RoR: Forum

For the broader context: in the prior post, Fred had just written, "Free vs. forced association is not an ethical filter that I've yet been convinced to throw away" which is quite quotable on its own. Then, from that context, Fred discusses this business of everything being decided at the national level.

I was struck with how clearly his OneSizeFitsAll description summarizes our situation. One political party is beating the drums loudly to nationalize health care, to impliment nationwide environmental controls, gun registration, to make us all more equal in income, etc., and then demonizing the other party for only being lukewarm about nationalizing each and every decisions.

I was reminded of the founding fathers' fears of factionalizing which they saw as a great danger to a republic.

Fred's description gives a compelling human grasp of the importance of the 10th amendment - states rights - and the concept that the federal government may not do anything that isn't specifically enumerated.

It breaks past the quandary in the mind of the man in street who says, "Well, if it really is bad for people to eat too much sugar, then maybe we should ban it." As if one alternative being even the tiniest bit more desirable on average is a justification for forcing everyone to use it.

It breaks free of the assumption that whatever the problem, government should do something (meaning the only argument left is what should government do).

Post 1

Wednesday, January 23, 2013 - 9:44am

Steve:

When you bring up 'states rights' you get right to the heart of how we got to where we are today: 'states rights' has become a code word that paints all such pro-arguments as 'pro slavery.' As soon as anyone mentions 'states rights,' the Totalitarians start waving the stars and bars, the KKK, and slavery from the 1800s.

That is exactly why I think the emphasis, even in matters of 'states rights' clearly needs to be focused on a clear underlying ethical principle: free vs forced association.

Clearly, the ethical filter of 'free association' could never be used in a million years to justify advocacy of slavery!

It's also why I think objectivists need to re-market Rand's ideas, emphasizing not "I vs. We", the individual vs. the Tribe, but free association vs. forced association.

Because individuals freely form societies all the time, peacefully, under rules of free association.

"I vs. We" is too easily demagogued, and has been.

OTOH, paradigms successfully painted as instances of forced association are a real losers, especially in a nation that still regards itself -- barely -- as a free nation.

Who in their right mind is going to march behind the banner of 'forced association?'

As well, advocates of free association must be ready for the knee-jerk accusations of racism by strenuously defending peer based freedom in the commons, including, anti-discrimination laws, which I have argued can be supported on the basis of inhibiting forced association. There is a fundamental difference between our public behavior on the commons, as peers living in freedom, and what we do as private citizens within the confines of our own home and families.

A Totalitarian -- desperate to avoid the scourge of free association, which is totally anathema to their agenda -- will rapidly attempt to paint advocates of free association as 'racists' who want to bring back Jim Crow laws. Nonsense, and the effective counter argument to that is a strong advocacy of anti-public discrimination laws in commerce and on the commons, defending the freedom of our peers, in a consistent defense of liberty, not stained by this nations scars at birth.

Stripped of that, Totalitarians are left naked with their forced association banner, exposed for what they are, and once exposed, cannot prevail for long in a free nation.

Is it too late? Never.

regards,
Fred

Post 2

Wednesday, January 23, 2013 - 10:01am

Steve:

Having said that it, it begs another question, better answered by you. I might have even asked you this before.

If 'forced association' is such a distasteful, widely disdained human activity -- after all, it is what distinguishes rape from sexual love -- then what is the human mechanism which permits some of us to ignore that attribute of what we advocate -- "National Fill In The Blank!" when we line up and march behind such banners?

Is it a deliberate failure to perceive, an unconscious failure to perceive, or a tortured rationalization that what is being advocated sin't really 'forced association?' As in, why use such nasty terms, it is for the common good, the general welfare, blah-blah-blah....; you know, the vapid Jello against the wall counter arguments thrown up by the Totalitarians when advocating their nonsense?

What mental process or mechanism inside of us allows us to push what we passionately want beyond a cold recognition of what it is we want?

Notice I didn't say 'the left' or 'Democrats.' The GOP and the right in this nation has done more than its share of pushing forced association on a national scale, including the glaring issue of gay marriage bans, which is such a screaming example of 'forced association' that it is hard to find one that is worse!

regards,
Fred

Post 3

Wednesday, January 23, 2013 - 9:06pm

Fred,

I agree with you that "states' rights" has been made code words for racist laws, but it isn't about racism no matter how racists in the past wanted to use it, and they lost that argument. I'm not ready to give up the constitutional protection that the 10th amendment affords. If the Supreme Court shifts to a liberal majority, then we will, for a time, move away from being a constitutional republic and this won't matter. But if the court majority in the next few decades were to become constitutionally conservative, then the 10th and 9th will be powerful weapons for pruning away illegitimate federal power.

There was a point in time when the colonies ceased to be colonies because of the revolution and they became States (with a capital 'S' - they were each nations) and they quickly formed a union - a permanent alliance of independent nation-states to ensure they had the might to fend off any any attacks from Britain, France or Spain. They were very reluctant to give up any of their powers to this new federal government, hence that 10th amendment. The federal powers were specifically limited and in only those areas did the states agree to be subordinate, and they thought of themselves more as nations who have signed an agreement to give up a few powers in exchange for the alliance - not that different from a NATO.

I think it is critical to win back this notion of states' rights, to strip it of the progressives' racist smears, and regain one of the great inhibitors of federalism gone amok. The federal government was never meant to have most of the powers it has taken on.

The states, when they are properly empowered are more effective at reigning in an overreaching federal government than the voters at large could ever be. (And towards that end, we should once again have the senators chosen by the state legislators.) And it is an effective approach towards liberty to take federal programs that may to be too popular to end immediately, and turn them over to states to do with as they please, but they have to pay for whatever they decide to keep. As we know, the closer the tax burden gets to the individual, the more likely he is to can the program.

In the end, we want the federal government to constitutionally define individual rights such that the states can't user their "rights" to violate individual rights, while still be enough of a force that a majority of states can stop the federal government from being the violator.
------------------

There is no question that I'd choose "Free Association" over "States' Rights" if I were forced to choose between "approaches," but I see them as different entities and want for both to be fought for.

States' rights is a more technical issue - one dealing with structure, and solely for the purpose of checking the growth of federal power... like separation of powers between the three branches of government. While your approach with Free versus Forced Association is more fundamental and one of approaching political decisions from ethics.

I have to chew on the business of re-marketing Rand's ideas of "I vs. We" and the individual vs. the Tribe, but so far, I think you might be right on that.
-----------------

As regards anti-discrimination on the commons, it is the government that manages the commons and they should not be permitted to discriminate based upon skin color for anything. Period. As to people being able to discriminate irrationally on private property, the liberals can make their argument that free association allows racial discrimination and they are right, but that is the nature of liberty. If I am free, I can do lots of things that are bad (put harmful drugs into my body, advocate for Fascism, commit suicide, or even be a progressive :-)

I'm not sure what you mean by "anti-public discrimination laws in commerce." I believe that the owner of a business that is conducted on private property, and who receives no government money, has the right to be a bigot, e.g., to serve who he wants - free association.

But restoring this right to be a bigot (modifying portions of Title II and VII of the Civil Rights Act), isn't anything I'd want put at the top of the political to-do list. Although it is needed unless we want to say that property rights are actually government permissions since they have the legal right to say how consenting adults can associate on private property.

It sounds like you have a different approach where a commercial enterprise is open to the public?

Post 4

Wednesday, January 23, 2013 - 9:08pm

Fred,

I really like the idea of Free vs. Forced Association. I don't know of anyone who couldn't get behind that, even if they are being a bit contradictory. But the beauty of the principle is that it makes it easy to point out their contradictions. Using your example, you could easily get people to agree with the principle but then ask ,"Well, given that, how could you be for gay marriage bans?".

Could you clarify your thoughts on anti-discrimination laws? If you are talking about laws preventing discrimination on public property, I certainly agree. But you bring up commerce, by which do you mean private commerce? As evil as the concept of simple (i,e. racial) discrimination in business is, I would think it an attack on property rights to tell someone they cannot practice it at their private business. It would also seem to be an example of forced association, so I'm curious what your thoughts are.

-Dan

Post 5

Wednesday, January 23, 2013 - 9:16pm

Oops, Steve beat me to my question as I was typing it.

Post 6

Wednesday, January 23, 2013 - 10:40pm

Fred,

This is going to run very long. Don't feel obligated to stay with it if you are less than fascinated or it isn't what you wanted.

You wrote:

If 'forced association' is such a distasteful, widely disdained human activity -- after all, it is what distinguishes rape from sexual love -- then what is the human mechanism which permits some of us to ignore that attribute of what we advocate -- "National Fill In The Blank!" when we line up and march behind such banners?

It is a very complicated question. I could say, "Yes, we all see that rape is both abhorrent and without any redeeming feature, yet it has been going on for a long time and in a variety of societies and nations. How does the rapist not disdain the forced nature of the act enough to refrain?" And that is the easy extreme, as compared to answering the question of why people want, say, National Health Care despite the forced associations.

I don't want to participate in the use of heroin, and I believe that recreational use of heroin is harmful to the user, but I don't want to have the government force others to stay away from that practice. It is easy for you and I to see the logic of that position, and when someone else gives an argument for drug laws it is easy for you and I to find and identify the logical error they make. But you aren't asking for logic, because that won't be there. There is no logic that supports forced association... not even any logic that would make someone do something for their own good... except maybe if the person were emotionally unbalanced, or if it is a child - a child might want his parents to ensure that he does what is good for him. I took those as kinds of clues - emotional issues or child-like.

You wrote:

Is it a deliberate failure to perceive, an unconscious failure to perceive, or a tortured rationalization that what is being advocated sin't really 'forced association?'

You know what the consultants say... "It depends." Clearly those who were schooled from an early age to believe that it is right for the government to make rules and the people have to follow them (that is just a continuation of the parent-child paradigm) and they can project a benevolent parent onto the government and believe that parent/government should decide what is best and once decided it should be applied. But this only works if the person stays disconnected from any political debate, and if the government hasn't been forcing any associations on him he doesn't want, and he isn't much of a thinker.

That would be an accidental and innocent failure to perceive. It is like I might have grown up thinking the earth was flat, if it weren't for a school that taught me differently, and I never heard any debate about that, and nothing pushed the actual facts into my face.

A semi-innocent position would be where they believe that a very mild degree of forced association is balanced in specific cases by the benefits that result. They've been taught that. But it isn't a position that can be held comfortably because it has no clear boundaries - where to draw the lines.

Most people aren't going to be that innocent. Then it gets trickier. When even a tiny degree of evasion comes up, it has to have a motivation - no free expenditures of energy in this area. Some people carry a degree of insecurity or uneasiness in different areas, and to make things neat in their minds, and to quiet any rising sense of unease, they will repress the thought that they are ignoring the fact that someone is being forced. Some people an unease at the thought of greater amounts of diversity of behavior - they want more uniformity of behavior - "People shouldn't act too differently from how I act." They don't put it into words or clear thoughts, but they have some anxiety that might go back to when a sibling acted up and got the parents angry. Or, they might feel uneasy when people aren't careful but they have never had any clear rule of thumb as to what is sufficiently careful or a principle that separates them and their safety from the safety of others. Again, people don't fully mature from child paradigms and this can be the parent/government tells you what will make you safe and you listen and you get nervous if the parent/government isn't attentive enough to your safety. There is also the strange, unthinking kind of sense that some people have that if put into words would be "Hey, if there aren't tight limits on all things, then things will explode! And it is only because we have all these rule that people don't go nuts and do everything!" Again, probably a childhood background sensation carried into adulthood. Remember that we don't mature those aspects of childhood personality that we don't feel a need to. Most defenses are left over from a child attempting to defend themselves from things that can make a child feel uncomfortable... then it just carries on into adulthood and is only modified enough to masquerade as adult behavior.

Add to the above the fact that low self-esteem, that background sense of not being competent to meet what comes our way, and/or a background disposition to experience ourselves as less than worthy or lovable, will pressure a person to feel more childlike and have the sense of being helpless. The lower the self-esteem, the greater the drive to have the protection/security/control of a strong parent figure.

Then there is a tiny element of the paranoid in most of us. Call it a healthy awareness that there are others that might not wish us well. That, in unhealthy doses, leads to a feeling that we need the strong parent to control those who are more malevolent. The greater the stresses of life, and the lower the self-esteem, then one defense mechanism that might be activated is to actually give more focus to paranoia. Better to have this imagined set of enemies and dangerous aspects of the world, than to feel some unexplained, free-floating fear that we have no source for and therefore can't protect against.

Then there is the person whose self-esteem is low and the resulting effect on their life is to feel sad and depressed, and at some point (usually childhood or teen years) the defense against depression is to convert those negative moods into anger. Then as they develop over the years, they find an emotional attraction to a constellation of intellectual beliefs that 'fit' their anger. They want to control people because the people deserve it.

I'd say that most progressives, those who are ardent in their beliefs, are a form of control freak. Out of some combination of anger and fear they have built in, at a deep level, the constant drive to be in control because that is the only way to stay safe. They will not let themselves see their motivations, and that makes it easier to believe the rationalizations.

Imagine a slide switch - like the old BASS-----TREBLE switch on radios - but this one is inside everyone's mind, and it's labeled "OPEN----CLOSED" The OPEN is open to new learnings and the CLOSED isn't just closed to new learnings, but it also means fully open to acting automatically on what is already known or believed. We have to have a switch like this. Imagine an early hunter creeping through the grass trying to get closer to an antelope when he hears a rustling in the grass behind him. He is going to instantly go for the best survival bet - like run climb a tree. He is not going to open his mind to exploring what might make that sound but isn't a large predator. There is a great survival benefit to acting automatically, and obviously, at other times, being as open as possible to learning new things and integrating them. Healthy self-esteem makes it easy to slide the switch where it best fits the circumstance.

People with low self-esteem in some areas will, as their first defense to anything that might increase anxiety or represent conflict, will slide that switch to full CLOSED... in a nano-second. That makes it so easy for them to just load the rationalizations and talking points like cartridges in a magazine.

We are self-programming. Those programs that really don't work in the real world get eliminated. Those that work but very poorly are around, look at those with substance abuse problems, or those who are so wrapped up in their defensiveness that they do poorly in relationships and career. But all of the rest of the programs are not causing such problems as to be self-eliminating. If you are delusional and think you can step in front of a bus and not be hurt, that will be the end of that programmer. But if you claim that you believe that you can step in front of a bus, but you really don't believe it well enough to try it... you can continue that program for a long time and it is a matter of what is the gain such that it seems to offset the negative value of holding the contradiction.

Use your consciousness poorly and you generate low self-esteem. Low self-esteem generates negative emotional states that give rise to the defense mechanisms to tamp down those awful feelings. Defense mechanisms that feel like they are defending the person are kept despite other expenses (seeing things as clearly, thinking as clearly, being as open to new learnings, being able to drop programs that only are there to hide motivations, etc.)

That is my long and rambling answer... The summary is that our rational/emotional mechanism makes it hard to give logical answers to why someone would ever want to foster forced associations. And there is no single answer for all people. The diversity of minor emotional maladjustments and a cultural willingness to ignore inconsistencies in anything has been deemed politically correct create lots of ways the same end can be manifested. I mentioned child/parent paradigms above... well, we live in a culture that has increasingly allowed adults to behave more childlike. Self-esteem requires a degree of personal responsibility as a deeply held approach to life. These things all tie together but not in ways that make for an easy answer to your question.

Post 7

Wednesday, January 23, 2013 - 11:16pm

I believe that the willful blindness of people to totalitarians and all the "small" steps that progressives heap upon us happen for a number of reasons. I believe it is a similar mechanism in human nature that is responsible for drug addiction, belief in god, and the primitive part of our tribal brain that does not want to think. Rather than think people have this part instilled within their core that seeks out higher powers so that a large part of self reliance is abdicated in favor of "being taken care of". Nannie statists may or may not understand this consciously however they do know it and seek to exploit this human weakness all in the name of the altruistic greater good. Politicos have become our shamans that happen to be dressed in nice clothes...

Unfortunately toooooo many people would rather be lead into oblivion than think for themselves. The eyes are closed and the hands are raised in supplication "mee tooo" they cry out looking to get the scraps of the bleeding sacrificial carcass while the blood is still warm..

Post 8

Thursday, January 24, 2013 - 7:54am

Jules,

Mostly, I agree. I'd only disagree that we have a "tribal part of the brain that does not want to think." I understand the phenomena you refer to but explain it differently.

From the point of psychology, I see a set of psychological steps that proceed that desire to be taken care of. First the person has to feel an insecurity and/or resentment about taking care of themselves. You can see early signs of this when watching toddlers - they are excited when they are exploring and doing, but if something scares them they turn to Mommy for care and protection. That's normal, and if they progress in a healthy fashion, they expand the degree and range of actions where they are assertive, until they near adulthood and no longer return to Mommy. They have become autonomous.

Fred has pointed out that our culture has 'elevated' society and the state into religious entities. Well, whether the chosen higher power is God, church, Society, or the State, it is still that substitute for Mommy. The difference is that when an adult has this orientation, as opposed to a toddler, it is developmentally inappropriate.

The step that I see is this: At some time, some unhealthy use of the consciousness becomes a habit (and/or an acceptance of some core negative beliefs about oneself) that is harmful, and this results in lowered self-esteem and that creates an uncertainty and fear or shame and then defenses will be chosen that feel like they make things feel better. The defense allows them to evade and to rationalize.

You mentioned drug addiction. Exactly. That is a self-medication of the pain of living in a world that is scary/shameful/depressing. They experience the world that way because of the very low self-esteem and it is low because of some very bad habits in how they use their consciousness (e.g., failure to accept any responsibility, failure to accept any short-comings, failure to act with appropriate assertiveness, etc.)

We survive by means of our consciousness. If we seriously mis-use it, like trying to live in a fantasy land, for example, and evade reality, it shouldn't be hard to imagine there will be a price to pay - not just in our external reality, but also in our inner world. We can choose to be irrational, but we can't escape the consequences and some of them are in how we experience ourself and our relationship to the world.

Post 9

Thursday, January 24, 2013 - 10:55am

Thank you for the reply and the great feedback!

Post 10

Thursday, January 24, 2013 - 11:33am

Steve/Dan:

re; anti-discrimination laws, and distinguishing between private and public commerce

I need to emphasize the following belief of mine first. It is my version of a civic religious belief, in the nature of freedom among peers living in freedom.

As I define freedom, it is uniquely different in public and in private, for as long as there still is a private. We are yet free to close our doors, and open them to who we will. To marry who we will. To accept into our families who we will. We have no more right, in freedom, to run out and forcefully kidnap someone and introduce them into what might exist inside our private lives than they do to barge into our doors, and insert themselves and their beliefs onto us. Both are examples of forced association. (That is not what happens when someone peacefully comes to your door and knocks and -asks- to speak with you. When the Jehova Witnesses do this, they stand on the border of private and public and politely ask, and you are free to politely decline, no thank you, good luck.

There are limited and well defined causes of action for others to break down our doors and rush inside, and ultimately, those reasons are indeed -- at least so far -- based on the principle of enforcing *against* acts of forced association. Kidnapping and human slavery would be an example. Murder would be an example. Child abuse another. (Children are unable to provide informed consent for abuse.)

Other than a few prohibited acts in private, we are pretty much free to do as we will in private, subject to no such regulation by others. If we want to conduct commerce in private -- that is, limit our commerce to those who we invite into our home, who willingly enter our home, we are free to conduct "blacks only" commerce and maintain "blacks only" bathrooms in our homes. Or "Jews only." Or, "russian immigrants only." Or "Sicilcians only." Because such private commerce has no impact whatsoever on our uninvited peers living in freedom in America. None. Because they have no means of sensing or detecting it or being impacted by it. It is a complete void in the lives of the uninvited, non-existing for them.

That happens every single day in America ... by all races and creeds and religions. We live in peace, because we respect each others -privacy- on a peer based basis.

Our conduct in public, however, has a different set of peer based obligations. When we are on the public commons, and by that I mean "in public", and this is key -- freedom does not mean we have a right to sprint to our goals and destinations, mindless of the existence of other peers living in freedom on those same commons. Imagine that. We are in public. The shortest, most convenient path is a straight line. Do we have a right to sprint that straight line? Because the same commons is filled with the trajectories of other peers. That would be anarchy. Chaos. The opposite of freedom. That would be, traffic flow in Dhaka, Bangladesh, any day of the year, where the only law is physics; biggest vehicle goes where it wants, turns when it wants. All the way down the pecking order. Is there a larger vehicle I must avoid? No? Then turn when I might, and it is the responsibility only of smaller vehicles to avoid me, enforced by ... physics.

Mayhem.

The American idea, on the commons, is the following: we each, as -peers- exercising our freedom, have a right to -navigate- to our destinations, mindful of the freedom and trajectories of our -peers- also living in freedom on those commons. We avoid collisions. We don't run over our peers. It is our obligation, as peers, in freedom. It is exactly how we defend our freedom -- by respecting the freedom of our peers. And n a great day, complete with "Please. Excuse me. May I? Thank-you."

And so, the rules for our public commerce are different than the rules for our private commerce, and the ethical justification is ultimately still based on prohibiting forced association. So for example, we don't have a right, as a result of our public commerce, to foul the common air and water shared by others. The ethical basis for a state defending freedom to rush in under those circumstances is exactly the prohibition of forced association. Those not freely associated with our public commerce would otherwise be forcefully associated with the consequences of our public commerce.

When we choose -- it isn't the only choice available to us -- to conduct our commerce in public, we do so with the intent of gaining access to the broadest segment of our peers possible, *indiscriminately.* It is restrictive to limit out commerce to "by invitation only." And so, we often *choose* to conduct commerce on the commons-- among our peers living in freedom on those same commons. When we do so, and attempt to hang out a sign that says "whites only" we are forcefully associating our personal racist preferences onto the public commons-- an act of mindless public aggression that assaults not only non-whites, but many whites as well. It is a forceful assertion that this America is not an America of peers living in freedom, with symmetric rights, but an America of deliberate class based on tribal sect whim. A distinctly unAmerican idea. It is OK for the Balkan states and the rest of a world gone insane over tribal identity, but it is the most unAmerican of unAmerican ideas.

America doesn't outlaw such practices; they are defended as our right, in private, as peers. But America prohibits such practices on the commons, in public or public commerce, as peers, equally, because that is a peer based idea worth fighting for, and that is a free nation worth dying for.

If we truly love freedom, then the primary way we defend it is to selfishly defend the freedom of our peers, as if our own, because in fact, it is, by the logic of peer based freedom. And if, instead, we love only the freedom to sprint to our destinations, heedless to the freedom of each other as peers, then what we love is chaos, the complete opposite of freedom.

regards,
Fred

PS: I rewrote the last paragraph to emphasis Rand's concept of rational self-interest. It applies.

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 1/24, 11:48am)

Post 11

Thursday, January 24, 2013 - 12:32pm

Dan:

Using your example, you could easily get people to agree with the principle but then ask ,"Well, given that, how could you be for gay marriage bans?".

Indeed; how could anyone? They would have to rationalize their way around the principle to still cling to the advocacy of such bans.

Gay marriage bans are the quintessential example of 'forced vs. free association.' The supposed national party of freedom and individual liberty, the GOP, has caved to the realpolitik need to pander to theocrats, to buy their vote. In doing so, they sold their soul -- to God, some might believe.

But they sold out freedom in doing so, and have lost all credibility as a party defending individual liberty and freedom. The Dems cleaned them up on this issue, and rightfully so.

Marriage is a religious concept for churches to define, plural-- not 'the church.' Once again, the deadly nature of 'the' national OneSizeFitAll totalitarian solution rears its butt ugly head. Has the GOP lost its ever loving mind? Why is it getting involved in matters of religion in the context of campaigns for national public office? The realpolitik answer is, sellout to religious right, to buy votes.

Well, I'm sorry, but in secular America, that is just f'n nutz, unless the US Constitution means nothing.

If there exists statute that refers to 'marriage' demanding that the nation define 'marriage', then the solution is not for the nation to 'define marriage' but to fix the damned legislation referring to marriage.

Unless, of course, there is realPolitik advanatge in selling out all principle and pandering to theocrat wannabees with their eyes rolled into the back of their heads, speaking for God and having visions.

Change all instances to "civic union" and then apologize to the entire American nation for ever letting such clearly flawed legislation crop up to begin with, and swear to God it will never happen again, in the name of freedom and the free-est nation on earth, the one that previous generations died for trying to preserve, not piss away because we got sloppy with our thinking on the subject.

As I read the 1st Amendment, on all matters relating to 'religion', our federal government has only one possible response when it is petitioned on matters of religion: "religion? What is that?"

Ditto "marriage."

If we don't like the definition of marriage in our church, then our remedy is, we join or even start another church. Period. That is the #1 American Idea on the topic. We don't seek out the guns of government and impress upon all churches in America 'the' religious definition of marriage that we rolled our eyes into the back of heads and received a vision as the one true definition of the religious concept 'marriage.'

...a concept supported by anyone who agreed with the GOP's campaign to 'define marriage' in this once free nation.

Is it any wonder the GOP has self-destructed? They totally fucked up on the defense of freedom, and that is because, for at least 50 years, ever since Eisenhower left office, the GOP has lost its very soul.

I was thinking of this last night. The Soviet street theater act "Westboro Church" was suppose to appear locally.

Straight out of Soviet street theater 101; if you want to destroy something, then dress up like it and act the fool. Ridicule it by pretending to be it.

1957. GOP president Eisenhower-- the author of The Eisenhower Doctrine-- sends federal troops down to Little Rock to turn around the NG bayonets, which some southern Democratic governors had pointing in the wrong direction. Of course MLK was a Republican-- as if, in 1963, he was going to be a member of the party of Faubus, Barnett, Wallace ... and Reagan.

Uh oh. So what happens to Wallace and Reagan in the 60s? Why, they both have an epiphany, and suddenly switch parties. They've seen the light. They are Republicans now. You know how hard it is to switch political parties in America? Takes 2 minutes. It's a postcard.

Now suddenly its 1968, and that racist Wallace is running for president ... as a Republican. Sure he was. And Westboro Church -- the folks who brought the world GodHatesFags.com -- is a real church.

And here comes that actor, Reagan, in 1980, waving the flag, and making his deal with Tip O'Neill for a little more guns -- to hasten the demise of a Soviet Union that we -knew- was farming with oxcarts in the 80s -- in exchange for a lot more butter, setting up the wreck on rails we are living today.

And along the way, why they 'saved SS' and in 1986, they 'simplified' the tax code...black is white, up is down, left is right....and yet, who grew this federal pig more than Nixon, Reagan, and Bush? Johnson, Clinton and Obama have given them a run, but the real point is, for over 50 years, there has been no party defending personal liberty and freedom in this once free nation.

Is there any doubt at all why these folks treat us with such contempt? Because we are truly contemptible with what we are willing to swallow, when it comes to the pony show being played out in DC.

regards,
Fred

PS: "Well, given that, how could you be for gay marriage bans?" This is another example of what I asserted earlier: the primary way we defend our freedom in America is to defend the freedom of our peers. The GOP either forgot that, or never knew it; it doesn't matter which. But whatever the modern GOP became, it can't claim to be the party of Lincoln, that is for sure.

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 1/24, 1:21pm)

Post 12

Thursday, January 24, 2013 - 1:10pm

Steve:

re: A semi-innocent position would be where they believe that a very mild degree of forced association is balanced in specific cases by the benefits that result. They've been taught that. But it isn't a position that can be held comfortably because it has no clear boundaries - where to draw the lines.

That's exactly the process behind the Jello-not-nailed-to-the-wall arguments that are often used to rationalize the forced association: "Why use such impolite terms...it's for the Common Good....it's for the General Welfare..."

Naked assertions. Rationalizations. No answers at all.

And let's face it; that is the Jello-not-nailed-to-the-wall logic that has for decades been winning the day in America.

The advocates of forced association will -never- permit what they are doing to be characterized as forced association.

Never. They will evade, squirm, run from, deny, prevaricate.

And yet, that same tactic does not work for rapists, because the issue of forced association is much clearer and instinctively understood.

The physical act of rape, compared to an act of sexual love, is distinguishable by only one characteristic: forced association without consent.

The advocates of political forced association have somehow convinced this nation that what they are doing is an act of love....without the consent.

Because what this bitch America needs is a good fucking, for its own good. No wonder it is best defended with naked assertions. What is so surprising is that so many of our peers are closing their eyes and enjoying it.

And here is some more political reality. In the movie "I, Robot" there is an army of robots, all with similar Silicon training. In an over-run America, attacked by way of the choke-point incestuous Ivy League decades ago, there are legions of self-replicating instructoids, programmed with the knee jerk sidearm that is one word: RaceGenderClass.

In response to the political argument I just offered, these instructoids would react automatically, as programmed, and immediately swarm over me, accusing me of being a mysoginist by daring to compare a mere difference of opinion between the advocates of forced association (vanilla ice cream) and free association (chocolate ice cream) -- two protected instances of free thought in a free America -- to 'rapists and rape victims.' How dare I!

And in so doing, serve their purpose, which is, to muddy the waters and hide the fact that in a free nation, there is no symmetry between advocacy of forced association and free association.

None. Just as the relationship between rapist and rape victim is not symmetric or peer based.

regards,
Fred

Post 13

Thursday, January 24, 2013 - 1:31pm

Steve:

I for sure don't think states rights and free association are either/or. I didn't mean to imply that.

What I meant that, states rights coupled with free association insulates it from the knee-jerk attacks of associating 'states rights' with advocacy of slavery, etc.

States rights, as originally defined in the constitution are a consequence of the original founders building in a defense of free association, else there would be no 10th Amendment, and we'd have a monolithic singular national government, a forced association of the entire nation as a singular totalitarian 'it.'

I think the concept goes well beyond 'states rights' all the way to 'individual rights' however.

At each level of government, there should be, IMO, a hurdle to jump:

Does this action by the state justify forced association at a local level?

Does this action by the state justify forced association at a county level?

Does this action by the state justify forced association at a state level?

Does this action by the state justify forced association at a national level?

Given our natural disdain for rape, those hurdles would all be very high, but they would get much higher as the political domain grew larger, with the highest hurdle of all being the last, at the national level.

We don't staff national defense via forced association, so what pressing national task -does- justify forced association?

regards,
Fred

Post 14

Thursday, January 24, 2013 - 1:37pm

Fred,

I agree with the spirit behind what you've attempted to do. But I have to strongly oppose it despite the generous spirt in which it is offered.

You wrote:

...the rules for our public commerce are different than the rules for our private commerce, and the ethical justification is ultimately still based on prohibiting forced association.

I don't think you have a solid differentiation here. Interactions are voluntary (inside my house, inside a business, or in the public park) or someone is using force. Property is property and the use of it is up to the owners. When it is publicly owned property, like a public park or a court house, then the government manages it on behalf of the owners - the citizens. But those with the right to manage a property (me managing my house, the store manager managing the local Walmart, or some government functionary managing the use of the public park) still cannot initiate force.

You wrote

...we don't have a right, as a result of our public commerce, to foul the common air and water shared by others.

This is still a property issue, even if it is commons, it is owned by all, and managed on behalf of all. The government, the manager, has the responsibility to do nothing that constitutes an initiation of force or to allow the property to deteriorate or be harmed. If I am attacked by toxic fumes released by someone, or their sooty residue from their chimney dirties my house, then I have a right to be made whole. This is so without redefining some commerce as private and some as public.

You wrote,

It is restrictive to limit out commerce to "by invitation only." And so, we often *choose* to conduct commerce on the commons.

There is a difference between a privately owned store that opens onto a public sidewalk and the public sidewalk itself, or a "business" that sells things right on the sidewalk - like a paperboy. Restricting is what we get to do with that we own. I restrict the use of car, my house, and when I had a business, I restricted who I would serve (not by skin color, but at times by personalities I didn't like.)

You wrote,

When we do so [invitation only commerce], and attempt to hang out a sign that says "whites only" we are forcefully associating our personal racist preferences onto the public commons-- an act of mindless public aggression that assaults not only non-whites, but many whites as well. It is a forceful assertion that this America is not an America of peers living in freedom, with symmetric rights, but an America of deliberate class based on tribal sect whim. A distinctly unAmerican idea.

I disagree with much of this. First, it isn't "forcefully associating our personal racist preference onto the public commons" - it is insisting on being in control of who we associate with on our private property. I want to be the first to say that "white only" is abhorrent, jarring, disconcerting, despicable, illogical, and morally repugnant but it goes with the right to use ones property in any way that doesn't involve the initiation of force. There is no physical assault. And, I wish it were an unAmerican idea... but we have a history that says otherwise. And today, even though white racism has shrunk to a tiny, tiny fraction of what it once was, a kind of black racism is strong and growing. I'd say that it is unAmerican only in the initial intention of "All men are created equal" but the implementation is something we are still struggling with.

What you are calling for is really a conversion of private property into partially private and partially public and the enforcement of the standards of non-discrimination by the government. Who determines which beliefs can stand as acceptable on this "public commons" - for example, would Walt Disney have been allowed to prevent Soviet Premier Khrushchev from visiting Disneyland as he did? People who smell bad because they don't bath would also want to be part of the America of peers living in freedom. People who are skinheads with tattoos of swastikas on their foreheads and snarl at anyone who isn't a skinhead would want to share in these public/private commons. I see endless squabbles that can never be logically decided, will always be subjective and call for either the tribe or an elite to speak, and the end of the idea that property is an absolute right.

You wrote,

If we truly love freedom, then the primary way we defend it is to selfishly defend the freedom of our peers, as if our own, because in fact, it is, by the logic of peer based freedom.

But I can reply, "If we truly love freedom, then the primary way we defend it is to selfishly defend the freedom of our peers to use their property as they see fit as long as it doesn't involve initiating force." Because if we give to the tribe, or to an elite, or to the government the right to say what discrimination a private property owner can make regarding access to his property, then there are no true property rights left, only rationalizations, subjective emotions, or rule by the majority. The next great loss to our rights would be that we have created this artificial distinction between private property and property used in commerce such that government can act as if that which is used in commerce isn't really yours ("You didn't build it"... so it ain't yours if you're using it to make money.)

when you prohibit the initiation of force, then what is left becomes cultural or social or personal. As long as government cannot engage in racial discrimination, then the best way to end all of those illogical, hateful divisions - like racism - is not through government (just as it is not the best way to end hunger, or the need for medical services) but to attack (rhetorically, commercially, socially - but not physically, of course) those who express idiotic beliefs like white supremacy, or fascism. The marketplace and cultural evolution will give us the social environment we deserve.

I don't see any chaos when we each selfishly sprint for our destinations because we always have to observe the rights of others. We can't, in our hurry, run them over. That is so without instituting government control of places of business regarding who they can or can't serve.

I hope I haven't come across as too venomous or harsh.
-----------------

Thomas Sowell wrote some brilliant articles on the best way to end racial discrimination was natural - via a free market that has no minimum wage and no anti-discrimination laws (except for government who has no right to discriminate on race). But I can't remember where I read them.

Post 15

Thursday, January 24, 2013 - 4:08pm

Steve:

Of course you havent! (Come across as too harsh.)

In fact, let me extend your point, and agree with you in some fashion.

I'd prefer, in a perfect world, that racists freely identified themselves. Including, by hanging "whites only" signs out in front of their shops, etc. In a very real way, that is much to be preferred to a situation where, by state force of law, he is not allowed to post that sign in public, and instead, when someone he irrationally hates (based on no other characteristic then skin color)walks into his restaurant unaware, he is in the back kitchen spitting in the food and smiling when he serves that.

Or, vice versa.

There is a lot to be said for the 1st Amendment as a two directional tool of mutual identification, so that we can all self-align peacefully, friend from fool. But in order for that to work, we need to freely identify ourselves, and speak.

And in a perfect world, there is no consequence; there is another restaurant next door, open to the public, and yet another that says "blacks only." The self-identified racists all freely go to the "whites only" restaurant or the "blacks only" restaurant, which has now spilled out from what is still perfectly realizable in our private homes and onto the public commons for all to, er, enjoy.

And then, we could extend this principle to the NFL. We could have a "blacks only" league, played by "blacks only" and also for the viewing pleasure of "blacks only" audiences. After all, we could also have a "whites only" basketball league as well.

Or even, extend this idea freely to the music or entertainment industry.

A freely segregated society, even in public, with little or no distinction between what we may do publiclly and privately.

A theoretically pure implementation of -completely- free association. Consistent and philosophically pure.

And advocating that theoretical purity comes only at the following small price: the sure and certain realpolitik reality that the opponents of free association would easily and quickly and thoroughly pounce on it in a heartbeat, and spraypaint it as the second coming of Jim Crow separate but equal laws, absolutely guaranteeing its still birth in the fringe byways and dustbins of history.

Going nowhere, and conceding the world to aggressive domination by paradigms based on forced association far in excess of gentle reminders to be polite on the commons to our peers living in freedom...

regards,
Fred

Post 16

Thursday, January 24, 2013 - 4:17pm

Fred,

In post 13, we are both in agreement. I like your set of hurdles that must be made... and they should be implemented as constitutional requirements for each level of government - except for one thing. I don't think ANYTHING justifies a forced association.

Post 17

Thursday, January 24, 2013 - 4:26pm

In a perfect world we wouldn't have racists and we wouldn't have progressives running around calling people racists whether they are or not... but until then, I don't think it will help us to paper over the existence of the few actual racists that we do have, especially not at the expense of greater clarity and purity in our understanding and application of property rights.

We are what we are till we get better (or worse) and making laws against anything but forced associations/initiated-violence seems to always make things worse.

I'd be happy to launch a personal crusade against any business that put a "white only" or a "black only" sign in the window. Having the legal right doesn't mean it isn't wrong. I'd take pictures of the customers going in, publish them, captioned, "Another racist?" or, "Supporting Racial Hatred."

Post 18

Thursday, January 24, 2013 - 7:29pm

"the primary way we defend our freedom in America is to defend the freedom of our peers"

Amen. One thing I often try to explain to friends who get off course with ideas such as gay marriage bans is: you can take this position now, and you can win, because for now you are in the majority. But by doing so you are giving your consent for the majority to take away your rights next time you are in the minority. So goes any attempt to enforce your personal morality on others.

Post 19

Friday, January 25, 2013 - 5:42am