The Upside of Stigma: Stigma Makes Generosity Feasible

[MicroBalrog]

I agree. And?

[Jamisjockey]

I agree. And?

And under the theoretical premise that property rights are absolute, society would be guided by stigma and social pressure.  If you're part of a culturally unacceptable group, you'd be ostricated. 

[MicroBalrog]

And I would argue that society would be better off if we based our social ostracism on more libertarian ethics - in essence, if we limited its applications as far as we can.

[Matthew Carberry]

If the stigma is the result of individuals expressing disapproval en masse but without using the state to legally enforce that disapproval, how is that stigmatizing at all anti-individualist?

I may have to legally tolerate your behavior, that doesn't mean I can't ethically/morally/disparage you and all your works to all and sundry who will listen.  Life isn't a playground at recess, if you choose to be "different" there's no right to cry for a teacher to stop the cool kids from being mean to you.

If you decide to act in a way others disapprove of expect to be shunned and reviled.  As an individual your only responses are endure/ignore it or decide to go along to get along.

Disdain is not aggression in the NAP sense, non-conformity takes lonely courage.

[MicroBalrog]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. We've already agreed disdain isn't aggression in the NAP sense. I've agreed to that entirely from the outset. I've agreed to it over and over again throughout the thread. I'm not sure how I can agree to it more loudly.

But I have a question. Does your view expand to everybody? Can homosexuals and the child-free* sneer at heterosexual couples and call them 'breeders'?  In a libertarian society, can a private college refuse employment to Christian professors? Or do you approve the recess environment only if the 'cool guys' are guys you like?

Again, please understand that in no way I am advocating such behavior.

I argue two separate, and complementary points:

1.   That a limited-government society does not require (as Jonah Goldberg seems to argue) that its members adhere to 'traditional' values and ostracize those who do not. A limited-government society requires only that we stay away off each other's lawn.

2.   While, in a limited-government society, there should obviously be no way to punish people for expressing their views, it would be better off and more stable if people cut down their ostracism of others.

Neither of these arguments has anything to do with a supposed 'right' to be treated decently by others. You seem to ascribe to me some form of leftist ideology I have repeatedly separated myself from.

*No, you seriously don't want to know. If there's ever a messed-up movement, it's the child-free IMO.

[roo_ster]

But I have a question. Does your view expand to everybody? Can homosexuals and the child-free* sneer at heterosexual couples and call them 'breeders'?  In a libertarian society, can a private college refuse employment to Christian professors? Or do you approve the recess environment only if the 'cool guys' are guys you like?

Again, please understand that in no way I am advocating such behavior.

I argue two separate, and complementary points:

1.   That a limited-government society does not require (as Jonah Goldberg seems to argue) that its members adhere to 'traditional' values and ostracize those who do not. A limited-government society requires only that we stay away off each other's lawn.

2.   While, in a limited-government society, there should obviously be no way to punish people for expressing their views, it would be better off and more stable if people cut down their ostracism of others.

Neither of these arguments has anything to do with a supposed 'right' to be treated decently by others. You seem to ascribe to me some form of leftist ideology I have repeatedly separated myself from.

*No, you seriously don't want to know. If there's ever a messed-up movement, it's the child-free IMO.

The GBLTFREAK-CF folks already sneer.  Let them, I give their opinion the weight I think its worth.

Christian profs are already barred employment in depts at many private colleges by means of social opprobrium, despite accepting taxpayer funds.

Stigmatization is already here and will always be here.

The problem you have with point #1 is that JG's is the only model for a limited gov't society without the "might makes right" principle enslaving the majority to a martially-potent minority that has had any persistence (USA from Articles of Confederation up to ~Civil War).  Your "country of atomized untraditional libertarian individuals" is an intellectual construct and has no accomplishments to display.

Another problem is if such an entity were to be erected, somewhere, it would die out in two or three generations tops, as such "non-traditional society" type folks breed below replacement rate.

[Jamisjockey]

And I would argue that society would be better off if we based our social ostracism on more libertarian ethics - in essence, if we limited its applications as far as we can.

Better off, sure.  But in a truely free society, ostracisim cannot be controlled.

[MicroBalrog]

Better off, sure.  But in a truely free society, ostracisim cannot be controlled.

Controlled? No.

But as individuals we can meet it with criticism, reason, and education. The state is not the only means we have at altering social mores. It's just the most violent one.

The problem you have with point #1 is that JG's is the only model for a limited gov't society without the "might makes right" principle enslaving the majority to a martially-potent minority that has had any persistence (USA from Articles of Confederation up to ~Civil War).

Pre-Christianity Iceland [870-1000], and the later Icelandic Commonwealth's limited government system tat prevailed up until 1262. Far more durable.

Another problem is if such an entity were to be erected, somewhere, it would die out in two or three generations tops, as such "non-traditional society" type folks breed below replacement rate.

Assuming, of course, that the current trend will continue to hold indefinitely.

[Matthew Carberry]

Micro,

I wasn't understanding you correctly.  Although I still blame you for not saying it the Nth+1 time it took for me to get it sooner. 

Yeah, anyone should feel free to sneer at anyone else for any perceived issues.  Most folks will be, and should be, more or less polite of course.

Controlled? No.

But as individuals we can meet it with criticism, reason, and education. The state is not the only means we have at altering social mores. It's just the most violent one.

Which is also a way for individuals to enforce social mores.  There's nothing inherently wrong with a society having majoritarian based mores, even if some people are then made outliers, as long as no actual oppression is involved.

People swearing in public, especially around children, is a free speech issue, but the social more against doing it, held by a majority of citizens, is in no way inappropriate nor does it need changing one whit.

[makattak]

I think libertarians and liberals alike are drawing upon the moral capital created by 2000 years of Judeo-Christian morality in the West. Without those underpinnings, I very much doubt you'd approve of society.

I'm not sure I agree. Please elaborate on this.

Now that I actually have some time to elaborate:

Liberals and libertarians alike have a mistaken view of mankind. Liberals are mistaken about a larger portion of the nature of man than libertarians, though.

Liberals look around the world and see the war, corruption, barbarism, murder, poverty, and general ugliness of most of the non-western world and think the West must answer for those problems because since the west is free of much of that ugliness, it must be the cause.

Liberals think this because they think man is basically good. (Or, at least, tabula rasa). As a result, those people who are living a good life must have caused those suffering from barbarism to suffer. The problem is that barbarism and evil is the natural state of man. An explanation is not necessary for war and barbarism and corruption and poverty, an explanation is necessary for peace and harmony and wealth and comfort. The state of the west is not a natural state.

Libertarians realize part of this. They recognize that the poverty and related economic problems of the rest of the world is due to a lack of the free market that the West adopted. They recognize corrupt governments cause the poverty. They also believe those corrupt governments cause the corruption and barbarism. In this, they miss the basis of functioning markets and the basis of a peaceful society. A moral people is a necessity before a functioning limited government can exist. (One exception being an extremely homogeneous society.) Libertarians think the explanation for the barbarism, corruption, war, and ugliness is faulty governance.

They are mistaken, the explanation for barbarism, corruption, war, ugliness and faulty governance is the lack of an underpinning morality.

They are further mistaken as they point to countries that have rejected (or "progressed beyond") Judeo-Christian values as an argument that these morals are unnecessary. These societies still have the remnants of those values, which cause them to follow much of the morality while rejecting the basis. This situation cannot persist. They are borrowing from that moral capital and depleting it. These societies will eventually fall apart for that reason.

This is what I mean by "borrowing the moral capital". The Judeo-Christian values informed society and formed the basis for societal norms. Rejecting those values has not yet collapsed the necessary social norms for a free and prosperous society. Note the "yet." The society cannot long persist in its current state- something must replace that basis or it will collapse. (Please note Judeo-Christian values are not the only morality that can underpin a stable society. It is my contention they are the only values that can underpin a stable, free society, though.)

[MicroBalrog]

I'm not sure what do you mean by "a moral people."

Do I agree with you that a believe in an objective moral truth is necessary for society to function? Yes. A society based on moral relativism will eventually degrade into unlimited oppression. It will inevitably do so, because utilitarianism is not a valid foundation for a free society in and of itself.

The mistake liberals make is double. On one hand, many of them believe that morality is subjective, or at least unknowable. On the other, the very basis of social-democratic views is that the average man is not competent to make his own decisions and that qualified persons – and the State they act through – should assist the individual with his own decisions.

This is the underpinning error of liberalism: it denies the nature of the human being as individually competent, both in the sense of morality (qualified to make his own moral choices) and in the sense of utilitarianism (qualified to make his own economic choices).

View “The Simpsons” or “Married With Children”. Contemplate that millions of liberals believe that other people (not them, personally, of course!) are Al Bundy or Homer.

Liberals believe further that human nature is infinitely malleable, to the point that 'there is no human nature' – again opening a window to this giant, insane academic hubris in which they really think they can do anything.

But I think you're wrong in your view of libertarianism.

It's true that libertarianism rejects Hobbes' vision of 'the natural state' as this sort of insane total war where people just randomly throw themselves at each other like animals. This is because libertarianism rejects Hobbes' vision of the human being as a moral incompetent. Note this is different from the statement that 'human beings are good'. Human beings can avoid being evil without being Mother Theresa.

My view of morality is entirely different from yours – not because I disagree with the existence of objective morality. I completely agree that there exist objective moral truths. I'm just not sure why you make the jump from this to the idea that it is your version of moral truths that humanity must adopt to survive.

Any society with a common belief in individual and property rights is durable and strong, far more than you give it credit for. The belief in freedom is a moral principle.  Even Pagan societies, when they established a system based on the belief in individual liberty, flourished.