I wrote a rant the other day. It was about how people frequently make claims that some "god" gave them this or that right, and how I find such proclamations to be disgusting in that they are totally without any evidentiary support and are simultaneously self-serving. (It's an excuse that is pulled out whenever difficult questions are asked. A "Get Out of Jail Free" card.) I sent it to a friend for comment before foisting it upon the world at large. He offered some excellent commentary. Upon reflection I've chosen not to post the rant in it's current form as I think there is much truth to the idea that maybe it says more about the writer than the material written about. (or is that perhaps redundant?)
In the process of that reflection I recognized something which had heretofore eluded me, even while perhaps having been teasing me for years, that the libertarians' (and/or Objectivists') views of "rights" and "ownership" and "natural law" are just as magical and self-serving as the religionists' views that their "god" has given them special rights and powers... and from this I made the leap that "rights" thinking and "god" thinking is EXACTLY the same thing and must derive from the very same place in the brain, or mind or whatever it is that makes us humans who we are.
I've so long seen that the answers that a "rights" viewer has to the hard questions are just as much circular reasoning as are the answers that a "god" viewer gives to questions on his religion. It's all religion. At the most fundamental level it's all devoid of basic open-minded, honest, simple inquiry. At the very bottom, both of these groups of thinkers (or not) resort to proclamations based upon wishes and their unwillingness to question their most fundamental presumptions.
I think this is funny! And an interesting observation. I'm sure in my own thinking I probably fall into the same trap in many regards. Now that I've recognized it, I hope I may be able to see through some of my own fallacious thinking. For years I was a "rights" thinker. I've moved past that now, even though I've not found another "certainty" with which to replace it. I think maybe that is the evolutionary issue at stake here, the need, at some survival level or another, to have certainty. It makes things easier. Even when they really aren't.
I don't know if I've communicated anything of value here, but it just seemed of such consequence to me that I thought I'd share this shaky and ill-formed new cranial edifice with others for whatever value it may or may not have. Perchance I'll get more coherent about it in the future, or not. Time will reveal all.
- NonE
Okay, I'll bite. It seems to
Okay, I'll bite.
It seems to me that you consider "religion" to be a flaw.
Isn't the imposition of "no religion" just as much an act of faith?
Imposition?
Imposition? Who imposed no religion? If I point out that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for little green elephants in pink tutus in the town fountain, am I imposing anything? Come on, man! Show me some evidence of "rights" and I'll listen. So far I have found every argument to be wanting in logic and evidence. I don't have a right to anything that I haven't actually entered into a contract over. I may have a desire to live, but that does not give me a "right" to live. How does this "right to life" actually derive? As far as I have been able to figure it, there are no "negative" rights, as each claimed "negative right" actually implies a demand upon other people.
For example: if I am to have a right to privacy, what is actually implied is that I have a POSitive right to require other people to not be curious about my life.
Certainly there are desires and choices, actions and consequences. But "rights?" Naw. I don't find any persuasive arguments. It's just someone making a claim to support his own favorite position. Except for my right to chocolate, of course.
As to your first sentence, I must say that any suggestion that I accept something as factual BECAUSE there is no logic or reason to do so is indeed a flawed methodology. This, of course, does not mean that one must reject everything for which compelling evidence is not at hand. Rather it is the idea that it is insane to accept something BECAUSE it makes no sense. I have every sense that there is a spiritual nature to life. But this is a sense only. I am open to any evidence one way or the other. Until such evidence becomes apparent, all I can say is that I feel a spritual bond with life - whatever that may mean or not mean. It certainly is not a reason for me to make factual claims upon these vague senses that I think I feel.
- NonE
Have you ever seen me claim
Have you ever seen me claim rights because of my path?
In fact, one of my favorite arguments with my fellow Pagans is that they have rights because they are HUMAN and not because they are the member of some carefully defined group.
But despite my efforts to live and let live, I'm now "insane" and lumped in with the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.
That's certainly not company I would have chosen. Any argument that I make here to show religion is "true" and "can be proven" will show that I share their "madness."
We humans are great justifiers after the fact. We find reasons to believe in our own little conceits. Those of us here, for example, claim that the rights of the individual are paramount. I think the Obama transition team would find THAT deranged.
Is religion insane? Perhaps. I think it depends on how you approach it.
Do I ask that you bow before my faith?
No. One of my little conceits is that each person has to choose their own way and make their own decisions while accepting the consequences of those decisions. I'm not here to save you because I don't believe you need to be saved.
But I won't be bound by your choice either.
Rights from Contracts
"I don't have a right to anything that I haven't actually entered into a contract over."
You mean then that there is one single 'right,' the right to contract? How can that be without self and property ownership rights?-SRS
One single?
Nope. I don't mean that at all. I mean that rights are not things that inherently exist in nature. They are things that people can come together and create by making contracts and which exist only within that context. And, just like the "magic rights" that I reject, these contractual rights are only as good as the willingness of the parties in the contract to abide by them. A right to freedom of speech, for instance, goes only as far as some other person's willingness not to bust my jaw for saying something he doesn't like. It sure ain't gonna protect my jaw from his fist.
Zat any clearer?
The supposed "rights" that everyone feels that they have are taken on faith, with no evidence other than irrational wishes to give them the illusion of substance.
If you feel they have substance, please give me the evidence for it. I've been unable to find it anywhere outside of a simple declaration. I can declare I'm the king. That has as much meaning.
- NonE
Darwin is all we have
The origin of rights is not circular. Rights are not granted by either Government or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Instead, rights are taken by force against opposition. If you want to sit at the front of the bus, you must riot and threaten to riot some more until, in a bluster of words hiding a retreat, the military powers that be either "recognize" your "civil rights" or "grant" them to you, "because they have sympathy for the sweet little old lady".
There is no "natural law", there is only nature red in tooth and claw. The quantity of individual rights at any moment is proportional to the military balance of power between what an individual can bring to bear vs. a dozen enforcers. We have as much freedom as we do because (a) most humans have other interests than predating other humans, and (b) much military power is distributed among individuals. All the who-gets-which-rights talk is gum-flapping to obscure how the politics of rights really works.
The world historical peak in liberty seemed to be the Kentucky long rifle and Indian tactics against what the British army was doing. There will be a strong assault on this peak starting this year by the military implications of encrypted conversations and web use from the Google phone.
Sorry, can't agree with you
Sorry, can't agree with you there.
I do agree with both you and NonEntity that "natural rights" do not exist as such. At best they're a polite fiction like the value of money. Assuming and acting as if they exist makes day to day life easier.
But the "might makes right" thing falls down pretty quick too. I agree it's an option for when the other guy doesn't "play by the rules," but if you try to use it all the time, you'll get slapped down by the people around you and not The Authorities.
It's not all a power game. It's not even all about the power game.
www.paganvigil.com
"Because LIBERTY demands more than just black and white"
All roads lead to ... RED?
Uh. Err. Well...
I kinda sorta agree a little, maybe. But then again, not so much. You see, I find that while it is true that we are carnivores and (via government) metaphorical cannibals, I also see that we are social animals, and we can care and love and support and even give good massages and stuff. So I'm not sure that the only color is RED.
In fact, as odd as it seems, the nature of government violence is based upon the group! Now ain't THAT a hoot! It's not individuals (for the most part) that you see running around and devastating groups and cultures and countries and stuff, it's other groups. So the tendency to be social even exists as part of our killing genes. Maybe that's the BLUE that goes with the RED. Who knows. Anybody seen any WHITE hanging around in the woods lately? I'm lookin' for it.
- NonE
Maybe I'm the Only One
But when someone starts off by calling those he disagrees with delusional I'm inclined to think that whatever proposition advanced is utter rot. Then, of course, you are either unwilling or unable to distinguish between religiosity on the one hand and fallacies in philosophy on the other.
"and from this I made the leap"
Indeed you did. But let's bother to go further...
"I don't have a right to anything that I haven't actually entered into a contract over."
Nonsense, by your own reasoning. A contract is just a promise. You have no right at all to have it honored. If Lysander Spooner is wrong, so too is Max Stirner.
"For example: if I am to have a right to privacy, what is actually implied is that I have a POSitive right to require other people to not be curious about my life."
Dealing in a specific instance, rather than in what are proposed to be the metaphysical/ontological roots of the position (I've not read Machan's book, so I'm not familiar with his argument, but I'm willing to advance my own) is at best a flawed approach and at worst dishonest.
Delusional
I didn't say that people who disagree with me are delusional, I said that (or meant that) the idea is insane. If I say that 2 and 2 equal 5, that is insane. It is not rational. It cannot be supported upon examination.
I find that the claims of "rights" are insane and can only be claimed if one demands that the be accepted "because I said so!" That is what "faith" is, the demand to accept something someone else says regardless of the evidence or rational argument to the contrary, simply because someone says you must accept it. That is an insane arguement.
I certainly have a sense, as do most humans probably, that there is some "spirit" which motivates and inspires us to life. I have no idea what it is, or even if it is. I only sense this. To make a claim that I know what it is and that it has certain rules and dictates and such is an insane claim.
Yes, you are right that my "rights by contract" are as meaningless as any other rights. As I stated in a reply above, I mean only that rights can be created by contract and are only valid within the context of that contract and only if the participants to that contract are willing to stand by their word.
The only thing that I'm trying to point out here is the sense that the same mental dynamic, which appears to be inherent in the general human animal, applies equally to the tendency for humans to believe in gods and the tendency in humans to believe in rights. I had not made this connection before, but now that I see it, it appears obvious. Both are totally unsubstantiated by evidence or logic, and yet both are deeply held to be true by most humans. I find this very interesting. I also think it is an insane form of thinking which must certainly have an evolutionary value somewhere in our past and perhaps, maybe even probably, in our present. The thing which sets humans apart from most other animals is our thumb, and our ability to use reason. If we willingly choose to reject rational thought (which is what the definition of faith is) then by what possible means can we claim rights superior to animals? It's like a drunk claiming he's not responsible for his actions because he chose to get drunk. I'm saying it's time to stand up and face the fact that life is NOT certain, and go from there. Scientists have done this in the act of accepting chaos theory. The rest of us need to come to terms with this as well, and stop trying to live in a fantasy world. Only by accepting reality can we learn how better to function in the world in which we REALLY live.
At least, that's how it seems to me at the moment. I'd really like to find a better way to live than what seems to be the current standard. Accepting that the methodology we're currently using is flawed seems the first step. I'm not going to be solving any major equations if I accept on faith that 2 and 2 equals 5. I need to recognize that I was in error, set that aside and move forward.
- NonE
Two point three one and two
Two point three one and two point four four two approximates five.
It's certainly more than four and a half.
And it's not four.
“Give me something to believe in”
Perhaps, but if you (or others) say yes, then my response is, “So what?”. Especially if one’s context is the fourth definition of the term: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. It seems to me in my experiences thus far that those who don’t have something to believe in [and, can anyone help me out here? Was it Poison who sang the song so titled back in the 80s?] tend to be far more dangerous than those who do.
I think it was a few years back that scientists announced the discovery of a “god module” in the human brain—that’s my term for it, but it is a small area that is apparently mostly responsible for whether a person believes in God or not. (I’ve no idea how they tested that particular idea.) Methodological issues aside, it makes some sense to me that this would be yet another dimension along which human brains can differ—and differ enough that those near one end of the spectrum simply cannot grok those near the other. But, and much more important: so what? The simple fact that another person holds faith in something different from myself impacts me not at all. To the degree his faith instructs him not to initiate force, and to the degree he follows that instruction, would he not potentially be a most excellent neighbor?
To be more clear: it is not the having of faith that concerns me one whit. What potentially concerns me—and would concern me if another used his faith as a bludgeon of sorts against me—is how his faith instructs his behavior and how well or poorly he follows his faith. In other words, unless and until his faith bears upon me and mine, it is none of my business.
Not necessarily, I think. As a Christian many years ago, I sought to find answers—or evidence, I suppose one might say—supporting my beliefs. I was always questioning. Since I have become an a-theist, the end of that path is pretty clear. I daresay I’m not the only one who’s done that, nor who’s similarly questioned the concept of rights. And despite that, I do still have some faith that rights help retain some degree of civility in the world.
I think that there are some questions that remain unanswerable, and will remain unanswerable to us while we live. Maybe relatively few people examine their beliefs deeply enough to get to that state, but that doesn’t justify a claim that all are devoid of honest, open-minded inquiry. When faced with those questions, one either finds something to believe in or becomes a nihilist. I’d much rather the former than the latter happen.
Faith and Proclamations
I guess it's that I see a contradiction in your position. To me there is a big difference between saying "X, as I currently understand it, implies Y," and saying, "in spite of any lack of evidence or compelling reasoning, I am going to accept that Z is the truth, and I will continue to do so as a badge of honor, regardless of whatever evidence or logic may come to me in the future."
It seems to me that the proclamation of faith is exactly that. It is a claim that IN SPITE of any other information to the contrary, one will cling to certain ideas. To me, this is not at all about being open-minded. It is exactly the opposite, and therein lies (if there is such a thing as morality) the evil.
This sense of power regardless of all else is where I see problems in the ideas of such things as property rights wherein the belivers in such often claim that they will go so far as to kill someone who trespasses because they have this "right." I certainly don't have any problem with defending one's self against a mortal threat, but the belief in "rights" goes illogically and anti-socially to obsurd lengths in the hands of those who regard it on the level of faith, which, it seems to me, many libertarians do.
As an example, the current rights beliefs in "real estate" totally preclude a nomadic lifestyle. I ask you, how is it inherently wrong to live nomadically? And yet, there you have it. If you don't "own" land or have the permission of those who, according to libertarian doctrine SHOULD own ALL land, you don't have a "right" to exist, for where will you exist? Like the supposed "right to travel," there is conflict with "right to own land." These two rights are in conflict and therefore are evidence to me that "we have a problem, Houston." With "faith" in "rights" we will not ever make the next step in the evolution of our means of organizing social interaction on a higher and more workable level. We must first admit that there are imperfections in our current methodology before we can do the work needed to move forward. If we accept "on faith" that things are right, then... well, I'm going in circles here. If I haven't made my point by now, I'm not sure what more to say.
So, to reiterate my initial concern, it seems to me that those who claim "rights" exist are doing so as a matter of faith, not as a thoughtfully reasoned position subject to discussion and consideration. I have a problem with that. Proclaiming something does not automatically make it so.
By the way, Sunni, I think you may be thinking about the book "The 'God' Part of the Brain," which is available at www.godpart.com written by Matthew Alper. I read it many years ago and found it a compelling idea. Highly recommended.
- NonE
Spirituality
And let me reiterate (or maybe just iterate) that I am not suggesting that we should not be spiritual beings and be in wonder of life and love and all things that make make for smiles and hugs. It is simply the idea of "faith" that I find pernicious. And that it seems so counterintuitive to find this very thing at the core of so many who so often proclaim the very opposite. It is this last which prompted my post. I was surprised.
- NonE
No Brian, you're not the only one...
You call a belief in natural rights insane, yet believe in spirituality and love? I'd suggest you refrain from pointing out the "contradictions" in others' thinking until you've resolved your own.
And I've had a bad day, so my response to paragraph three won't be as nicely put as Sunni's...
You say:
I say: Horse. Shit.
I'm sick and damned tired of being treated like a simpleton by those atheists who, instead of calmly and quietly asserting their beliefs (like Sunni does, and probably a dozen others I could name do), choose to "pity" theists (whatever their belief system) for their "irrational, close-minded, wishful" thinking.
And aside from the question of how it even matters to you ("So what", indeed, Sunni... now that's open-mindedness :D ), I have another question for you. Who the fuck are you to declare that the beliefs I've spent 24 years developing (plus however many more years are in my future, for it's a journey, not a destination) have been arrived at without "basic open-minded, honest, simple inquiry"? Or that I'm unwilling to "question [my] most fundamental presumptions"? (As an aside, it's interesting that you would say "presumptions", since the third definition for the word given in the dictionary is "belief on reasonable grounds or probable evidence".) Apart from displaying an incredible amount of hubris on your part, it (perhaps more importantly) simply shows that you are lacking in basic manners and common decency. Which, if I hadn't already had a lousy day, would have caused me to dismiss your entire post without responding.
But I did have a lousy day, and this was too much. So, perhaps unwisely, I have allowed myself to be affected by your nonsense. And now, I'm going to follow my psychologist's prescription and have some 'nog (except I'm going to dispense with the egg, cream and nutmeg... :P ).
I’m sorry
I’m sorry you had such a lousy day yesterday, Jac. I hope today is a vast improvement for you—and I heartily endorse your modification of your psychologist’s “prescription” and encourage repeat administration if necessary.
Warm squeezes and namaste, my friend.
Faith, then.
I see the differences in your statements; but I don’t see that most religious individuals—or rights-believing individuals—are necessarily in the latter camp. It may seem so to an outside observer, but that means nothing, for the outside observer is frequently quite wrong.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines faith in a number of differing ways: as allegiance; belief and trust in God (and a subdefinition there is “firm belief in something for which there is no proof”); and belief with especially strong conviction. Please keep the following in mind as you read the rest of this ramble, okay? First, I once was where you seem to be now with respect to faith; and second, I share your distrust of “rights” as a sort of talisman—something to believe in blindly.
What you—as an outside observer to another’s faith—might see as belief without proof, the believer quite likely sees elsewise. I would guess that any person who’s spoken in tongues or been the “translator” for a session would claim that as proof of God’s existence. I know an individual who became a Christian because of what I label an “auditory hallucination” when it happens to me; she interpreted the booming voice speaking her name, when she was alone, as God calling to her. It seems clear to me that each person tries to explain things, especially unusual things, in a way that fits most easily into his existing context—and that said, I think relatively few people can pin a label of “unexplainable” on something and leave it at that. If those contexts differ between individuals, there’s little can be done to bridge them if both are adamant their way is right, or best. And again, if that is so, why try? As long as another’s faith isn’t actively hurting you, why rail against it? What value does doing so bring to your life?
Further, god modules and nihilism aside [and no, I’d not heard of that book before you mentioned it], it seems very clear to me that every person takes many things on faith each day. We believe scientists who tell us that our sun isn’t likely to go supernova anytime soon, and thus the sun will continue rising in the east and setting in the west. We believe in the existence of bacteria, protozoans, and viruses even though we have never seen them ourselves. We (sometimes mistakenly, and quite tragically) take it on faith that the air surrounding us will sustain us, rather than kill us. We believe in our computers’ abilities to store valuable information infallibly, to run programs to entertain, educate, and help us accomplish tasks. Many of us believe that humans are fundamentally decent, especially when experienced as an individual rather than part of some group; and many with that perspective count on it to protect them as they move amongst others throughout each day of their lives. At this point faith seems to blur with trust, does it not?
And that’s why I cannot condemn faith any longer. I simply do not see how one can live (let alone live amongst others) without some bare minimum of it. It seemed to me to come down to a choice: either recognize others’ differing faiths as part of normal human variability (and leave it alone unless/until it bears directly upon my life) or eliminate all faith in my own life. To do the latter would be to cease being human, and I cannot see how to do that while continuing to live.
As your astute observations regarding property and travel rights demonstrate—along with the condescending, dismissive attitude many libertarians have toward others—anyone who thinks the freedom philosophy has all life’s answers is thinking rather simplistically. It just doesn’t unpack as neatly as some seem to expect ... but it does offer a better context for thinking about problems and possible solutions than any system based upon coercion. The fact that many pro-freedom individuals can and do bluster suggests to me that we too are naked apes, rather than the superior sub-species we sometimes like to fantasize about being.
Okay, I'm going to try
Okay, I'm going to try again.
Religion is one of those loaded topics that pops up quite often. In the last few years, I've had to defend the very idea of religion from "brights" who would just as soon outlaw it.
No, I am not kidding.
I even created a blog to show that you could be a person of faith, be passionate about the issues of the day, and still be a reasoning person.
In many ways it's the same argument I've had time and time again with people about guns. Or global warming. Or representative government (there are liberals out there that firmly believe Republicans should be legally banned from holding public office, and of course libertarians are stealth Republicans).
In each case, dissent is not only a DANGER, but must be prohibited for the common good.
I've a better reason than most to dislike the Big Three Monotheisms. To the groups, it's pretty much an article of faith that I am a clear and present danger.
But (and here's the important bit)…
There are individuals in those faiths. And most of those individuals don't see me as a danger. A little weird yes, but overall a pretty decent guy.
One of my little irrational beliefs is that the individual is more important than the group. I don't have "black" friends, I have friends who happen to have a different color skin.
I also have Diné friends and Hopi friends who have a much more unified culture than any group of "blacks" I've ever met.
Yes there can be some cultural differences, but for a guy who grew up in Arizona, Boston is nearly another country. I've a much harder time dealing with East Coast types than others, and that's probably because I am not as good at reading their non-vocal cues.
I don't have gay friends, I have friends who happen to be gay. The individual is more important to me than any group identity.
Although there was one time I did go looking for a lesbian bar. It cost me a few rounds of drinks, but I learned some things that have been very handy over the years. Emphasis on handy.
Frankly I don't care what religion someone is. Or what their sexuality is. Or what their politics are. As long as it's not an excuse to control me and mine, why should it matter?
I've written about this several times on my mainstream blog. It's also one of my main discussion points when I meet new people and we disagree on politics, religion, or sex.
I do agree that religion is one of those things to justify far too much political control. That's another thing I've written about extensively.
But to lump all religious types together, regardless of their faith and despite their personal actions, well, it's hard to see that as anything other than insulting.
I'm not Jeremiah Wright, I'm not Robert Schuller, and I am not David Wolpe.
I'm not even Isaac Bonewits.
I'm not going to prove religion because it's a matter of faith.
I believe that by reaching for understanding, humanity taught itself science. The quest was more important than the guesses and assumptions that we used to get there. It could be a matter of brain structure, it could be acknowledging Something greater than ourselves. Ultimately it doesn't matter.
The question makes us reach beyond our minds and our little world. It's what makes us face the unknown.
Later we rationally go back and draw the map.
You know, in my Pagan blog, I've spent quite a bit of time talking about the differences between an experienced faith and a revealed faith. It seems to me that you want the answers of a revealed faith, but "proven" to your satisfaction.
Good luck with that.
And now I am off to a warm bed.
I just want to go my way
"I even created a blog to show that you could be a person of faith, be passionate about the issues of the day, and still be a reasoning person."
Isn't that special of you. I wonder if you realize how condescending that sounds. But that's a sidebar - this is my contribution:
It seems to me this question of rights boils down to the fact that the only actions I can control are my own. I can persuade or enter into contracts or (if I was someone else) attempt to do it by force, but in the end I can't make you respect my rights or property.
That's why the Zero Aggression Principle is so important to the free life. The more people adopt ZAP, the more likely it is that agreements will be honored and exchanges will be peaceful - or at least nonviolent.
The concept of rights presents a neutral, immutable appeal to a third party in conflicts - if we've agreed on what those rights are, we have something to gauge who's right and wrong. But it requires agreement on the basic principle.
I'm a Christian in part because I believe Jesus asserted ZAP when he said all law is summed up in two statements, one of which is "Love your neighbor as yourself." (You can accept the other statement or not; I do.) I'm a Browncoat in part because I believe in the words Joss Whedon put in Malcolm Reynolds' mouth: "I got no need to beat you; I just want to go my way."
I happen to think we'd all live better lives if we adopted that philosophy, but if I demand it, it won't work. I can't make you do anything. I can only try to persuade.
Perspective
B.W.,
Love your post.
I see a distinct difference in perspective in your response and that of many others to my provacative rant. As it appears to me, you take the perspective that a right is something that we each must grant to others. So many take the perspective that a right is something we demand from them. And perhaps therein lies the problem I have with the idea. I, and most of the others who post here, I'd imagine, find the idea of "entitlement" to be offensive. And yet so often those claiming rights are doing it from the perspective of entitlement. This is where I say Phooey! No one is entitled to anything. And so that simple little word can take totally differing meanings based upon the internal viewpoint of the speaker.
- NonE
B.W. said: Isn't that
B.W. said:
*shrugs* Under the circumstances, I thought it was a pretty good choice.
I had Christians telling me I should be quiet because I had the wrong religion. I had Pagans telling me I should be quiet because I had the wrong politics. Meanwhile, very few people were willing to look beyond black and white. And almost everyone told me that a bigger government could do the job better.
B.W. also said:
I agree, and I agree that the ZAP is the best starting point we know. In most cases, it's the only practical option.
But the ZAP is part of the game too, so I don't think we're going to agree beyond the starting point.
My point.
NeoWayland said:
The last sentence reflects the core of my issue. Perhaps I've not been correct in my terminology, so let me attempt to do better. As I see it, a religion is defined by a set of beliefs that one accepts "on faith." It is the "on faith" concept that I have issue with, not the beliefs. In general, I think the motivating factors that cause a person to seek out a religion are wonderful. I think that they are probably a desire for community and to create a more meaningful life for one's self and for others. What could be wrong with this?
But the "on faith" part of the definition is where the trouble lies. If one looks at the Iraq war one can see this dynamic in action. The American public took "on faith" the claims (total lies) that we needed to destroy this country which had done nothing to us. The "War on Drugs" is a similar situation. As best I can tell, there has NEVER been a death from marijuana, yet look at the number of lives totally destroyed by this "war" while alcohol sales and consumption are a fundamental part of the American experience. People are buying this crap "on faith."
I am not condemning all religions, as you claim. I am condemning the idea that it makes sense to accept ANYTHING "on faith." And surely we can only know a very few things in our lives, so it follows that we must go through our lives operating from our best guesses on most issues. But there is a vast philosophical difference between accepting the limitations of our knowledge and reveling in it.
And so I return to my initial point, that I believe that the libertarian community in general has, similar to most religions, a wonderful goal. But in taking on the "on faith" nature of religion, it has lost the ability to gain new understanding and to grow, and as such it is doomed to fail in it's quest. The idea of rights has gone from a philosophical inquiry into a superior method of attaining peace, harmony and progress - to a religious chant bonding the cult in a mesmerized vision of "truth."
"Democracy" has become a similar idea. In the beginning it seemed a vast leap forward from the forms of government that preceeded it. Now, those of us who care to examine it rather than accept "on faith" find that it is not as it appeared but has simply become tyranny of the masses, and as Hoppe has described, is probably even worse a form of governance than Monarchy. Yet what do we see? We see the world being destroyed in the name of "bringing democracy" to all.
This is a poor methodology, faith. I'm not condemning those of us (all?) who seek meaning, I'm condemning bad
thinkingmethodology.- NonE
Hmmm.
I would not call faith a methodology. To my mind, it’s a state of being—a lack of thinking that can be arrived at for many reasons. Blind, uncritical acceptance of some ideas is one of those paths to faith. Thus, one can have misplaced faith in our current corpus of scientific knowledge, as well as in that methodology’s ability to answer all questions. But that’s only one path to faith.
The Study of Insects
Okay, I guess it's time for some etymology.
Sunni sed:
I admit to being confused here. First, I must make it clear that I don't limit the idea of "faith" to supernatural beings, entities, gods and such all. The idea that one can have a faith in a given scientifically proposed idea is a perfect example. It is specifically the POINT of science that it be without faith, that ideas are always open to examination and testing, that makes it science. Which would seem to bolster what my understanding of the word "faith" is. My grasp of the concept is that it is the willingness to reject thought and examination, to accept something IN SPITE of evidence, lack of evidence or even evidence to the contrary.
When you suggest that it is a "state of being" I'm inclined to think of brain-wave-entrainment, meditation, altered mind states, sleep, arousal, excitement, joy, anguish and so on... but not faith.
Compact OED sez:
If I may extrapolate from item #1, it means complete unquestioning acceptance.
From here I will go on to the idea of religion, which it seems to me differs from philosophy in that it pretty-much-by-definition requires the acceptance of certain subjects on "faith," i.e. with unquestioned acceptance. I'm sorry (no I'm not), but anytime someone tells me I have to take what they claim as the unquestionable truth... well, I'm outta there, dude. I'll play "what if" games with you and such, but only if you are honest and willing to actually delve into following the hard questions no matter where they lead. And that, it seems to me, is more along the lines of philosophical inquiry, not religion.
And that is the point I'm trying to make. I'm not saying ANYTHING about people's individual religions, good or bad or whatever, I'm making the observation that the idea of "rights" has become one of "faith" and is taken unquestioningly and whenever the idea is challenged I find the challenge comes in the form of a claim of heresy, not reasoned response with lucid thought. It is a "religious" claim, not a philosophical or scientific one.
Let me point out that I also have no problem with people choosing to take something on faith if that is what they want to personally do for whatever reason. I myself did so in my study of Shiatsu and the study of "chi" or energy flow and meridians in the human body. Every fiber of my rationality screamed out to me that this was total bullshit, but I set that aside for the sake of the studies and I found that, while logically it all makes no understandable sense to me, I do believe that there is some basis behind "chi" based upon my experiences in healing practices. But here again, outside of the process of learning the methodology and practicing what I've found to work, I'm totally open to any and all new evidence which may shed more light on the subject. I will not reject such ideas on the basis that I'm required to for my "faith."
As an aside, within certain defined limits, it appears that is one of the huge strengths of the Jewish culture, their tremendous valuing of study and inquiry.
It just really bothers me when someone claims that they have a "God given right." By doing so they are effectively saying that they can define reality and no one, except impolite people like me*, has any standing to question their proclamations. Phooey!
- NonE
* as evidence: the outcry here.
Shifting sands and hairs awaiting their fate
Sorry, I should have made my arguments clearer to follow (I plead distraction and being overwhelmed with work). Maybe I’ll do better today (although I’m still catching up on too many things).
The fact that faith can develop with a lack of supporting evidence says nothing about how often it actually does follow that course. Both of our dictionary definitions make it very clear that that interpretation is one of several meanings of the term.
Extrapolating is to go outside of existing data; and I believe that is the source of much of your unrest. Faith is not necessarily, and not always, unquestioning. You yourself point out that Jewish faith isn’t ... so I can’t help but wonder why you seem unable or unwilling to see the same thing in play elsewhere.
I thought philosophy did the same thing (to varying degrees, perhaps, depending upon the flavor under scrutiny; and ignoring your last phrase because it simply isn’t always applicable). Relatedly, and I’m sorry this wasn’t clearer in my earlier reply, but many people seem to treat today’s science in this way. And thus, many things are rejected and/or considered crackpottery—including some of the things you mentioned trying yourself—because today’s tools cannot measure them, and thus cannot validate (nor invalidate) them. This faith in current science strikes me as particularly short-sighted, but good luck trying to persuade some folks to have a more questioning mind on the subject.
I advanced a similar line of thought here some time ago, regarding how rights have come to be viewed by many. I’ve linked to it in this discussion already, so I shan’t again; but if you’ve read it you know I got a fair amount of criticism for it, too. But, probably because I formed my argument along very different lines, much of the response was lucid and reasoned.
While that once may have meant something to the person uttering it, and probably still does to a slim minority, surely you recognize that it is a very old, common phrase; and for some individuals, it’s akin to the omnipresent “Have a nice day”. Personally I object to the latter more strenuously, as I don’t like to be ordered around ... but more seriously, I let it roll over me.
By way of reply I’d like to point out that your previous words seem to contradict this assertion—especially with respect to religious faith. And I suspect that is the basis of much of the outcry (overwrought as some of it appears to me).
And last for now, one of the anonymice left a lengthy response here, most of which I don’t see as helpful; but the person did drop a link that seems worth exploring: Dancing With the Gods by Eric Raymond.
Dancing
Sunni,
From your link, Dancing with the Gods, the following line verily JUMPED off the page at me. Great stuff. Thanks for the link.
- NonE
P.S. Note that I did not say Jewish faith, I said Jewish culture. That was specific and with intent. Just as the Jewish people and the State of Israel are very, very different things. Speaking of which, "The Lemon Tree" by Sandy Tolan is one of the most important books I've read in years. Highly recommended.
NonEntity said: But in
NonEntity said:
See, this is our fundamental disagreement. Perhaps I am being blind, but it certainly seems that you're tarring all religions with the same brush.
While there will always be people who insist on being sheep, there will also be those who never will be satisfied with the status quo. Those are the ones who will always reach for the new understanding. Most of them will fail. Some will succeed. And a while later, the sheeple follow to the new safe ground.
That's how human progress works. We never advance because someone's satisfied. And the majority is never ready to advance when someone figures out a better way.
NonEntity also said:
For the sheeple, I agree. But that is not where the progress is going to start.
NonEntity also said:
I see it as a necessary step to frustrate the people who will try again and again until they find it a better way. One of my favorite sayings is "Progress never came from satisfaction."
I also see it as a necessary prelude to the collapse of the central state, but that is a long argument.
www.paganvigil.com
"Because LIBERTY demands more than just black and white"
Differences
NeoWayland,
Your last post is interesting in that it deals with several subjects.
As to your suggestion that I am painting all religions with... I suggest you look at my reply to Sunni under "The Study of Insects." It appears that you are taking my position as a personal attack on peoples choices of belief. I'm not. I'm attacking the underlying methodology, not the people. And I'm only attacking it in the realm of social interaction, otherwise known as politics or the forceful control of some people by other people. In THAT regard, I DO care what people think when they point guns at me.
At the end of your post you speak of a "necessary step." I think that, while a valid point, it is out of the context of this discussion for this reason: I'm not speaking of the brute force evolutionary progression of human societal processes. In that context, then yes, I can see where perhaps a lot of maybe even violent turmoil may be "necessary" to find what survives and what does not. Mao did a good job at that. How many did he kill? And maybe we've learned a little bit about things that don't work quite so well as the little red book thought they would.
But I take issue with you in that what I thought was the topic of discussion is not raw animal evolution, but rather the thoughtful attempt to develop fair and equitable social methods of interaction. Isn't that what we're seeking? It's what I'm seeking. And so I'm interested in freedom, respect, choice, and so on. For all, not just Dick Cheney and his friends with the keys to the bunkers.
As such, I find the idea of "rights" as is currently held by the vast majority of libertarian minded folks to be lacking in some regards (even as I believe it is a HUGE step forward from what came before) and am therefore seeking to find those ways in which it lacks and to see what other ideas might perchance be even better. And invariably each time I get into a discussion on this subject I am treated as a heretic and no consideration is given to the faults I'm seeing. It is a religious faith that has developed as regards the rights issue, one which will brook NO DISCUSSION.
It is THIS which bothers me and this which I took the effort to point out, and for which I've been tied to the stake and doused with gasoline. Which only confirms the point I made.
There's a great short work called "The Myth of Natural Rights" by a guy named Rollins, I think. I read it and found it excellent and self evident. I imagine he received as warm a reception with his piece as I have with my ideas. So maybe you are actually right after all. Maybe there is no thought involved, it's all a necessary process of evolutionary development of the code of life. Geeze, maybe we're all about to enter the operating system of Life: Vista! ;-)
- NonE
NonEntity,
NonEntity,
I agree with much of what you say, I have all along. I don't think that someone should get special privileges because of their faith.
You should see some of the things I've written about "Christian America." You should see some of the things I've told Pagans about trying to impose their morality on other people's behavior. And you should see the online arguments I've had with Muslims about whether shiria law has any place in a secular society, or indeed, if society should be secular. Some of this is online at my blog, some of it is scattered throughout the web, and some of it has since vanished.
Here are some of the reoccurring things I've said on my mainstream blog.
I've objected to prayers before government meetings, not because my path won't be included, but because I don't think the actions of government should be sanctioned and sanctified by any god.
I've said that religion cannot be allowed the coercive power of government and that government can't be allowed the moral justification of religion.
I've said that if a belief system can't compete without the threat of force, then it doesn't deserve to exist.
I've said that matters of faith should always be a personal choice and never a public policy.
You and I are disagreeing over a symbol mismatch. You are saying that faith is a methodology. I disagree. At best, faith can prompt methodologies (note the plural).
I do agree that imposing religion and dogma are a methodology, but I draw the distinction between the religion itself and imposing it on others.
Just so you know, I've also written against imposing other dogmas such as global warming, political correctness, radical feminism, and animal rights.
If you speak for yourself, then I've no real issue. But I didn't see that, and maybe that was me. I did see you talking about religionists, a word that has some extremely negative connotations among the "bright" crowd. Perhaps that was another symbol mismatch. I must admit when you asked for proof of religion, it fed my expectations. Words like delusional and insane didn't help.
My necessary bit has more to do with Adam Smith than Mao. After all, there's a free market of ideas too. I wasn't talking about some grand evolution, I was talking about the day to day incremental changes that so much of human progress is based on. Those changes can reward or punish, either is incentive for the next change.
One of my free market heros is George Lucas, a man who has done more to create change in the technical side of film than anyone else alive. It didn't happen because he was satisfied with the state of the art, even after he changed it the first dozen or so times.
It's a truism, progress doesn't come from satisfaction. It comes because someone is not happy with the way that things are working.
Like maybe the way that Objectivists and libertarians usually accept the idea of "natural rights" without question. That might make someone a bit unsatisfied, don't you think?
www.paganvigil.com
"Because LIBERTY demands more than just black and white"
Symbol mismatch
LOVE the line that you and I are having problems with a symbol mismatch. Just love it! Say, have you read "The Tyranny of Words," by Stuart Chase? If not, I think you'd like it. It's one of those top-of-my-list books.
- NonE
Thank you. I'm adding it to
Thank you.
I'm adding it to my wish list.
So many books, so little time.
Which meaning did you intend?
Genetics has a few definitions. It can refer to the biological study of heredity, hereditary transmission and variation among similar organisms. It can also refer to "the genetic constitution of an individual, group, or class."
As for religion, your post starts out with discussing people who espouse views regarding deities and any such beliefs that correspond with said deities. It migrates to include "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience". You put "rights" into the position of the belief being followed devotedly.
Further, I don't understand why you care so much about another's belief system that you find to be tragically flawed. It's fairly obvious from the original post, and subsequent comment banter, that espousing views that you deem religious draws your ire. Why the fuss? If the person isn't in your face about it, why should you care if she believes in God, or rights, or little green elephants in pink tutus?
What lewlew said
Perhaps it's just human nature to believe one's personal philosophy is superior to anyone else's. The trick is to remember it's only superior to what you believed on the way toward adopting it. What makes the universe sensible to you does not make it, um, universal truth for all of us. Nor would my worldview settle particularly comfortably behind your eyes.
This is perhaps a tangent, but reasoning - not blind faith - tells me there was something peculiar about this Jesus fellow, who (for example) hundreds of people claimed to have seen walking around after he was executed, a number of whom were executed themselves when they refused to deny they saw it.
On the other hand, there is no historical evidence that little green elephants in pink tutus ever danced in the town square. Now, I'm not asking you to believe, as I do, that he was who he said he was; I'm just suggesting there are ways to reach that conclusion without great leaps of non-reasoning.
This Jesus fellow
As to this Jesus fellow, I have no idea if he existed or not. I've not really given it much consideration. I do know that there is a bit of scholarly work showing that he did not exist but is more of a composite of various ideas and or people from the history before "his time."
That said, if he did exist I sure think he was a pretty good guy, from what I've heard of him. (Even if he didn't dance in the town square in a pink tutu!) I'm not sure if his grasp of economics was really good, what with all of the disparagement of money lenders, but then, I've studied a small bit on the Muslim or Islam (I'm confused on the difference) idea that interest is bad and from what I read it seems they may have a good point. And "The Creature from Jekyll Island" certainly confirms the idea that interest is pernicious, at least in the context of fiat money. So maybe this Jesus dude was right about the money lending thing afterall. I'm still open on that one.
But what has that got to do with people refusing to consider ideas which challenge their sacrosanct beliefs? I can't recall that I said anything about Jesus, or even Christians, to the best of my recollection. :-) I think I was talking about rights issues and accepting ideas "on faith." And the nature of humans to do that very thing, sadly. I find it hugely funny that libertarians, who for the most part are atheists and proud of it, are deeply religious. I just think that is funny as hell, don't you?
- NonE
Not really
I find it hugely funny that libertarians, who for the most part are atheists and proud of it, are deeply religious. I just think that is funny as hell, don't you?
Back to my original questions regarding how you define genetics and religion--- I take it you are referring to "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience" when you type the word religion. Am I correct?
To answer the question you posed to B.W.--- not particularly. If the libertarian in question espouses a belief in no deity and a belief in "rights" I don't particularly care if said libertarian doesn't get up in my grill about it, nor hounds me because I embrace Christ.
If you think about it, we take many things on a faith level. You know how your computer works and how it is powered. In theory, it should turn on without a glitch, but the reality is that the smallest error in the computer's workings or the power supply can cause the machine to not turn on. However, how many times does one think as she sits down at her computer to turn it on, "Well, I don't have faith the computer will boot up today." No--- most days she turns it on, with the faith all is well and running appropriately. That is until a sign spelling trouble is signaled.
We go to bed at night with the unspoken faith we'll probably wake up in the morning. We travel with some nugget of faith we'll arrive safely. I have faith the food I prepare is palatable and when I pet my dogs they won't bite me. In theory, is this faith well founded? Maybe, but maybe not.
Is it funny? Not particularly, because without it, I think life would become twitchy and practically unbearable.
Not MY computer
Hi lewlew,
You may take your computer on faith, I don't. Praying didn't develop the chips or the code, and praying won't fix it when it's broken. I don't have faith I'll wake up in the morning either. I think there's a good probability I will. That ain't faith.
My definition of religion is a set of beliefs that one holds based upon unquestioned (and unquestionable!) assertions. Belief in "the state," for instance, is a religion, as Marc Stevens has so eloquently shown in his "Adventures in Legal Land."
I don't think the desire not to feel "twitchy" is an excuse that I am comfortable using for avoiding examination of my beliefs. If you do, then fine. I don't. And actually, that part about "life would become practically unbearable" is the part of the thesis Matthew Alper uses as an explanation of why we've evolved "The 'GOD' Part of the Brain." I don't know if his theory is true or not, but it certainly is compelling thinking on the subject.
Indeed, I think that libertarians are unwilling to question the general idea of property and rights because they DO find it unbearable to not feel certain, just as those who believe in gods may have the same reasoning. This is religion, in my view.
In fact, thinking about it, not wanting to feel twitchy and uncomfortable is maybe why there are "Support Our Troops" magnets all over the backs of cars and dead bodies all over the ground in Iraq. I certainly feel twitchy and uncomfortable about all of that. I have since it started.
That's where I have the problem. When someone's desire to not feel twitchy lands another in jail for charges of possessing a plant, or someone else in a grave for being brown, then it's an issue. And that is why I'm bringing it up. I don't know if it's alright not to feel twitchy. At least not when it involves others.
I really have a hard time with the idea of choosing not to think. And I'm in the minority, I know.
That's how I see it, anyway.
- NonE
Now according to
Now according to dictionary.com, faith has multiple definitions, of which only a select few are connected to deity or religion. What was the number one definition? Confidence or trust in a person or thing. You say,"I don't have faith I'll wake up in the morning either. I think there's a good probability I will. That ain't faith." I disagree, according to the definition of faith I listed a sentence ago.
While you assume I meant prayer when I spoke about having faith that a computer (or toaster, oven, coffee pot, or car...) would work properly, what I was referring to was the confidence that it would.
I don't think the desire not to feel "twitchy" is an excuse that I am comfortable using for avoiding examination of my beliefs. If you do, then fine. I don't When I referred to "twitchy," the direction I was heading was that living life at a level where you have no confidence in anything is practically unbearable. If that's how you choose to live--- although I don't assume you do, because I am not exactly sure what you deeply embrace except for ire, at this point----- so be it. I do not choose to live that way. Operating with confidence in people or things does not equate to avoidance of examination. That bias is completely your own animal.
The way you frame your responding comments, it appears to me that you assume I do not examine my own beliefs. Quote: I really have a hard time with the idea of choosing not to think. Further, I find your pulling of Iraq into the discussion at this juncture akin to yellow journalism.
I am approaching you with questions, so I can understand your position better. In return, I am of the opinion you are projecting a persona on me that is built entirely on your biases about the original topic of your post-- religion.
I don't understand why you would do this. In the end, however, I don't really care because your opinion of me does not matter. My quest was for a discussion and clarification, not to sling mud. If you are up for a discussion great. If you want to fling mud, no thank you.
[Point of order]
To quote someone, use this construction:
<blockquote>quoted text here</blockquote>
The spacing is automatically wider vertically around blockquotes, so one needn’t try to add more space (via hard returns, which doesn’t work well here, or via <br>, which does work).
And NonE, I do agree with some of what lewlew is saying: prayer is not necessarily and not always a component of faith. The definition you cited above makes that clear. [By the way, I think this thread has now set a record for number of definitions given for a single term: we’re at three. Do I hear four?] To cast it as such in your reply to her was beneath your usual conversational standard.
Not personal
lewlew,
It's not about you!
I am discussing an idea here, I am not speaking of you personally. Specifically, to the extent that you DO examine your life and stuff, then you are not taking things "on faith," so if you are one to examine then I could not be speaking of you. It is the IDEA of taking something "on faith" which I find bothersome. I am challenging that idea. I can't imagine why anyone would take issue with the idea of examining ideas, and yet...
I bring up Iraq not as Yellow Journalism, but rather as a (it seems to me) very pertinent example of what can happen, indeed HAS happened, when people choose not to examine what they have been told. The same with the "war on drugs." I have so often spoken with those who proclaim that drugs are so very evil that almost anything is acceptable to stop people from using them. And they say this in total ignorance of the truth. If I ask them if they've ever smoked pot, they'll say no, and yet loudly proclaim that jail is the only place for someone who does. Weird, just weird.
I just find it sad and disheartening when people are so wrapped up in fear or whatever that they are unwilling to have an open mind, that's all.
But you are right, I am angry about it and this is probably the very worst way to deal with it. I need to look at this.
- NonE
Next question
Thank you for the clarification, NonEntity. From your rebuttal previously typed, I did have concerns that your response was a personal attack.
Faith appears where we disagree. I do not find faith repugnant, nor necessarily evidence of a lack of thought from the person embracing the faith in question.
The quote above is the reference for my next question, is the idea of "belief that is not based on proof" what is bothersome to you?
Yet another question
The above quote is from the comment section of another thread and one you typed. My next question to you is if our gift to other humans is to love them, respect them and allow them to be who they are, then if a person personally, non-forcefully, embraces a line of thought you consider to fall under the religion umbrella, why is that not okay? Why cannot the gift you write about be given to such a person I write about? To be clear, I refer to a person who is living his life, not forcefully getting into your personal space about his beliefs in an attempt to "convert" you.
Libertarian and religion parallels
With respect to the last paragraph I’ve quoted, you probably are in most places, but not here.
With respect to the former, I tend to agree that many pro-freedom individuals get comfortable, so to speak, at a certain point in their thinking or with a certain degree of freedom, but past that “there be dragons!” and ... they stop. Maybe temporarily, maybe permanently. Also, I think the context of the day shapes our focus; classical liberalism was much more focused on labor issues (if I’m understanding rightly), probably in large part because the Industrial Revolution, child labor laws, and unions were fomenting large-scale changes in how people worked to support themselves. Today those subjects seem the purview mostly of the “left libertarians”, and is one area that distinguishes them from the “right”. The focus in freedom has shifted to property, perhaps in response to the state trying to steal so much of it in varied ways. Where might it shine next? I have no idea.
Back to examining libertarian thinkers, though. For many, once they’ve arrived at a place where it seems most of the big problems are addressed, they may stop thinking about their theoretical framework—unless and until it becomes clear that it’s incomplete. Each of us can’t think of everything, though; so, are we to be faulted for that? Even in my long, wandering journey to create a nomadic lifestyle for myself, I never thought to question the conflict between travel and property rights as you pointed out earlier. I don’t consider that evidence that I’ve stopped thinking, nor any sort of shameful state on my part. It simply is. And you simply were different from me in that regard.
Above a certain threshold of faith, you may prefer to label a belief system a religion—you certainly wouldn’t be the first to do so. But just as the emperor didn’t like his nudity publicly revealed, most individuals don’t appreciate their worldview or philosophy (or however they call it) so pigeonholed. This is as true of pro-freedom individuals as statists, I think; and in part for good reason: where an outside observer may see smooth certainty, an individual (some, at least; not all) knows the hard-fought battles, the what-iffing and second-guessing and such that undergirds his position, and doesn’t like all that effort going unrecognized.
This Symbol
What I meant by "genetics" is the idea that who we are, how we think, even our personalities to a great extent, is formed from the interaction of our own individual DNA and it's environment as it expresses itself. And to extrapolate from that, the way we think is less under our control than we think it is.
I found it funny that those who are mostly inclined to consider themselves free of religion are, in fact, as deeply religious as others. I don't mean they believe in gods, but that they have a religious relationship with the ideas which they hold to be beyond question.
And since I'm also one of them (a human, derived from the same basic genetic code from which humans are built), this probably applies to me as well, of course.
- NonE
Let US define our own terms
Damn straight!
You may define "religious relationship" any way you choose; but if you examined my mind, you'd find the most non-belief-/non-faith-based perspective of anyone you know. Yet I hold "certain truths" to be self-evident - not because I take them on "faith", but because I have already thought the subject through, and have arrived at a rational conclusion re: that subject. I don't believe it because Rand said so; I don't believe it because government says it isn't so. I believe it because my mind has weighed all evidence and convinced me of those truths.
Once convinced, I'm not going to "believe" any hogwash to the contrary. Not because I'm stubbornly - and religiously! - clinging to a previous idea, but because I know hogwash when I smell it.
Sunni is right in her previous post that many libertarians have already arrived at what they "believe" - and having arrived, wish to go on to a different level of concern. Many have stopped worrying about the basic theory (in fact don't wish to discuss it any more, with either libertarians OR non-libertarians), and are now getting down to other issues - including the happiness and stabilty of their own lives!
It's a non sequitur to say that because libertarians seemingly act/think/'believe' as YOU have defined religion, that they maintain their position by "faith." It's also false to assume that their 'religiosity' re: certain issues renders them less than libertarian.
My definition
Pagan,
You make a good point. Perhaps I've left out the proper context for my rant. I am speaking of those people who, when I challenge them with some disturbing ideas that I have had which will not fit within the confines of "rights" thinking, simply say they are right and I am wrong and dismiss the subject. It's the same thing as saying, (one of my favorite bumper stickers!) "God said it, I believe it, that settles it!"
I have no problem whatsoever with being shown that I am wrong. I actually enjoy it as it means I've learned something new. So I welcome challenging discussion and having intelligent rebutal to my ideas.
But that is not what I'm speaking about here.
Does that help?
It's like when Ayn Rand totally blew off Roy Childs "Open Letter." Very revealing act on her part.
- NonE
Yes... and No.
Yes... and No.
I understand what you're trying to say. And I agree with it. But you seem to assume that anyone who won't debate the issue is standing on "faith". That isn't true. Many are simply tired of the debate. They find the debate - NOT the issue - irrelevant to the cause. (In fact, more and more, I find it harmful to the cause. The Libertarian Party is one example.)
There's a fine line between zeal and "religion" (often because the religious are the most zealous about their beliefs). But libertarians and anarchists may be the most zealous of all political points of view, and with good reason: freedom is not a matter of degree. So - like faith - it is too important to compromise.
Unlike the religious person, however, the lib-anarch often does not feel he should waste his energy on those who refuse to be enlightened. Likewise they aren't sympathetic to those within the freedom community who wish to nickel-and-dime the issues.
While Rand's attitude was suspect in her response to "Open Letter", and there may be a few - or more! - who represent what you're saying, I don't believe they are the major portion of lib-anarchs, and they don't define the issues in any case.
~~~
I'm not sure if you feel you've received a satisfactory response to your perspective concerning "rights", so let me answer as well as I can - and I can say no more than this from my own POV:
"Property rights" are a fundamental tenet of freedom. The Zero Aggression Principle is founded on the concept that human life is "owned" by the individual alone, and only that individual can determine what he/she may do with it. His mind and body are his first "property." All other ownership originates from that.
Without the "right" to own one's own life (and property), there would be no expectation of freedom: to think, or work, or play, to say what one wishes without reprisal, to worship - or not - as one wishes, to open/conceal carry a weapon for self-defense, etc.; in short, to generally interact peaceably with others in society, and to EXPECT the same consideration from others that he gives them. There would be no expectation of fullfillment - i.e. pursuit of happiness - throughout his lifetime.
As B.W. said, rights exist in a social framework. The individual who doesn't receive the expectation above from his government or from his neighbor is not free; the individual who does receive this expectation is free. No matter what society, or country, or commune, or tribe he lives in, this fact remains true. If people leave him alone to pursue his own desires, he is free. If he leaves others alone to pursue their own desires, they are free. The existence of freedom in a given society is determined by the ability of the individual to own one's mind, body, and the result of his creativity, and to pursue one's goals and lifestyle without interference. This is the only consideration that marks freedom. Laws cannot make it happen. Neither can religion, tradition, or historical perspective.
It all begins and ends with "property rights" - the right of the individual to "own" himself.
There ya go
That statement is the core issue upon which all of the other edifices are built and which I challenge. If you've read my "Do We Own Ourselves" then you will (may?) see where I'm coming from on this issue.
And I suggest that many people take the position you've espoused as beyond question. As it appears may be your position. I disagree. I do question it, and I find it wanting, and I also find that the entire worldview that results from it is limited by it. It is this last which I find distressing. I think that there is a richness of idea and experience out there which is being totally rejected out of hand.
But enough of that for now. I have another post to make concerning birds.
- NonE
It's the direction
Let me add this note, in case it may help...
I sort of see this as a matter of direction. We all know (HAH! Ain't THAT a laugh!) that top-down design is pretty much destined to fail. Evidence the U.S.S.R. for one. The idea I'd like to suggest for consideration is this: If we approach life from a more organic perspective than a cerebral one, it allows for growth and evolution. By this what I mean is that we should change the perspective we have from one of rights, to one of respect and allowance. If we try to define rights, we are making the assumption that we know everything, and that we can design our world to take into account all possible issues. If, on the other hand, we make the assumption that all actors have equal (I hate to use this word, but bear with me) right to their space and energy and plans and dreams, then all we need to worry about is to resolve those conflicts AS THEY ARISE. Do you see the point I'm trying to make about direction? The goal of "rights" is to avoid or to settle conflicts, I assume. But the direction is wrong. The direction is to resolve a conflict which has not yet occurred, rather than to look at it with the more generous perspective that we treat others with respect and attempt to work with them to resolve any conflicts if and when they arise rather than to confine them in boxes which prevent the conflict a priori.
I'll leave it at this for now and see if I've helped anyone to grasp what it is that I am attempting to say.
- NonE
Addendum: It's kinda like zoning. Trying to design a town rather than allowing it to develop through the open interactions of people pursuing their dreams and working out their issues with their neighbors as they develop.
Another direction. And since
Another direction.
And since I am not totally giving in to my inner Coyote today, I'll confess that I am currently reading a book that has a bearing on this subject.
Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations
I've got to go to the post office, so I will see you later.
Mmmmm, Crow! YUM!!!
Looking back over the last day or so of my writing activities here on this thread, I must say that I am embarrassed for myself. I can see that I've been quite an ass. And so, for that, I apologize to all who've put up with me.
As I say this, there are two main issues alive for me (or maybe seven, depending on how you count.)
First, I feel greatly frustrated, and that has led me to respond with some anger. Anger is one of the things that over the years I have found to be most unhelpful in my life. It is an emotion, and as such (Thank You Marshall Rosenberg and Non-Violent Communication) it is neither good nor bad, it just is what it is. But when I allow it to justify my responses is when it becomes destructive. This is a big issue for me, and one which I hope to write more about at some time. Perhaps this will bring that time closer.
Secondly, the points I've been trying to make are true for me, and I am passionate about them. But I have really not approached the communication of them effectively, and perhaps I will be better able to do so. I'm going to try.
So for now I need to eat some more of this pie before it gets cold. Y'all have a wonderful day. The sun is shining, and the future looks
brightahead! ;-)- NonE