I love this metaphor: “if all you have is a table, you don’t have a banquet. You have an impoverishment.” I think libertarians often beg the question by refusing to budge from a discussion of the NAP when there is also a cultural choice at issue. It’s a way of avoiding responsibility for having to decide what our values are. Someone says, “the Supreme Court is forcing women to have back alley abortions” and we say, “you do realize that ruling is about *limiting* the scope of centralized control over such issues, right?” and we ARE right. But then we can avoid having to engage with ourselves in our *personal* beliefs on the matter.
This exact thing happened to me at PorcFest, which was right after the ruling. I was basically of the opinion that the ruling was neutral-good in that it placed a limit on federal government. But most of the people I spoke to at PorcFest thought it was bad because it would have the effect of limiting individual rights in the states that chose to legislate more heavily on abortion. Over the next couple of weeks, I allowed myself to engage with my personal beliefs on the matter and came to the conclusion that the others I had spoken to were right. The ruling limits the federal government, but empowers the state governments to infringe on individual rights. Therefore, it is not a net positive. Which tends to be the case whenever government does anything.
This was a complicated issue for me to engage with, because of my personal beliefs about abortion--which are not in favor. But when I allowed (forced) myself to engage, I had to admit that individual rights, health freedom, and bodily autonomy of women/mothers was more important than the fetus consciousness question (which can't be proved either way.)
This is an area where the question of individual rights get so murky for me that I honestly don’t know what to do with the problem. It seems that this is a way for people to have the choice between which cultures they prefer-California, Texas, NY, Louisiana? And I see that as a net benefit. Shunting it to the states is correct, but it doesn’t address the issue of state legislative power.
In a free society, this would be determined at the individual and property-owner level. It can be fairly impossible to determine what is more or less freedom-enhancing whenever states get involved. So in this case, as in many others, I end up being a conscientious objector to either alternative.
Nothing makes people madder than when you refuse to take a position😂 Everyone wants to claim you for their side or name you as an enemy.
I do find that it’s easy to avoid wrestling with the Hoppean questions of what it takes to establish and sustain a low time-preference society. Saidedean Ammous says it’s all the fault of fiat currency-he makes a compelling argument that it is profoundly morally corrupting.
I can't stand it when people pick fluffy words as values. "A dream without a plan is nothing but a wish." If anyone reading this is one of those sentimental people, I would say to make ACTION a core value or FREEDOM INSPIRED ACTION, furthermore IMPACT has been a value I am working with. It's totally pointless to be busy and have feelings if it isn't creating an impact or really making the world a better place. I think picking any core value without a plan is even missing the table. It's like, "it'd be nice to have a table one day..." Useless.
I love this metaphor: “if all you have is a table, you don’t have a banquet. You have an impoverishment.” I think libertarians often beg the question by refusing to budge from a discussion of the NAP when there is also a cultural choice at issue. It’s a way of avoiding responsibility for having to decide what our values are. Someone says, “the Supreme Court is forcing women to have back alley abortions” and we say, “you do realize that ruling is about *limiting* the scope of centralized control over such issues, right?” and we ARE right. But then we can avoid having to engage with ourselves in our *personal* beliefs on the matter.
This exact thing happened to me at PorcFest, which was right after the ruling. I was basically of the opinion that the ruling was neutral-good in that it placed a limit on federal government. But most of the people I spoke to at PorcFest thought it was bad because it would have the effect of limiting individual rights in the states that chose to legislate more heavily on abortion. Over the next couple of weeks, I allowed myself to engage with my personal beliefs on the matter and came to the conclusion that the others I had spoken to were right. The ruling limits the federal government, but empowers the state governments to infringe on individual rights. Therefore, it is not a net positive. Which tends to be the case whenever government does anything.
This was a complicated issue for me to engage with, because of my personal beliefs about abortion--which are not in favor. But when I allowed (forced) myself to engage, I had to admit that individual rights, health freedom, and bodily autonomy of women/mothers was more important than the fetus consciousness question (which can't be proved either way.)
This is an area where the question of individual rights get so murky for me that I honestly don’t know what to do with the problem. It seems that this is a way for people to have the choice between which cultures they prefer-California, Texas, NY, Louisiana? And I see that as a net benefit. Shunting it to the states is correct, but it doesn’t address the issue of state legislative power.
In a free society, this would be determined at the individual and property-owner level. It can be fairly impossible to determine what is more or less freedom-enhancing whenever states get involved. So in this case, as in many others, I end up being a conscientious objector to either alternative.
Nothing makes people madder than when you refuse to take a position😂 Everyone wants to claim you for their side or name you as an enemy.
I do find that it’s easy to avoid wrestling with the Hoppean questions of what it takes to establish and sustain a low time-preference society. Saidedean Ammous says it’s all the fault of fiat currency-he makes a compelling argument that it is profoundly morally corrupting.
I can't stand it when people pick fluffy words as values. "A dream without a plan is nothing but a wish." If anyone reading this is one of those sentimental people, I would say to make ACTION a core value or FREEDOM INSPIRED ACTION, furthermore IMPACT has been a value I am working with. It's totally pointless to be busy and have feelings if it isn't creating an impact or really making the world a better place. I think picking any core value without a plan is even missing the table. It's like, "it'd be nice to have a table one day..." Useless.