<\/p>\n
For a former libertarian such as myself Rand Paul’s attack <\/span>More than almost any other political position, libertarians <\/p>\n Nevertheless it explains why not Libertarians base their criticisms But there is a gorilla in the The problem is where the argument starts- it assumes “just” property rights without ever figuring out very seriously why Letting Some Light Shine on the You and I are next door Each of us is a problem for the Clearly each of us is in the wrong 1. How much light constitutes too 2. How much sound constitutes too The way we do it in a democratic Clearing the Air<\/b><\/p>\n The next example is quite real, Missoula’s city government banned What matters in such cases where a Relationships Are Primary<\/b><\/p>\n Property rights are not between me In general, libertarians appear In all honesty I think it is even <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" For a former libertarian such as myself Rand Paul’s attack on Civil Rights legislation is to be expected, except perhaps for its political idiocy. For that latter quality I am grateful because it weakens his candidacy. But there are interesting issues floating around the kerfluffle Paul’s comments to Rachel Maddow raised. More than almost any…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[111,112,9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-593","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-current-events","category-nature","category-social-and-political-theory"],"yoast_head":"\n
\non Civil Rights legislation is to be expected, except perhaps for its political
\nidiocy. <\/span>For that latter quality I
\nam grateful because it weakens his candidacy. <\/span>But there are interesting issues floating around the
\nkerfluffle Paul’s comments to Rachel Maddow raised.<\/p>\n
\ntake pride in the rational derivation of their political views from “first
\nprinciples” of human rights or some other ethical position. <\/span>The best libertarians are highly
\nethical people and hold views like Paul’s with absolutely no personal racism.
\nThey are our allies on issues of religious freedom. <\/span>Nevertheless, their position (which I used to hold, years ago)
\nis radically incoherent. <\/span>And why
\nit is incoherent is particularly important for us Pagans to consider. <\/span>But for those of you who are interested
\nin how this applies to Pagans but uninterested in political theory, scroll down
\nto Relationships Are Primary<\/b> at the
\nbottom.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
\nonly am I no longer a libertarian as I was in my youth, but why no libertarian could be a hard-core libertarian if they are intellectually rigorous. <\/span>Coming from a Pagan perspective, where
\nthe world has value beyond what we assign to it makes this critique more persuasive, but it applies to secular libertarian individualists as well.<\/p>\n
\nof anti-discrimination laws on property rights. <\/span>Assuming just property rights, they argue, any voluntary
\ntransaction between consenting adults is OK, and any coerced act impinges on their freedom. <\/span>The critical issues are
\nthat the property be justly held and the transactions be voluntary. <\/span>It all sounds very noble and
\nprincipled, and noble and principled people believe this – as well as some who are neither.<\/p>\n
\ncloset, one that reduces the argument about the injustice of civil rights
\nregulations on private businesses, or equivalent measures to so much hokum.<\/p>\n
\none set of rights is just and another is not. <\/span>A key assumption is that property comes in tight little packets with
\neasily discernable boundaries we can either choose to respect or to aggress against. <\/span>And this assumption is simply wrong. <\/span>I will give two examples that, when thought about, reduce rigorous libertarianism to gibberish.<\/p>\n
\nMatter<\/b><\/p>\n
\nneighbors. <\/span>I like loud stereos and
\nplay my music at all hours. <\/span>You
\nlike to keep your back yard brightly lit by floodlights all night long because
\nyou have a paranoid fear of prowlers and burglars. (I pick the examples, so I
\nam the less neurotic of the two of us in them.) <\/span>I like to watch the stars in the night sky and you are a
\nlight sleeper and open the windows on hot nights.<\/p>\n
\nother. <\/span>Each of us refuses
\nreasonable compromises, saying our property is ours to do with as we will. I have a “right” to watch stars from my back yard and to play my music. You retort you have a right to illuminate your backyard and get a good night’s sleep.<\/p>\n
\nbecause, in libertarian terms, we aggress across another’s boundaries, I with
\nmy loud music. You with your bright lights. <\/span>But in the day time far more light pours into my yard, and
\nif you had your floodlights on, no noticeable harm would be done. <\/span>During the day, when the environment is
\nfar noisier, my music is lost in the din.
\n<\/span>This leads to certain important questions anti-government libertarian
\ntheory has no way of answering in such a way as to morally commit the loser to
\nfollowing the principle arrived at.<\/p>\n
\nmuch? <\/span>At what hour, if any, does
\nthis change?<\/p>\n
\nmuch? <\/span>At what hour, if any, does
\nthis change?<\/p>\n
\ncommunity is have people elected by fair rules ultimately be responsible for
\nsetting noise and light ordinances.
\n<\/span>As a rule they do this based on a sensitivity to community standards as
\nto what constitutes appropriate behavior.
\n<\/span>That way losers will usually feel the procedure was fair even if they
\ndid not like this particular outcome.
\n<\/span>It is an attitude that helps preserve civilization. <\/span>What makes it fair? At least at some
\npoint everyone had equal input on the matter of either deciding the law or
\ndeciding who will decide the law.<\/p>\n
\nand the principle it spotlights is not all that unusual. <\/span>Missoula, Montana
\nsits in between mountains where, once the population grew big enough, the air
\nbecame increasingly dangerous from trapped wood smoke hanging over the city in
\nthe winter. <\/span>Originally there were
\ntoo few people for this to matter, and everyone had wood burning stoves. (Wood
\nis plentiful and cheap.) <\/span>As
\nMissoula’s population grew people with breathing difficulties increasingly had trouble, and some might die prematurely from the pollution. Burning wood, a<\/span> use of property once harmless and practiced universally, had become dangerous once
\nenough people did it.<\/p>\n
\nthe use of wood burning stoves and fireplaces in new buildings. <\/span>The air would remain dirtier than some
\nliked but far cleaner than some would have preferred so long as they could have
\na fireplace. <\/span>ANY point between
\nzero regulation and no regulation could be criticized as inferior to some other
\npoint along some principle or another.
\n<\/span>Air that interfered with some people’s views might still be safe enough
\nto tolerate.<\/p>\n
\nrange of options can appear reasonable is that the procedure for deciding the
\nissue be regarded as fair<\/i>. <\/span>Democratic procedures are more fair
\nthan unanimity because, as James Madison pointed out, requiring more than a
\nmajority can hold a majority hostage to an unprincipled minority, as California
\nand the US Senate have both discovered to their sorrow. <\/span>Anything requiring less than a majority
\nmeans a minority could rule. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nand what I own, they are between me and you. <\/span>They facilitate cooperation. <\/span>Robinson Crusoe did not need them until Friday came
\nalong. <\/span>They draw the line between appropriate
\nrelationships and inappropriate relationships. <\/span>These principles are not “objective” but they are
\nfundamental to human life, and they need to be determined by some means. <\/span>Democratic principles have been found
\nto be the most fair way to do so because losers on a particular issue can
\nbelieve they get a fair shake, and might even be winners the net time around.Therefore they can peacefully accept decisions with which they disagree.<\/p>\n
\n<\/i>to be intellectually rigorous in their
\nthinking because they dodge the tough initial issues, assume they are solved,
\nand then proceed as if these more fundamental issues no longer existed. <\/span>In reality they are intellectually
\nrigorous once they have made arbitrary assumptions about the nature of
\nreality. <\/span>In this libertarians are like the brighter Fundamentalists in interesting ways. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nharder to be a hard-core libertarian Pagan<\/i>
\nthan a libertarian in general, though I have known some and they were often
\nnice people. <\/span>In Paganism as I
\nunderstand it and have experienced it the non-human world is also sentient and
\nalive to a degree denied by mainstream society. <\/span>This means that issues of appropriate and inappropriate
\nrelationships penetrate even more deeply into our interactions with the world
\nthan they do for the average Christian or secularist. <\/span>For Pagans issues of appropriate relationship include
\nplants, animals, and for some, myself included, the earth itself. <\/span>The libertarian assumption that my
\nproperty is what I own and control appears as morally immature and even childish.<\/span><\/p>\n