Thanks!

The idea that objecting to being told what to do imposes your morality on the teller is a load of - to put it nicely - manure.

No-one has a right to go through life without ever being offended. If my behavior or words offend someone else, that's their problem, not mine. They don't have to associate with me.

The person who made that comment is in effect saying that his beliefs matter more than anyone else's and therefore he has the right to impose them on everyone else.

Of course, expecting logic out of people who want to control other people is a bit silly. The whole rationale behind moral nannying (of any flavor) is that the person who does the nannying is inherently a better person than the one who gets nannied.

There ain't no logic there, just ego, sometimes wrapped in piety, sometimes not.

My challenged to the social conservatives is simple: show me by example that your way is better than mine, and I'll consider it. Until then, sod off and don't tell me what to think or what to do.

"It's like saying if I pull a gun on a burglar and ask him to leave my house that I am imposing my morality on him."

Nah, you're just sending him to burglarize someone else. I'd love for Libertarians to have their shot and I hope it works well. If it doesn't though, they will just complain like everyone else "but it wasn't really... (insert ism)"

Will,

The social conservatives had their shot with Alcohol Prohibition. How did that work out for them?

We currently have another of their pet projects running - Drug Prohibition. How is that working out? I'll tell you. Legal beer is harder for kids to get than illegal drugs. This effect was also noted during alcohol prohibition. One of the reasons for repeal was the number of kids coming to school drunk.

I agree with you. None of the "isms" work very effectively and degrade over time. The burglar always finds a target.

Where the money flows,
You Will find the Pros,
The Cons,
The Conned,
and a little truth,
to fan the flames,
and Sell the Sizzle.

(anon)

Ooh, I must have hit a nerve. Happy days.

Eric, of course, you're imposing your morality on the burglar. You believe that it is your property, and that you have a right to defend it with coercive or even lethal force.

You are of course, correct. It is, morally, your property, and you have a moral right to defend it.

The point is that the platitude 'don't impose your morality on me' is garbage.

Everyone imposes morality, including Libertarians. In fact, as you acknowledge in this post, Libertarianism is a moral program.

So the real question is: What morality should be imposed?

Sorry, we have a disagreement over what constitutes an imposition. I think that refusing to be imposed upon does not impose on the imposer. If someone demands that I feed him and I refuse, I am not "imposing" anything on him by my refusal to let him impose on me. The idea that refusal to do the bidding of others imposes on them -- or that defense of self is an imposition on attackers -- is, I think, ridiculous on its face.

People who mind their own business and wish to be left alone by definition do not "impose" their morality on others.

Nor is defense against attack the imposition of morality, as it goes to self preservation. If, in the broad sense, it involves "imposing morality on others," then so would eating and breathing. (I realize the climate change advocates would probably claim it does... but this would mean these ordinary terms lack meaning.)

Kate,

Sigh. Eric is free to agitate publically for SSM, or green and blue stripings on all downtown skyscrapers. Free speech y'know.

You've managed to drive right past the point.

Let me be crystal clear: I support the right of free speech for all as long as its not 1)Yelling 'fire' 2)Conspiracy to commit crime 3)Selling military secrets 4)Cheering for any other team than the Tennessee Titans.

People have the right to walk up to a fat girl and make mooing noises, or call gays 'faggots', or people like me 'anti-science luddite theocrats'.

Example: Most of American history. Thank you, I'll take the money prize in small bills, please.

Eric, of course, you're imposing your morality on the burglar. You believe that it is your property, and that you have a right to defend it with coercive or even lethal force.

You are of course, correct. It is, morally, your property, and you have a moral right to defend it.

The point is that the platitude 'don't impose your morality on me' is garbage.

Everyone imposes morality, including Libertarians. In fact, as you acknowledge in this post, Libertarianism is a moral program.

So the real question is: What morality should be imposed?
Tennwriter · November 5, 2010 12:51 PM

Very clearly stated. Worth repeating, though it will do no good with this lot. Your point is one I have attempted to get through to the libertarians forever. They simply cannot seem to comprehend it. Anyway, well stated.

As to what morality "should" be "imposed"....

My personal opinion (which obviously is not controlling on anyone) is that it should be kept to the minimum amount possible, because it is in the nature of power to become tyrannical.

However, I am not an anarchist, and were I put in charge, I would limit morality enforcement to basic Jeffersonian/Golden Rule type stuff:

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2010/07/endless_argumen.html

Basically, the less the better.

The problem with the argument here is that it tends to equate people who want less government (which is the sort of power under discussion) with people who want more government. If I say that I don't want government-run health care, does that mean I am telling people what kind of health care they must have and that I am "imposing" it on them? Would those who want government-run health care be right to say that I am "imposing" the oppressive free market on them?

Sorry, but I regard their attempt to control me as the imposition, and my attempt to be free from their control as the opposite. Why? Because I do not wish to control them; I only wish them to leave me alone.

What moral imposition are we talking about here? The morality of control itself? Or the underlying morality attempting to be imposed? For example, if vegetarians demand that I refrain from eating meat, they are trying to impose their version of "morality" on me. If I eat meat, though, I am not imposing my "morality" (if we assume food choices involve morality) on them. Unless you make people do something, you are not imposing anything on them. Unless I make them eat meat, I am not imposing meat eating on vegetarians by eating it myself.

To say that my demanding the freedom to eat meat is just as much an attempt to impose my morality as is their attempt to take my freedom away is an absurd proposition. Freedom denotes the lack of imposition.

those libertarians want to impose their deranged form of "morality"

Hey, you called it that; I didn't.

But it is deranged.

Lamp,
Thank you much. I don't really expect to convert. Perhaps I can plant a seed. I'm more hoping for some understanding and respect even if disagreement continues. But, also, a large part of this is for the socon. Time my brothers and sisters to throw off the mental chains that the tiny sorcerors have enchanted your brains with, and to march forth with joyful boldness. We don't need them. They need us. Anyways, onward.

I'm honored to see Kim here. I went by his blog a number of times, and have reread his most famed article twice.

Eric,
I'm pretty much with you, except I'd delete the quotes until the period after 'tyrannical'. That government governs best that governs least, and all that.

I'm glad to see that you essentially agree with me. That makes the repeated libertarian charge of 'don't impose...' and 'statist theoccrat' of null effect since we're now all in the same club. We need another method to separate out the tyrant from the crowd.

I read your other article, and I'm sympathetic to your desire not to get in long debates. I'm also glad to see I don't need to explain about the Law of the Jungle.

They are right to say you are imposing the free market on them. Admittedly, it sounds a bit awkward. But thats the logic.

You're a bit muddy on the concept of freedom. Freedom is the ability to do what I want, when I want. Reality is a huge restriction on freedom. It keeps me from transforming into a green unicorn with laser blaster eyes.

Stopping the local bully from forcefully grabbing a girl and Doing Stuff, is another restriction.

The question is where do you draw the line? I know where Libertarians want to, but 1)I don't think the country would survive. 2)I also value Democracy, and Libertarianism is not that popular. I'd have to sacrifice Democracy to get full Libertarianism.

I have a multiple value ethical system (Libertarians have a single value ethical system), and it draws me various ways. It requires compromises. But it is guided by God and by pragmatism. Luckily for you, God gave us freedom to enjoy, and pragmatism is quite clear that liberty is most frequently the optimal path to societal and personal survival and prosperity.

So, I notice from history that the family is the foundation of society. This is non-debatable. The form shifts a bit, but its always Family. Divorce, adultery, and too high taxes which force two earner families are bad for families. Adding to the poor, staggering camel, one more straw might seem a little thing to you....until you're standing in the middle of a grocery looking for the last can of cat food to eat as society crumbles around you, and the city burns. (Admittedly hyperbolic, but thats the essential arguement). At some point, the camel's back breaks, and then the Dark Ages begin to settle in like slow, creeping damp. I say in many ways, we're already at the edges of this already.

And yes, we socons should get rid of no-fault divorce. And Libertarians should help us because its contract breaking.

I notice that at the end of your post, you take back the gift you gave at the beginning. Let us be clear: "Don't impose your morality" is nonsense.

Lamp, again, I doubt this second post is as clear as my first one. But in some ways, it gets me into harder ground. Its easy to say 'you're moral stand is wrong', but harder to say 'this moral stand is right'.

Simpler Tennwriter: The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

When I took the original test, I scored lower than conservatives on harm and fairness and higher than conservatives on loyalty, authority, and purity.

That would make me an extreme reactionary by the study's scale. But since they don't ask the political question of whether or not I want my preferences enforced by government, they miss the fact that I'm a libertarian anarchist.