they can. In the context of drug addicts they will do basically anything almost regardless of the consequences, hence why so much crime is driven by drug users. Only outside forces can prevent this.
And even if they did accept them they are often accepting them for other people (the husband who spends his paycheck on drugs and leaves his family out in the cold, etc).
It's time to accept that the welfare state is here to stay and crime is a persistent problem. That's the political equilibrium for reasons anyone could spell out, and I see no reason why it's going to change radically. Under such circumstances this "take responsibility for your own self destruction" stuff is just a fantasy, and it is about time to recognize it as such.
Thanks for the reply. So, you agree that drug legalization is largely harmless with regard to certain drugs and people who use them responsibly. You agree that we could reform family law and dramatically increase child subsidies once we recognize the superior good. And I think you believe that people can be - forcefully - held to account when their actions significantly injure innocent third parties.
You disagree, I think, with the idea that letting people experience the natural consequences of their own actions. I think this is not so much because you care about them as people - if that was the motivation then making the consequences even worse would be inconsistent - but rather because you believe that their rejection of certain codes of behavior makes them much more likely to injure others, so that holding them to account after they injure others will effectively be too late. In other words, that the likelihood that they will injure others is so high, that significant loss of liberty to engage in behavior that does not - in itself - harm others, is justified.
More or less. I don't know if a "minority report" level of pre-cog punishment is possible or desirable, but certain contexts are inevitably sub optimal and don't pass a cost/benefit analysis.
Do I care about people as people? I think that is tough. I think we should extend Christian charity in varying degrees to the widest degree of individuals possible, but I'm unconvinced that true universalism and managerial solutions to Christian charity are net good in many contexts.
And I must confess a genuine revultion to the underclass. I think in the pre-modern world 90% of the population was underclass and as such there were many diamonds in the rough. In the modern context I think they are a bottomless pit where love and resources go to die.
Admittedly I haven't watched this yet, so he might say something crazy, but I would venture in part that while drugs and sex have been allowed/promoted (although there isn't much sex these days) the government moved away from freedom (and personal responsibility) across just about all other margins. Less "freedom and responsibility for yourself" and more Brave New World. I agree that promoting eg drug use while removing responsibility is a terrible idea, you need to have both or neither when it comes to freedom and responsibility. To be fair, though, with how things are run we would be in a mess with or without legal drugs and the sexual resolution.
(I am not sure about the religion part, but I am not sure I would say people are less religious than ever. I think they are plenty religious, but have chosen a really terrible religion...)
Well, assuming you mean "religion" when you write "unfocused mind", a religion that says "Keep to yourself and be as good a person as you can," is better in my book than one that says "Anyone who disagrees with you is less than human, and you should aggressively expel them from society or kill them as you see fit." I can live next to the former even if I don't necessarily share their beliefs about what constitutes being a good person, but the latter causes a hell of a lot of problems.
>a religion that says "Keep to yourself and be as good a person as you can,"
Religious morality is revealed from beyond the mind, thus affecting all. Religion is hysterically opposed to morality as the product of the individual's focused mind. Without meaning to limit this to Christianity, its basic symbol is a tortured man. I would be fascinated to learn how suffering and sacrifice justify the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Perhaps you will be fascinated to learn that the 18th century Enlightenment is one of only two basically rational cultures and is the least religious culture in history, less religious than Greece.
Thus, in religion, each persons morality affects the morality of everyone else. If you dont punish another person's immorality, you are responsible for their disobedience of revelation. Independent judgment is rejected for submission to revelation.
Jesus himself prohibited judging others. If you immorally judge others, then, do those who (being moral) don't judge you nevertheless have a moral duty to punish you for your immorality?
The idea that people can degenerate themselves and not have it impact other people and society was always empirically flawed. I can't think of a single example where it worked like that. It doesn't even work that way for people really committed to that philosophy (like say objectivists).
True enough as far as it goes. However, the idea that people can use the existence of any impact on other people and/or society as an excuse to regulate all behavior has proven to be empirically tragic. We need a "significant impact" threshold, lest we wind up with a tyranny of the nosey.
Agreed. For instance, COVID didn't pass the threshold, but its not as if cost/benefit analysis was driving the ship there.
But I think drugs and sexual deviance are low reward/high risk affairs. When freedom brings out the best in people I give it the benefit of the doubt but when it brings out the worst in people I think it needs to justify itself.
The private retreat into religious traditionalist fantasies by conservatives doesnt impact me. I can walk away and let their virtually insane babbling continue. But when they use govt to force me to obey their virtually insane babbling, then I might agree w/you that we should have a law to forcibly stop their degeneration. Oh, wait the Constitution's First Amendment...
It isn't that degenerating oneself isn't bad for others, it is who decides what degenerating is, what is allowed and what is not. Not a lot of libertarians are crack heads I have noticed. There is a big difference between saying "It is your life and your choice about what to do with it" and "Any dumb thing you decide to do is fine." We've seen the failure mode of "We can tell you how to take care of your health for your own good and the good of others" over the past three years.
I kind of do get that vibe from the pot loving contingent of libertarians. They don't just want the government out of their business, they also don't want to be judged (or even be affirmed) in their vices. And while they will take responsibility we all know that won't happen.
I agree with the annoying "don't judge me!" crap, although I suppose from a tactical sense the case may be made that since most people equate "less virtuous" with "should be illegal" if you want something legalized you might feel you need to make people think it is not a vice.
I don't know that we can't make people take responsibility for their vices. We could, you know, just stop forcing folks to pay for other people's medical bills, welfare, etc. The government goes FAR out of its ways to support people who make bad decisions to shield them from the effects of those decisions. That's a really bad idea, particularly if you want to prevent people from making bad decisions.
"I don't know that we can't make people take responsibility for their vices."
The desperate have little to lose, much to gain, and time on their hands. The virtuous less so. Whether they add their votes or mob violence this incentive structure remains. Rome had the corn dole even though the emperor surely could have them all murdered by the army.
And of course those that falter also have family, friends, and other that care for and rely on them. If Dad ODs on fentanyl now we have another welfare mom.
Yesterday Bryan posted about gun rights. I noted that the two gun owners I know were victims of violent crime perpetrated by people on drugs.
Freedom is the dividend of a virtuous people. A dissolute people can never be free.
What do you mean by "a lot"? Do you have an absolute number there? Last I checked the opioid epidemic wasn't a whole lot of people in an absolute sense, but it has been a number of years since I looked into it too hard.
I should have said that many Opiod Heads are midwestern conservatives who evaded the need to keep up w/a changing economy by dreaming about the 1950s economy. Opiods relieved their anxiety for a while. Im a weed man myself and rarely got along w/pill poppers or the hard drug creeps. I still use street weed, not the legal stuff , because, damn it, Im a conservative and hiding my now legal stash and being paranoid about the police is an honored ritual. I even have a lava lamp and 60s records. I got high with Willie.
Generally agree, but you could argue the flourishing (at least in material terms) is happening among the upper classes. Or at least, the upwardly mobile (those born into wealth are, in my experience, not necessarily flourishing either).
I've long thought that there are people who thrive under a society with a strong "script" that offers a basic functional outline for a fulfilling life (much of this is what we're calling "puritanism" here), and then there are people who chafe under that script and are happier in its absence. The first group is in the decided majority, but the latter group has mostly been in charge of writing the script in recent times, which is why the only script we really have now is "Go to college and pursue your dreams!"
As for the sorts of people that script doesn't suit -- i.e., the sorts of people who are least equipped to figure out a good path on their own -- we tell them to figure out a path on their own.
Individual rights are a need of mans independent mind in society. They are not a moral guide to the use of those rights. See Ayn Rand for a rational morality.
Personal attacks dont refute ideas. You evade identifying and even attempting to refute her ideas. The implication is that you reject mans independent, focused mind for the dependent, unfocused mind of subjectivism or mysticism. The realistic success of the West, especially America, is the proof of Rands ideas. Look out at reality, not inward. Focus your mind.
A brilliant lecture, and one that showcases both what is attractive about libertarianism and what is flawed and anti-human about it. We absolutely are evolved for feeling that other people [in our small tribal community] are not merely our business but our very life, and if they're f**king up they're wasting resources at best and betraying us at worst. What Mencken describes as puritanical is a central part of the programming for any creature so socially-evolved as we are. Is there a way in the current year to implement this in a way that serves human flourishing? No of course not -- we're far past that now, maybe 20,000 years past it. But that doesn't mean libertarianism isn't itself a revolt against human nature, not so much blasphemy against God but against the gods of the copybook headings (in some more archetypical sense than Kipling meant).
Don't over-analyze it. The essence of libertarianism is no more than the Kimi Räikkönen tee-shirt, "Leave me alone! I know what I'm doing!" https://www.redbubble.com/i/t-shirt/Leave-Me-Alone-Kimi-raikkonen-by-JohnByrd2/143116960.IJ6L0.XYZ
I can't tell which side of this issue you're on, but telling somebody not to analyze whether or not just wanting to be left alone is actually productive for members of a society sounds like the kind of thing a libertarian would say. It's a rhetorical dodge to make it sound like a position is the simple commonsensical one, when actually it is an innovation.
Thanks for the great recommendations!
To reduce confusion with the many other George Smith's -- George H. Smith.
His book, Atheism: The Case Against God, which I read in 1985, is still one of the very best. I would put it up there with J.L. Mackie's The Miracle of Theism. I used to chat with George in the late 1980s and early 90s and agree that he had a remarkable brain and was fun to talk with. I'm sad that he wasn't cryopreserved.
Bryan. Delighted that you wrote about George H. Smith. I'm a huge fan, having read many of his essays at libertarianism.org. Thanks very much.
Got about 10 min in.
Guys like this got what they wanted. Drugs have been legalized de jure or defacto. The sexual revolution has only advanced. People are less religious than ever.
So where's all the human flourishing this was supposed to bring about. Seems like it all had the effects that Moynihan or Murray predicted instead.
There has been little drug legalization. It's almost all pot. The existing drug laws are driving the Fentanyl problem.
People are no less religious. It's just that traditional religions have lost adherents to the climate religion, the woke religion, and others.
I remember when the drug legalization crowd hounded on pot full time, finally got what it wanted, and the problems with drugs didn't go away. At least South Park can admit pot makes you a dumb layabout.
Opioids were so legal you got a prescription for them and your doctor fell over himself to get you to take them. This has led into the fentanyl problem.
And I don't know if you've noticed, but it's very easy to get drugs in this country. Even things that are illegal are cheap and available without much hassle. We have open air drug markets where people go unharassed by the law.
You know who doesn't have a problem with drugs, Singapore. Turns out the war on drugs can be a success.
But let's forget the law for a second. If all drugs were legal that wouldn't be enough. We also couldn't judge people for doing drugs either, that would be puritanical. And when their drug use predictably harmed themselves and their loved ones and society well that's just the price of freedom I guess.
"People are no less religious."
If we are going to define religion as "anyone who believes in anything" then this is an unfalsifiable claim.
People stopped going to church. They stopped believing in tradition church teachings. What happened. They got married less. Had fewer children. Used more drugs. Became less attached to work. Etc
It's almost like this religion that preached moderation, family, fecundity, industry, thrift, kindness, and self improvement had like a positive effect on those things versus "do whatever the fuck you want."
Pot makes you a dumb layabout. The War on Drugs makes you a felon with a record, who can't work even when you decide you want to - and makes you cost the rest of us a fortune in incarceration costs. And that's if you're not dead. Dumb layabout is a better result.
I'm deeply puzzled by the idea that executing people for possessing drugs is a better, more conservative idea than letting them experience the consequences of using the drugs. Many - most - people who experiment with drugs get over the thrill and go on to live productive lives; why not let them? And some people who experiment with drugs destroy their lives; that's why a kind conservative advises them not to do that. But a conservative does not impose a moral vision through violence.
What is the need to judge people? "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" and, of course, "Judge not, lest you be judged."
Yes, people get married less. Marriage imposes extraordinary financial penalties on anyone who marries someone who earns less than they do; in practice, the penalties are generally only imposed on men. Not surprisingly, it's harder than ever to find men who want to sign up for it; look at any dating website that tracks interest in marriage/kids and look at the male/female split. Marriage - like society - is no patriarchy and hasn't been for 60+ years. Modern marriage is a legal - not religious - institution that responds to the needs of an era long, long gone - if it ever existed. It needs to change or disappear. It will change, but it's a conservative institution so it will take time - and it will fade as it waits.
Yes, people have fewer children. Children used to benefit the family, but because we as a community care about children, we prohibit them from working and generating income. Heck, we won't even let their parents take their eyes off them until they're over 14 these days. We value children as a public benefit but impose the vast majority of the cost on their parents, to whom they increasingly look like incredibly expensive pets. Visit a vet's office and listen to all the single women there talk about the "fur babies" and understand: if we make child-raising really expensive, people will substitute human pets with (much cheaper) animal substitutes. If we, as a society, need more children, we need to pay for them; we can't rely on nature and lust to provide them anymore. That's a consequence of technology and economics, not loss of religious faith.
If the old religions are dying, whose fault is that? Like any other dying business, they have failed to keep up with the needs of their customers. New religions are emerging before our eyes. Old religions will claim the new religions aren't "real religions" - as they always have. New religions tend to be nutty at first, and wind up as old religions, because the only way a religion - or a country - can long prosper is if its members practice reasonable moderation, family, fecundity, industry, thrift, kindness and self improvement.
Finally, on "do whatever the fuck you want"... That's what people have ALWAYS done. What's changed is a willingness to let people discover better behaviors by accepting that some experiments will not be better and will have natural consequences, rather than simply condemning people with unusual lifestyles as heretics and witches. And if you don't understand the connection between that and the wonders that make life so much better, you haven't been paying attention.
"The War on Drugs makes you a felon with a record"
The concept of the "non violent drug offender felon" is basically propaganda. Nearly everyone in prison is a violent felon, even when in on a drug charge plea down (the statistics are clear on this and just go talk to a DA or sit on a jury in Baltimore). People who smoke pot (and only smoke pot, not violent criminals who also do drugs) very rarely get prosecuted and it counts as a misdemeanor. I've known people who smoke pot and none have ever had a problem with the law.
Libertarians embrace this myth because they don't really want to get tough on crime. If crime is because of the war on drugs rather then say low IQ black youths doing their natural thing in the absence of authority then the state of our inner cities isn't something they have to get down and dirty dealing with (and pissing off their liberal colleagues with such mean talk).
In general the pot contingent of the libertarian party is a huge liability. Back in 2016 there was big talk about it being the libertarian moment when they could break through vs Trump and Hillary, instead people at the convention spent their time talking about what kind of pot they smoked and acting like a bunch of pot heads.
"Many - most - people who experiment with drugs get over the thrill and go on to live productive lives; why not let them? "
It depends on the person and the drug. If you mean that someone smokes pot once at a party and moves on then yeah. If you mean meth then yeah it fucks up your live really fast. That's why different drugs get treated different ways. Even legal drugs can have contexts where they can cause problems and are thus regulated.
Marriage and children are a superior good necessary for civilization, this is an objective fact. I'm sorry that your butt hurt and choose to die off. I agree that we could reform family law and dramatically increase child subsidies to recognize the cost to the parent and value to society. These are technocratic changes that are possible once we recognize the superior good.
People often don't accept the consequences of their actions. They do what they can to get theirs at the expense of whoever they can. In the context of drug addicts they will do basically anything almost regardless of the consequences, hence why so much crime is driven by drug users. Only outside forces can prevent this.
And even if they did accept them they are often accepting them for other people (the husband who spends his paycheck on drugs and leaves his family out in the cold, etc).
It's time to accept that the welfare state is here to stay and crime is a persistent problem. That's the political equilibrium for reasons anyone could spell out, and I see no reason why it's going to change radically. Under such circumstances this "take responsibility for your own self destruction" stuff is just a fantasy, and it is about time to recognize it as such.
Thanks for the reply. So, you agree that drug legalization is largely harmless with regard to certain drugs and people who use them responsibly. You agree that we could reform family law and dramatically increase child subsidies once we recognize the superior good. And I think you believe that people can be - forcefully - held to account when their actions significantly injure innocent third parties.
You disagree, I think, with the idea that letting people experience the natural consequences of their own actions. I think this is not so much because you care about them as people - if that was the motivation then making the consequences even worse would be inconsistent - but rather because you believe that their rejection of certain codes of behavior makes them much more likely to injure others, so that holding them to account after they injure others will effectively be too late. In other words, that the likelihood that they will injure others is so high, that significant loss of liberty to engage in behavior that does not - in itself - harm others, is justified.
Is that a fair playback?
More or less. I don't know if a "minority report" level of pre-cog punishment is possible or desirable, but certain contexts are inevitably sub optimal and don't pass a cost/benefit analysis.
Do I care about people as people? I think that is tough. I think we should extend Christian charity in varying degrees to the widest degree of individuals possible, but I'm unconvinced that true universalism and managerial solutions to Christian charity are net good in many contexts.
And I must confess a genuine revultion to the underclass. I think in the pre-modern world 90% of the population was underclass and as such there were many diamonds in the rough. In the modern context I think they are a bottomless pit where love and resources go to die.
Admittedly I haven't watched this yet, so he might say something crazy, but I would venture in part that while drugs and sex have been allowed/promoted (although there isn't much sex these days) the government moved away from freedom (and personal responsibility) across just about all other margins. Less "freedom and responsibility for yourself" and more Brave New World. I agree that promoting eg drug use while removing responsibility is a terrible idea, you need to have both or neither when it comes to freedom and responsibility. To be fair, though, with how things are run we would be in a mess with or without legal drugs and the sexual resolution.
(I am not sure about the religion part, but I am not sure I would say people are less religious than ever. I think they are plenty religious, but have chosen a really terrible religion...)
>a really terrible religion
How is one unfocused mind better than another unfocused mind?
Well, assuming you mean "religion" when you write "unfocused mind", a religion that says "Keep to yourself and be as good a person as you can," is better in my book than one that says "Anyone who disagrees with you is less than human, and you should aggressively expel them from society or kill them as you see fit." I can live next to the former even if I don't necessarily share their beliefs about what constitutes being a good person, but the latter causes a hell of a lot of problems.
>a religion that says "Keep to yourself and be as good a person as you can,"
Religious morality is revealed from beyond the mind, thus affecting all. Religion is hysterically opposed to morality as the product of the individual's focused mind. Without meaning to limit this to Christianity, its basic symbol is a tortured man. I would be fascinated to learn how suffering and sacrifice justify the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Perhaps you will be fascinated to learn that the 18th century Enlightenment is one of only two basically rational cultures and is the least religious culture in history, less religious than Greece.
Thus, in religion, each persons morality affects the morality of everyone else. If you dont punish another person's immorality, you are responsible for their disobedience of revelation. Independent judgment is rejected for submission to revelation.
Jesus himself prohibited judging others. If you immorally judge others, then, do those who (being moral) don't judge you nevertheless have a moral duty to punish you for your immorality?
The idea that people can degenerate themselves and not have it impact other people and society was always empirically flawed. I can't think of a single example where it worked like that. It doesn't even work that way for people really committed to that philosophy (like say objectivists).
True enough as far as it goes. However, the idea that people can use the existence of any impact on other people and/or society as an excuse to regulate all behavior has proven to be empirically tragic. We need a "significant impact" threshold, lest we wind up with a tyranny of the nosey.
Agreed. For instance, COVID didn't pass the threshold, but its not as if cost/benefit analysis was driving the ship there.
But I think drugs and sexual deviance are low reward/high risk affairs. When freedom brings out the best in people I give it the benefit of the doubt but when it brings out the worst in people I think it needs to justify itself.
The private retreat into religious traditionalist fantasies by conservatives doesnt impact me. I can walk away and let their virtually insane babbling continue. But when they use govt to force me to obey their virtually insane babbling, then I might agree w/you that we should have a law to forcibly stop their degeneration. Oh, wait the Constitution's First Amendment...
It isn't that degenerating oneself isn't bad for others, it is who decides what degenerating is, what is allowed and what is not. Not a lot of libertarians are crack heads I have noticed. There is a big difference between saying "It is your life and your choice about what to do with it" and "Any dumb thing you decide to do is fine." We've seen the failure mode of "We can tell you how to take care of your health for your own good and the good of others" over the past three years.
"Any dumb thing you decide to do is fine."
I kind of do get that vibe from the pot loving contingent of libertarians. They don't just want the government out of their business, they also don't want to be judged (or even be affirmed) in their vices. And while they will take responsibility we all know that won't happen.
I agree with the annoying "don't judge me!" crap, although I suppose from a tactical sense the case may be made that since most people equate "less virtuous" with "should be illegal" if you want something legalized you might feel you need to make people think it is not a vice.
I don't know that we can't make people take responsibility for their vices. We could, you know, just stop forcing folks to pay for other people's medical bills, welfare, etc. The government goes FAR out of its ways to support people who make bad decisions to shield them from the effects of those decisions. That's a really bad idea, particularly if you want to prevent people from making bad decisions.
"I don't know that we can't make people take responsibility for their vices."
The desperate have little to lose, much to gain, and time on their hands. The virtuous less so. Whether they add their votes or mob violence this incentive structure remains. Rome had the corn dole even though the emperor surely could have them all murdered by the army.
And of course those that falter also have family, friends, and other that care for and rely on them. If Dad ODs on fentanyl now we have another welfare mom.
Yesterday Bryan posted about gun rights. I noted that the two gun owners I know were victims of violent crime perpetrated by people on drugs.
Freedom is the dividend of a virtuous people. A dissolute people can never be free.
A lot of midwestern conservatives are opiod heads. Hmmmmm......
What do you mean by "a lot"? Do you have an absolute number there? Last I checked the opioid epidemic wasn't a whole lot of people in an absolute sense, but it has been a number of years since I looked into it too hard.
I should have said that many Opiod Heads are midwestern conservatives who evaded the need to keep up w/a changing economy by dreaming about the 1950s economy. Opiods relieved their anxiety for a while. Im a weed man myself and rarely got along w/pill poppers or the hard drug creeps. I still use street weed, not the legal stuff , because, damn it, Im a conservative and hiding my now legal stash and being paranoid about the police is an honored ritual. I even have a lava lamp and 60s records. I got high with Willie.
Generally agree, but you could argue the flourishing (at least in material terms) is happening among the upper classes. Or at least, the upwardly mobile (those born into wealth are, in my experience, not necessarily flourishing either).
I've long thought that there are people who thrive under a society with a strong "script" that offers a basic functional outline for a fulfilling life (much of this is what we're calling "puritanism" here), and then there are people who chafe under that script and are happier in its absence. The first group is in the decided majority, but the latter group has mostly been in charge of writing the script in recent times, which is why the only script we really have now is "Go to college and pursue your dreams!"
As for the sorts of people that script doesn't suit -- i.e., the sorts of people who are least equipped to figure out a good path on their own -- we tell them to figure out a path on their own.
Individual rights are a need of mans independent mind in society. They are not a moral guide to the use of those rights. See Ayn Rand for a rational morality.
Ayn Rand fucked up her marriage, ran a cult, gave herself cancer from chain smoking and then had the government pay the bill.
She's basically a living example of how destructive that attitude is to yourself and those around you.
Personal attacks dont refute ideas. You evade identifying and even attempting to refute her ideas. The implication is that you reject mans independent, focused mind for the dependent, unfocused mind of subjectivism or mysticism. The realistic success of the West, especially America, is the proof of Rands ideas. Look out at reality, not inward. Focus your mind.